I mentioned briefly in a previous post the following:
Discharging a firearm in an enclosed area like a vehicle can rather unpleasant. If the situation allows, if you can place the muzzle outside the confined space you are in you will experience far less blast and noise. But don’t forget this will make the flash and blast more visible to anyone outside, and won’t want to do this is the hostile is with in grasping range as they will be able to more easily attempt to disarm you.
This applies to when you are firing from buildings, windows, etc. But there are times when the flash and blast you experience is far less important than trying to stay concealed. If you don’t want to get spotted by what or whom you are firing at, you will want to stay back from the opening you are firing from. As far back as possible and off to a side.
One fun and effective thing we did in the Corps during Simunitions training was to fire from the hallway connecting to the room which had the window you were firing from. This made us very hard to spot and nearly impossible to hit with return fire. It also allowed us to quickly move around the building and fire out from multiple windows from multiple rooms.
If you have the time removing the window pane helps keep you from being spotted when you shot. Leaving up a screen or terry cloth put up over the window or behind the window will help prevent you from being spotted.
We spend a good bit of time inside our cars and trucks. It only makes sense to be prepared to fight from and around our vehicles. The simple fact is that we may have to defense our selves and our loved ones from robbers, carjackers, or road ragers.
I did a little fighting from vehicles in the Marines. Got to fire M16s and the SAW from moving vehicles, got to fire while standing on moving SUV running boards, etc. Also I once even got in a fist fight with a drunk Marine while I was driving down the interstate. But those are not exactly practical experiences.
So I got really excited when I got the opportunity to take ConcealedCarry.com Vehicle Firearm Tactics online class. Now I take a bunch of online classes related to my day job and most all of them are long, boring, and painful to sit through. This class was nothing like that.
First, a disclaimer. When ever possible do training in person. This way you can ask questions, and have mistakes you make be corrected by an experienced instructor. There are downsides to training in person. Costs, travel time, a compressed training curriculum in a tight scheduled, etc. It can be easy for an instructor to miss covering some content, or for a student to miss content should they space out or need to use the bathroom, etc. Fortunately you can always ask the teacher a question.
Video or Online classes have a couple of big strong points. You can go through them on your own schedule, and pause, rewind, and rewatch sections. This class went above and beyond by having excellent closed caption available for their videos, and breaking the videos up into 3-12 minute sections focused on various points. I don’t know about you, but often my mind wanders, having the class broken up in shorter sections I was easily able to focus on a section, or rewatch it if something come up. One other small advantage of an online course is that every student can receive the exact same training. There are no limited or abridged classes due to weather or missed content from an instructor forgetting to cover something.
This class had excellent instruction. Jacob Paulsen and Riley Bowman spoke clearly, concisely, and effectively explained the various topics. They also had some cool demonstrations of of things like ricochets off the hood and how in some cases a door might stop a bullet and in other cases it won’t.
This class covered a wide variety of subjects including:
Your priorities in vehicle combat
How window glass and its curvature affects trajectory
How tinting affects glass
Fighting around and being considerate of passengers
Drawing your weapon and manipulating it in the vehicle
Shooting under the vehicle
Among many other things.
If I were to look hard for something to criticize, I could only come up with three things. First is that the final test was sorta hokey. Seemed overly simple to me. That doesn’t diminish the content of the class. A very minor complaint would be that the course completion certificate shows your website account name and not your actual name.(Update, I hadn’t filled out my name in the form, putting my name in fixed the issue) The last would be a matter of tactics. Discharging a firearm in an enclosed area like a vehicle can rather unpleasant. If the situation allows, if you can place the muzzle outside the confined space you are in you will experience far less blast and noise. But don’t forget this will make the flash and blast more visible to anyone outside, and won’t want to do this is the hostile is with in grasping range as they will be able to more easily attempt to disarm you.
Prior to this class I was prepared to say how online classes are often worthless, but I was wrong. I really enjoyed this class and I learned a great deal. If you can’t get out there and do this type of training in person, I’d highly recommend taking this class as an alternative.
One of my favorite ongoing spots on weaponsman was the WGAOTOOWH bit. Kevin would highlight some poor slob or just unlucky person’s usually horrific death as a way to both show how fast death can come but also that deaths are caused when no firearms is involved. One of Kevin’s other readers recently mentioned it here and I had been thinking about it myself for a while. So.. if you will forgive me, I will attempt to revive a fan favorite even if I can’t carry it off with the same style and whit.
NEW DELHI – Indian police have arrested a drill instructor who pushed a university student from the second floor of a building to her death during a bungled training exercise, officials said Friday (July 13).
“A crowd of students positioned below with a crash net could only watch as the young student cracked her head violently in the awkward fall before tumbling to the ground.”
I am not an expert on falling off of a building to your death but I would think it is always awkward.
The video at the link shows the fall and the website reports a “drill instructor ” gave the student a shove while trying to prepare the students during a training exercise. I suppose nothing prepares like the real thing.
In other news, a man in China went on a stabby spree.
“SHANGHAI – A man armed with a knife attacked students at the entrance to a primary school in Shanghai’s central Xuhui district on Thursday (June 28), killing two of the children, police said.
The 29-year-old man attacked three male students and one female parent with a vegetable knife around 11.30am local time, the Xuhui branch of the Shanghai police said on its official Weibo account.
The victims were rushed to hospital but two of the students died, it said, adding that the third student and the parent were not in a life-threatening condition.”
Seems no gun zones work the same in China as the do in the US. Luckily no one had a gun or someone could have really gotten hurt!
It seems the attacker was stopped by people who acted quickly on the scene. Video at the link purports to be taken and shared on the Chinese social media Wiebo.
The Asian new sources reminds us how safe it is in the Communist utopia thanks to there being no guns around while at the same time telling us how many people are killed by sharp objects. Apparently China has no woken up to the seriousness of the existential threat sharp object pose to the planet unlike our cousins from across the Atlantic who have been rounding up the treacherous kitchen implements in London.
Violent crime is rare in China compared with many other countries, especially in major cities where security is tight, but there has been a series of knife and axe attacks in recent years, many targeting children.
“In April, a 28-year-old man who harboured a hatred of children having been bullied at school stabbed to death seven Chinese middle school students who were on their way from classes in the northwestern province of Shaanxi.
Such attacks are often blamed on people with mental illness or who have personal grievances. Knives are most commonly used because gun controls are extremely strict in China”
“NEW BOSTON, Texas —Authorities in East Texas are investigating the death of a 10-year-old girl who was apparently electrocuted as she was reaching behind a clothes dryer to retrieve her kittens.
KSLA-TV in Shreveport, Louisiana, reports that the parents of Greenlee Marie said she was trying to rescue the pets Saturday at the family’s home in New Boston, Texas.
“She is a beautiful soul. She has more compassion in her at 10 years old than most adults do in their entire life time. She loved her babies and she would do anything for them,” said her mother Shelby Roos.
“There is no reason our baby should be gone. You don’t die inside your own house,” father Scott Hendrix said.”
A 10 year old girl dies from electrocution apparently while trying to save kittens. Tragic that her life was ended because an attempted act of compassion. The cynic in me says there may very likely be more to this. Apparently I am not the only person in the world who never assumes a child’s death is what it seems.
“Authorities were back at the home on Monday investigating.
New Boston police Chief Garry McCrary told the television station the home had electrical issues in the past but that it’s “too early right now to go ahead and place blame and responsibility until the investigation is over.”
The parents have started fund for people to donate money towards helping animals in her honor.
Today I decided to do a repost an article 2 parter older popular article from our first year. We have a lot of older great material new readers may not see because it is so buried under the constant flow of new articles. With that in mind here is an article from 2012 were I shot up a house for educational purposes. I hope you enjoy if you haven’t read it before and if you have I hope you will enjoy a revisit.
I took the time to so a little un scientific testing today of some of the more popular 5.56 rounds used today. It is not a new idea or original to me , but it is worth doing as often as can be pulled off. It seems to be the one topic about using carbines for home defense that is not as easy to find info on for the new shooters looking to use a AR15 carbine or other of that type.
I have use of a run down abandoned home on my own property with some furnishing and appliances still in it. So, I decided to shoot them up for fun, facts and quasi-science.
I used M855, M193, Hornady TAP 75grain and the steel cased Hornady 75 grain steel case training round. Rifle was 16 inch barrel carbine with 1/7 twist. I used cardboard IDPA targets to have an idea of what would happen to a person using cover found in a typical house.
The first test was a refrigerator. I placed the target ( home owner) on the other side as if the person was taking fire. I set the target a foot or so away to show any fragmentation without ripping it up too bad and making it harder to see what happened.
I fired from about 5 feet from the “threat” side of the fridge.
Inside it had some typical, if spoiled, food items for authenticity. The fridge is about the normal size for most homes in my opinion.
The first round I fired was M855. It went into the fridge , started to frag, came apart, the core and jacket then went through the other side and both pieces key holed through the target. The core also went through the wood I used to prop up the target.
The next was the m193. The 55 grain FMJ did make it through in some pieces, but it did make it on into the target. The M193 is the hole in the upper head area. The M855 is the lower keyholed hit. Frags from both can be seen peppering the target. It is interesting since you will commonly hear how M193 will not penetrate far.
The next round was the Hornady steel case. I fired the 75 grain round and it went into one side and bulged the opposite side with no shoot through.
Next was the Hornady TAp FPD 75 grain round. This round did better than the steel case. It made it through both side and into the target. It did however leave most of its jacket in the opposite side skin f the fridge.
Whatever was left did not hit the target and I could not find its impact area. Several more rounds had the same effect.
Next I wanted to show what happens if you hide behind a couch while some one is shooting at you like often happens in Hollywood. I even shot through two walls and a closest door to hit the victim. I used M193 and M855 only since it was clear this is a bad idea after a few rounds.
The rounds went pretty much straight through the thin wooden panel walls and two by four boards. Also the couch did not stop anything. It seemed in fact the barrier seemed to make the hits more destructive on the target. Don’t hide behind your couch if you are being shot at. Life is not a movie of video game.
Next I fired all four rounds through two walls and a dryer at the victim.
The picture on the right shows 4 rounds from m193. Interestingly, this time the m193 turned sideways even through the 1st wall.
Every round tumbled and fragged by the time it was well into the appliance . Most of the projectiles still made it into the target. It did seem the round inside of the dry did cause the hits to impact lower than they would have if they continued on straight n line of sight.
I was able to get hits after aiming higher. No surprise, the m855 made it to the target the best. Both ball rounds, or what was left of them, went on through another two walls behind the target.
Th TAP did not make it through the dryer.
Next up was a book case with a few books in it. I used soft and hard cover. I did not fill the shelf with books because I know none of the rounds would have went through.
The only round to make it to the target is the tear from a tumbled m855 round that you can see in the bottom left of the target in the picture. One m855 went off to the side wall. No other round made it through to the target. They either stopped in the book or zipped of in a different direction or into the unknown. I fired 20 rounds trying to get another hit.
A lot of people do not know the difference between cover and concealment. Probably because of movies, people seem to think most anything in a house will stop a bullet, even the walls. This is showing things are not always as secure as you may think. I would not use any of this as cover if I thought I was going to be shot at. maybe to hide behind, but not to take cover behind. Unless its a metal or steel wall, you need to think about it. This also may be a wake up call for those who day dream of zipping off a round during some home invasion fantasy cooked up in their heads. If you have loved ones in the next room or two over you better think very hard about what you would do when shooting in your house. Even if you thought you had it all worked out. All of the rounds fired that made it to the target. still went on through at least another wall or two at the least. SO, be careful what you hide behind and be more careful about who or what may be in the next room or house if you ever have to shoot in your own home. Or, if you shoot by accident. a ND can go a lot further then you think even if you had the gun pointed in what you though would be a safe direction if you did have a ND. This is of course 556 rounds only and not all of them by any means so keep looking for a round that might be a little better than the military ammo everyone seems to want to buy for defense. Same goes with handgun ammo or shotguns. This is not the end all be all test or even slightly scientific, but I show it to you to draw your own conclusions and to keep thinking.
Last time I fired a variety of the more popular 556 rounds commonly stockpiled by shooter and one of the most popular defense loads through a variety of things inside of a house to see what happens. The idea was to maybe get and idea what could go wrong if you had to fight inside a house or take cover behind things or you are just worried about over penetration. Just like I said last time ( though some of the more illiterate seemed to not have read) this is not a scientific test and I make no claims it is. But it is something to help you think. I hope.
This is the next part to what may be a series of at least 5 “test.” I am going to show the results of what happened when I fired 5.45 from a AK74 type rifle, 7.62×39 from AK47 type.some ballistic tip rounds from a 5.56 AR15 carbine and ball and Ranger T HPs from a 45 ACP.
The first rounds I fired are the 5.45. The ammo is the standard round as used by the Russian Mil. A lot of people like it because it is cheap and they feel it more deadly then a 5.56 in ball ammo form. Or at least the same if just cheaper.
The rounds punched a nice entry hole going in. But, one the got to the opposite side,they keyholed. You can see they stayed pretty much intact. Look how lean the holes are in the picture below.
They went on through the target, and the wood board behind holding it up and struck a cooking pot behind and stopping.
The light makes it look like a hole but it is not. It did seem in one out of 20 rounds to have fragged. With the core some how bouncing off the pot and coming back to stick in the back side of the cardboard target.
You can see the core on the far left. This is the only evidence of fragmentation from the 5.45 I could find all day.
Next I fired some of the ballistic tip 5.56 to see how it would compare to the m193 , m855 and TAP used the last time.
A lot of people will say that ballistic tip will not over penetrate and like to keep it as a home defense round.
Hole by the paster is a perfectly cut hole left by a 55 grain ballistic tip fired through a fridge. This was pretty normal I found. Other damage was parts of metal from the fridge skin. This surprised me enough to fire the BT through an outside window that was double pane into another target 10 yards behind the glass.
The large hole in the target in the upper left and bottom are from the ballistic tip 5.56 fired through a double window. The glass deflected it a few inches from center line where I aimed. Rounds continued on through the double 2 x 4 door frame it rested against before splattering on the wall behind. Middle hole in target is from 45 ACP ranger T hollow point fired through same glass. 45 stopped inside the double 2x4s behind target with almost not real deflection.
I also fired the 45 ACp through the fridge. HPs and ball.
HPs and ball went through fridge and target. Punches through wood prop, then went deep into stove behind the target. HPs no doubt caved in on itself and turned effectively into ball.
I also fired from and outside wall, through a TV entertainment center stand at a target “hiding” behind and through 3 walls to see what would happen. I used the HPs in every case since I had a pretty good idea what ball would do. I thought anyway.
and exit hole after going through wall and 3 layers of the stand.
Below is target after 45 ACP was fired through 3 inside walls and one closet wooden door.
Exit holes are seen in wall and one of the hits on the target paper. All shots continued on through cabinet and another wall. This was all done with HP ammo.
Next is from the much vaunted 7.62×39 ball ammo. I expected the rounds to go through the fridge destroying it and deep penetration into the stove behind.
This is what was left of the only round of 30 fired of the M43 round that made it through the fridge. I fired from 5 feet from the fridge. One made it through and was badly fragged. It did not go through the wooden backer. No other round got through or even bulged the back side of the fridge much to my surprise. The ‘x39 would go through walls but keyholed and had limited penetration once it did. None made it through the book case or dryer either. GLass deflected the M43 so much I could not get one on the IDPA target so I am not sure what it would have looked like. I ran out of the ammo I brought before I could land a hit. Did not matter since I ran out of glass anyway.
The book case defeated all other rounds just as I expected.
More holes on one side, but not more exits. Books remain undefeated. Though all rounds tried would penetrate sometimes up to 10 inches of books alone. When shot through case and books stacked tight, few things seem to have the power. Am going to try a 308 round next on the bookcase.
I am not going to bother showing all the pictures of the dryer since nothing made it clean though. The 5.45 made it into the dryer but not out the other side. The balistic tipped 556 came closest to a through and through. The 45 ACP did not punch clean through but made some impressive damage before coming to rest on the far side guts on the dryer. Internal exit holes from the 45 ACP can be seen below. The ranger T tore large gouges through the dryers insides. Does not mean anything, but it is something to ponder.
All shots fired into dryer first passed through two walls and a bathroom door before hitting the metal of the dryer.
You can see the shredded remains of the rifle rounds laying in bottom of the dryer in the picture.
Once again I was surprised by the results of this very unscientific test. Things I thought that would be stopped were not, and things I thought would penetrate deep did not do much. Maybe if I did it all again it would be the opposite of this. Who knows? One thing is becoming pretty clear to anyone who wants to pay attention. Nothing can be depended upon to be “safe” or “safer” from over penetration when talking about being used inside a home. DO NOT assume your pet HD load or round is going to work like we are told it will be ammo companies. The only thing you can depend upon is that the worst possible thing that can happen, is likely to happen if you take it for granted and maybe even if you do your best. You just can not know. the best policy is to do your best not to have to zip off a round in your house if anyone else is inside you do not want hurt. The best choice in a perfect world is to call the cops and barricade your self in a safe room or get out of the house. We do not live in a perfect world though. So , spend as much time thinking about this as you can if you seriously think you may one dark night need to shoot inside your home. Or re think where you may point your muzzle when loading/unloading your weapon. Draw your own conclusions because I am not going to make any claims about firearms ammo doing anything for a fact
The Winchester Model 52. One of the greatest rifles of all time. Some even have called it “perfect” in the past. I don’t know if it is perfect but it comes about as close to it as I would want in a rimfire target rifle that comes from a factory. The M52 was made in a time when manufacturers still made stuff mostly by hand. Especially when it was prestige or target model.
The 52 came out in 1919 and was used in the national matches that year and it was an instant hit. The original models, often referred to now as “As’ or Pre As” looked more like a training rifle for the military ( which it was meant to be) than it looked like most people’s concept of a target rifle. It went on to be refined over the years before it was discontinued.
The two we are going to look at here is the model52 “B” and “C” variants.
The differences in the two variants is slight. The triggers are different designs, the barrel band is slightly different than the stock has minor differences but they would not really have been different enough for Winchester to bother to note them as different models in catalogs at the time.
The top rifle is the “C” and as you can see, it has mounted on it a 20x power Unertl combination rifle scope. The Unertl/Fecker type optics attached to the guns via target blocks that are screwed to the barrels. You can see see the target blocks the optics mount to on the barrel of the lower rifle. I will have more on the Unertl in a few days if it as caught your attention
All rifles would accept all of the popular target iron sights of their time. Usually something made by Lyman or Redfield. The lower gun has mounted Redfield Olympic competition ironsights. The rifles take a standard 5 round detachable magazine that is removed via the mag release button seen on the right side.
The rifles have an accessory rail on the bottom of the stock forend. This allowed attachment of the front sling swivel and the combination handstop/sling swivel seen on both guns. This was for shooting with sling in matches. The rail also would accept other items for use off hand standing, The pattern of stock is known as the”marksman” stock and was used on the Model70 national match andd Bullguns. It was so well thought of that it continued on into the early 2000s but as a synthetic model made by HS-Precision with a bedding block and pillars for the heavy varmint line of Model70s.
The barrels are heavy contour match barrels. When I say match I do mean match. They have a flat 90 degree target crown and you can see the target block for placing the olympic front sight with either globe of post.
Accuracy testing the rifles was done with the 20x Unertl on a rest. All groups were fired at 50 yards.
As with center fire rifles, rimfires have their favorite loads. If you want the best out of your rimfire,match ammo is a must and not the high velocity stuff. A well known phenomenon is that a 22 rimfire will shoot better of damp days. For further accuracy I recommend a Niel Jones rimfire headspace gauge for measuring rim thickness for consistency and weighing live rounds into lots.
Both guns were shot with a variety of ammo in five shot groups.
I won’t give any commentary about the groups pictures and will allow readers to view them all sine each group has ammo type used noted.
As you can see three different people fired both guns using a large range in ammo. The Eley Edge and Federal ammo being the best performers across all three shooters and both guns. No surprise there. The Fiocchi 320 was a surprise to me though. My friend who purchased mentioned that only that lot shot that well. That identical boxes of a different lot shot terribly. That is why you always test your zero when going to a new lot of factory ammo. Especially if you are a Police sniper. Even if you are not, it is very prudent to check zero and accuracy when you use a different lot of the same ammo.
The Winchester Model52 is another great American classic. If you are into vintage target rifles or you want a rifle you could do well with in any local match , you can’t go wrong with a M52.
This my own opinion on the item sent to me for review.
In the old days it was common to read of instructors suggesting dry firing at least 10 times for each shot fired. Now we don’t see recommendations like that. Part of it is that ammo and ranges are readily available, and dry firing isn’t the sort of sexy action that sells well.
Then comes the issue of damage. You shouldn’t dry fire some guns. Most all .22 should not be dry fired due to that it WILL damage the chamber and firing pins. Other guns may break firing pins or breach faces. Try doing an internet search for “Glock dry fire damage” to see some broken Glock slides. Some firearms just should not be dry fired, others can be with a dummy round in the chamber. Yet there are many that could you dry fire all day every day with out any issue.
Despite the previous issue, dry firing is still the best way to practice recoil control as you are removed from the distracting noise, blast, and cost of live fire. Not to mention the annoyances of other shoots. You can dry fire in the comfort of your own home.
So when you are dry firing, unless you have a double action firearm, you have to reset the action between each trigger pull. This cycling the action can be used as a way to practice your reload or malfunction clearing movements. This is good training, but a distraction from the trigger pull.
This is where a dry fire trainer is useful, it lets you focus only on the trigger pull and repeat the trigger pull with out any distractions. I was sent a Glock E-Trainer dry fire tool to try out. You can get one from glocketrainer.com. Installation is simple, unload the pistol, lock the slide to the rear, then slide the trainer in place. With it installed, you can dry fire to your heart’s content with out having to rack the slide over and over. When you are done, lock the slide to the rear, and slide the trainer out.
The big advantage of this trainer is that you can do countless repeated trigger pulls with out having to rack the slide or risk any damage to your firearm. This additionally allows for practicing trigger follow through so very much easier than having to hold the trigger back when racking the slide.
The disadvantage with the E-Trainer is that you loose the trigger break of the normal trigger pull. Unlike when you have a “dead trigger”, this has the full trigger pull, just no trigger break. I don’t find this an issue, but I imagine that that could be a deal breaker for some. Because of this you can not practice riding the trigger reset (“rolling the link” or what ever you want to call it).
Out of curiosity, I pulled out my trigger weight gauge (of questionable quality) and did some comparisons. First, dry firing the Glock 19 gave a result between 4.5 and 4.75 pounds. (This was a surprise to me as this G19 has a NY1 spring and a – connector which would be expected to give about a 5.5-6.5 pound trigger pull). I tried the index card trick for dry firing and that gave a trigger pull of slightly over 2.5 pounds on my scale. The E-Trainer also gave a result of a little over 2.5 pounds. This seems confusing to me because it doesn’t feel like it. To my finger, the trigger pull felt just as heavy as a regular dry firing.
EDIT: Testing was initially done with the trigger pull gauge at the tip of the trigger, dry firing with the gauge at the center of the trigger gave a ~6 pound trigger pull normally and ~4-4.5 pound trigger pull with the trainer.
There are three models of this trainer and between them they cover the majority of the models of the Glock pistols the exception of the G36 and models with crescent serration. As of the time of this review being published, the E-Trainer is $29.44 shipped.
I would not say this item is a necessity, but it certainly is a major convenience for dry fire practice. After it was easily installed on a Glock 19, I did a hundred trigger pulls right handed only and another hundred with the left hand. It did not take long to get some good practice of only the trigger pull motion.
I wouldn’t recommend this initially for the novice. I would suggest doing fewer repetitions focusing on trying to get that perfect form of the perfect trigger pull. Don’t practice mistakes. Once you have that perfect trigger pull, then something like this trainer become valuable as it helps you get the repetitions to make your perfect trigger pull muscle memory for when you don’t have to time to consciously focus on the trigger. This isn’t something you have to have, but it is rather nice to have.
The novice practices until they can do it right.
The expert practices until they can’t do it wrong.
As I have tried to edit and finalize the wording for this review, I have been walking around my place, balancing a coin on the front sight of a G19, dry firing hundreds of times with the E-trainer. I really like this thing.
This post is a re post from weaponsman.com. We share it here today to honor and preserve our friend Hognose, who died last spring
What’s so special about John Moses Browning? by Kevin O’Brien
If you take that question the wrong way, you’re thinking who is this bozo to diss Saint JMB? But we’re not putting the emphasis on the JMB side of the sentence, but the What’s so special? end. As in: we really want to know. Why is this guy head and shoulders above the other great designers of weapons history? What made him tick? What made him that way?
Browning was not a degreed engineer, but he is, to date, the greatest firearms designer who has ever lived. Consider this: had Browning done nothing but the 1911, he’d have a place in the top rank of gun designers, ever. But that’s not all he did, by any means. If he had done nothing but the M1917 and M1919 machine guns, he’d have a place in the top ranks of designers. If he’d done nothing but the M2HB, a gun which will still be in widespread infantry service a century after its introduction, and its .50 siblings, he’d be hailed as a genius. One runs out of superlatives describing Browning’s career, with at least 80 firearms designed, almost 150 patents granted, and literally three-quarters of US sporting arms production in the year 1900 being Browning designs — before his successes with automatic guns.
He did all that and he was just getting warmed up. He didn’t live to see World War II, but if he had, he’d have seen Browning designs serving every power on both sides of the war. If an American went to war in a rifle platoon, a Sherman tank, a P-39 or P-51 or B-17, he and his unit were gunned-up by Browning. If he made it home to go hunting the season after V-J day, there were long odds that he carried a Browning-designed rifle of shotgun, even if the name on it was Remington or Winchester. Browning’s versatility was legendary: he designed .25 caliber (6.35mm) pocket pistols and 37mm aircraft and AA cannon, and literally everything in between. He frequently designed the gun and the cartridge it fired.
A lot of geniuses have designed a lot of really great guns since some enterprising Chinese fellow whose name is lost to history discovered that gunpowder and a tube closed at one end sure beats the human hand when it comes to throwing things at one’s enemies. But nobody comes close to Browning’s level of achievement; nobody matches him in versatility.
So why him? As we put it, what’s so special?
We think Browning’s incredible primacy resulted from several things, apart from his own innate talent and work ethic (both of which were prodigious). Those things are:
He was born to the trade
He was prolific: his output was prodigious
He was a master of the toolroom
He lived at just the right time
He could inspire and lead others
Born to the Trade
John M’s father, Jonathan Browning, was, himself, a gunsmith, designer and inventor. He made his first rifle at age 13, and despite being an apprentice blacksmith, became a specialist in guns by the time he was an adult. From 1824 he had his own gunshop and smithy in Brushy Fork, Tennessee, and later would move to Illinois (Where he befriended a country lawyer named Lincoln). He joined the Mormons in Illinois and fled with them to Utah, making guns at each way station of the Mormon flight.
Very few of Jonathan’s rifles are known to have survived, but he made two percussion repeating rifles that were, then (1820s-1842), on the cutting edge of technology. The Slide Bar Repeating Rifle was Jonathan’s term for what is more widely called a Harmonica Gun. The gun has a slot into which a steel Slide Bar is fitted. The slide bar had, normally, five chambers; after firing a shot, the user cocked the hammer and moved the Slide Bar to the side to move the empty chamber out from under the hammer, and a loaded chamber into place. When all five chambers had been discharged, the Slide Bar was removed, and each chamber loaded from the muzzle and reprimed with a percussion cap. Jonathan Browning’s gun differed from most in that it had an underhammer, and that an action lever cammed the Slide Bar hard against the barrel to make a gas seal. He also made a larger Slide Bar available — one with 25 chambers, arguably the first high-capacity magazine.
The second Browning innovation was the Cylinder Repeating rifle. This was a revolver rifle, with the cylinder rotated by hand between shots. Like the Slide Bar gun, the cylinder was cammed against the barrel to achieve a gas seal — the parts were designed to mate in the manner of nested cones.
The designer of those mid-19th-Century attempts to harness firepower sired many children; like other early Mormons, he was a polygamist, and his three wives would bear him 22 children. From age six one of them apprenticed himself, as it were, to his father. Within a year he’d built his own first rifle. This son was, of course, John Moses Browning.
(Aside: the last gun made by Jonathan Browning was an example of his son’s 1878 single-shot high-powered rifle design, which would be produced in quantity by Winchester starting in 1883).
Malcolm Gladwell has popularized the idea that it takes 10,000 hours of hard work to become an expert — that’s roughly five years of fulltime labor. JMB had exceeded this point before puberty.
If you aspire to breaking Browning’s records as a gun designer, you need to acknowledge that, unless you started from childhood, you’re starting out behind already.
Browning worked on pistols, rifles, and machine guns. He worked on single-shot, lever, slide, and semi-automatic actions, and his semi-autos included gas-operated, recoil-operated, direct-blowback, and several types of locking mechanism. Exactly how many designs he did may not have been calculated anywhere: it’s known he designed 44 rifles and 13 shotguns for Winchester alone, a large number of which were not produced, and some of which may not have been made even as prototypes or models.
His military weapons included light and heavy infantry machine guns, aerial machineguns for fixed and flexible installations, and several iterations of the 37mm aircraft and anti-aircraft cannon, the last of which, the M9, would fire a 1-lb-plus armor-piercing shell at 3000 feet per second; an airplane was designed around it (the P39 Airacobra, marginal in US service but well-used, and well-loved, by the Soviets who received many via lend-lease). All the machine guns used by the US from squad on up in WWII and Korea were Browning designs. But these were only his most successful designs; there were others. At his peak, he may have been producing new designs at a rate of one a week.
If you want to to be the next John Browning, you need to start designing now, and keep improving your designs and designing new ones until the day you die. (Browning died in his office in Belgium).
Master of the Toolroom
The Browning workshop, back in the day.
From an early age, John learned to cut, form and shape steel. This is something common to most of the gunsmiths and designers of the early and mid-20th Century — if you remember our recent feature on John Garand, the photo showed him not a a drawing board by at a milling machine.
Browning could not only design and test his own prototypes — he could also design and improve the machinery on which they’d be produced, a necessary task for the designer in his day. Nowadays, such production development is the milieu of specialized production engineers, who have more classroom training, and probably less shop-floor savvy, than Browning brought to the task.
A reproduction of Browning’s workshop in the Browning Museum in Ogden, UT. (From this guy’s tour post).
In Browning’s day, processes were a little closer to hand-tooled prototype work, but it still required different kinds of savvy and modes of thinking .
If you want to be Browning, you have to master production processes, for prototypes and in series manufacturing, from the hands-on as well as the drawing-board angle. There may never again be a designer like that.
Living and Timing
John M. Browning in 1921 with Mr Burton of Winchester and the category-creating Browning Automatic Rifle.
John M Browning lived in just the right time: he was there at the early days of cartridge arms, when even basic principles hadn’t yet been settled and the possibilities of design were wide-open and unconstrained by prior art and customer expectation. No army worldwide, and no hunter or policeman, really had a satisfactory semi-auto or automatic weapon yet (except for the excellent Maxim)
It’s much easier to push your design into an unfulfilled requirement than it is to displace something a customer is already more or less comfortable with.
If you’re going to retire some of John M. Browning’s records, you’re going to need the right conditions and a few lucky breaks — just like he had.
Inspiration and Leadership
To read the comments of other Browning associates of the period is to see the wake of a man who was remarkable for far more than his raw genius. Browning was admired and respected, to be sure, but he was also liked. At FN in Belgium, the gunsmiths called him le maître, “the master,” and took pleasure in learning from him.
M Saive at the drawing board. Image: FN Herstal.
His Belgian protégé, M. Dieudonne Saive, went on to be a designer of some note himself. While he did not achieve Browning’s range of designs, he, too, is in the top rank for his work finalizing the High-Power pistol (also known as the GP or HP-35) that Browning began, and for his own SAFN-49 and FAL rifle designs, and MAG machine-gun, all of which owed something to Browning’s work as well as Saive’s own.
If you want to be the next John Moses Browning, you have to know when to step back, and how to share the burden — and the credit.
Former Special Forces 11B2S, later 18B, weapons man. (Also served in intelligence and operations jobs in SF).
Since the passing of our friend Kevin AKA “Hognose” owner of weaponsman.com we have be reposting his work here in tribute and to make sure it survives. This is another technical article from Kevin in part of a series.
The M249 Squad Automatic Weapon is widely distributed in the US Army and Marine Corps (even after the Marines replaced many SAWs with M27 Infantry Automatic Rifles). But how did we get to that point, and what other weapons were considered along the way? This series will look at each of the four contenders in turn. The principal objective of this article is to set the stage, and introduce an unfamiliar cousin of a familiar old friend: the XM106 Automatic Rifle, an M16A1 redesigned by Army engineers for the tactical role once filled by the Browning Automatic Rifle in the American rifle squad.
It’s a bit amazing that a SAW program got any traction at all. In 1979, the Army was concerned about the vintage of its small arms and other systems. While we’re most concerned about small arms here, the Army’s RDT&E guys had to develop it all, and they had their hands full trying to field or develop, at that time:
The XM1 Tank (with 105mm gun; not yet named Abrams).
The 120mm smoothbore follow-on for the M1. This was principally setting up American manufacture of an already-successful German gun.
The Infantry Fighting Vehicle and its cav variant (not yet named Bradley).
The Copperhead laser-guided precision artillery shell.
The YAH-64 helicopter (“Y” means prototype; the Army was testing 5 prototypes, but they hadn’t selected the night vision and fire control systems yet; everyone remembered the AH-56 Cheyenne, which had gotten to this stage and beyond before its ignominious cancellation).
The still unnamed MLRS rocket system was in early phases of tests, and precision guided rockets for it were barely on the engineers’ whiteboards.
Improved missiles: I-HAWK, TOW, and Pershing II.
New missiles: HELLFIRE and Patriot.
US production of the superior British 81mm mortar.
Those are the ones that turned into successful fieldings, but every one was opposed by vocal lobbies, which argued that the weapons cost too much, and would never work. (Some of these opponents were concerned patriots, like John Boyd’s famous reform mafia; others might not have been, like the CDI, a group that toed Ivan’s line so thoroughly that it was rumored to be financed by the USSR, and that did indeed fade from prominence after the USSR went belly up, although no one ever found any proof of anything as far as we know).
To the delight of the opponents, some development projects would turn out to be turkeys, like the DIVAD gun (later named Sergeant York; its fate was sealed when a high-stakes live demo saw it lock on to a latrine fan instead of a hovering, easy-pickin’s drone helicopter). Some would blow their budgets and get put out of their misery by the Carter administration or the Congress. Nobody remembers the US Roland AA missile, or the Stand Off Target Acquisition System, a helicopter with a Rube Goldberg targeting radar that needed a Heath Robinson raising and lowering mechanism.
But all in all, for all that the suits would like to zero out Army R&D, and for all that some projects would be dead ends, the need for these systems was so great, and/or the contractors had promised to manufacture them in so many Congressional districts, that the Army had an RDT&E budget request for $2.927 Billion for FY 80 (which began 1 Oct 79).
The principal small arms program was the SAW (the long-running Air Force/Joint pistol trials, the M231 Firing Port weapon, and a 30mm repeater grenade launcher which never saw type-classification, were some of the others). The Squad Automatic Weapon program was well along; the service needed to complete a developmental and operational test of four prototypes and evaluate the test data. Considering that it would produce a weapon still in the field today, this program’s budget request was almost invisible: $500,000. It was a little less than 2%, not of the RDT&E budget, but of 1% of the RDT&E budget (0.01708% if you do the math; rounds up to 171 10/1000ths of a percent).
The Army had just given up on the idea of a return to a .30 caliber small arm. A study called IRUS-75 evaluated the .30 concept as part of a question of the overall organization and equipment of the future rifle squad; a follow-on study, the Army Small Arms Requirements Study (ASARS), made it clear that the caliber mattered less than having two auto weapons per squad to provide a base of fire, as the BAR had done in days of yore.
The four NATO ammo contenders. Soon after the SAW tests described in this series, NATO chose the SS109.
The Army conduced an extensive computer study that determined the optimum caliber for a SAW was 6mm. This caused the first casualties inflicted by the SAW as logisticians’ heads exploded: they had no desire to stock a third caliber alongside 5.56 and 7.62. Accordingly, the SAW was specified to use 5.56mm ammunition: not the standard M193 ball round, but whatever round came out of new NATO testing, whether it was the FN SS109, the US XM777, or something completely different. The test guns were, as we understand it, set up for XM777. (XM777, like SS109, sought to get more penetration out of the 5.56x45mm cartridge by using a steel penetrator. It was, however, backwards-compatible with the 1:12 rifling of earlier 5.56 rifles. SS109 proved superior in NATO tests to SS109 and experimental British and German small-caliber rounds, and was adopted; the US version is M855).
The Army did not have an entirely free hand in weapons development, since the Joint Services Small Arms Program had been established in December, 1978, as “the senior joint services body for small arms development,” but the Army did retain control of the SAW program. By early 1979, four prototypes were under test by the Material Testing Directorate of the Army’s Aberdeen Proving Ground. One of the four was going to be the SAW and replace two of the rifle squad’s M16A1 rifles. (Doctrine at the time designated one rifleman in each fire time the “automatic rifleman”. He got a bipod and more ammo. The rest of the riflemen were supposed to fire on semi-auto against point targets only).
The four candidates were three belt-fed 5.56mm light machine guns: Ford Aerospace’s XM248; FN’s XM249; H&K’s XM262; and one magazine-fed weapon, the XM106.
The XM106 had the home-field advantage: it was developed by the Army’s own Ballistics Research Laboratory. But it was, by far, the least advanced rifle. It was essentially an M16A1 with a modified fire-control system and a bipod. It fired full-auto only, from an open bolt, and had a heavy buffer system to bring the rate of fire down to 750 RPM. The bipod was an M2 bipod, as used on the M14, but it mounted above the rifle’s barrel. All XM106s appear to have been hand-built, toolroom guns, and there are a few variations among them. The XM106 had a clever, but complex, interchangeable barrel, a desirable feature in a weapon that may be called on to deliver lots of automatic fire. In most XM106s, the front sight base was moved closer to the muzzle end of the barrel (which army records record as 482mm [21.5 in.] including the flash suppressor, the second longest of the contenders), reputedly to extend the gun’s sight radius.
XM106 removable barrel version.
The barrel-changing mechanism removed the front sight and gas tube from the gun, leaving the bipod attached to the receiver. The handguards, as you can see in the picture, split. This system had two drawbacks — one, shared with the M60 and numerous other GPMGs is that rear sight adjustments could only be zeroed for one barrel — when you changed barrels, you changed point of impact, and it might have done something ugly to the accuracy of your weapon. The second drawback is clearly visible in the picture: that gas tube hanging off the spare barrel, just asking some GI to bend, break, or plug it with something.
The XM106 was not only magazine-based, it had its own special magazine — sort of. A spring clip held three 30-round magazines together. When one was exhausted, the auto-rifleman pressed the magazine release and shifted the mag over and reinstalled it. It was another Rube Goldberg / Heath Robinson contrivance, but in the late 1970s there were no reliable high-cap magazines.
We’re not aware of any surviving XM106s. The open-bolt mechanism and the plate renaming the fire selector positions lived on, however, on the M231 Firing Port Weapon. Colt was to reevaluate the M16-based MG and develop a version in conjunction with Diemaco for Canadian Army tests; that would also fire from the open bolt, but it had a superior barrel change system and bipod to those of the XM106.
If the XM106 was the least technically ambitious of the SAW contenders, Ford’s XM248, which instantiated some concepts developed at BRL and elsewhere in the Army ordnance world, was at the opposite end of the spectrum — a technical stretch. But that’s for the next installment.
Other than its influence on Colt’s future private developments, the XM106 was an evolutionary dead end. With four very different guns to choose from, three had to lose, and with its lack of a belt and awkwardness, the XM106 was never really in contention. It’s interesting to compare it to the M27 automatic rifle the Marines ultimately chose to replace most of its SAWs, a weapon that accepted the inconvenience of magazine loading for the benefit of much lighter weight.
That the XM106 was so quickly set aside tells us that “not invented here” wasn’t holding the Army ordnance experts back in the late 70s and early 80s — the gun was designed by their own compadres at the Ballistics Research Laboratory, but it wasn’t the best. Any disappointment that BRL might have had was limited, however. Their firing-port weapon design, a more extensively modified M16A1, was adopted as standard equipment for the new Infantry and Cavalry Fighting Vehicles, and it, too remains in service today — so there’s a little bit of XM106 still out there.
In Monday’s installment, we gave you the overview of the SAW program as of 1979, and we looked in depth at the least radical design, the magazine-fed M16 variant, XM-106 automatic rifle, a product of the Army’s own Ballistic Research Laboratory. Today’s installment will fill you in with a little more on the competition and its history, and will go into a little depth — unfortunately, a little depth is all we have — about the XM-248 and especially its forerunner, the XM-235.
To recap, as of the beginning of 1979 four candidates were being compared for a concept of a Squad Automatic Weapon that was then (barely) filled in the infantry fire team by giving one guy a stamped-steel bipod and permission to set his selector to Crowd Control. Along with the XM106, which was an M16A1 with some concessions to firing high rates and volumes of automatic fire, the contenders at this point were three belt-fed 5.56mm light machine guns: Ford Aerospace’s XM248, FN’s XM249 and H&K’s XM262.
The XM-248 is a good-looking gun with a straight inline mechanism and a very clever belt feed that had the potential to be more positive, but less upsetting to accuracy, than the typical feed tray that’s been standard on GPMGs ever since the MG34 instantiated the category way back during the Great Depression.
To understand the XM248, we have to roll back a bit, to the very dawn of the SAW program in 1975 (the term “SAW” dates to 1970, and the idea of an intermediate gun between the rifle and the 23+lb M60 GPMG dates to 1966). The Army’s Training and Doctrine Command had noted that a war in Europe was possible, and Europe was vastly more built-up than in the last war. Even then, much of the fighting was in cities — dismounted infantry terrain. A squad automatic weapon that could deliver fire in high volumes would benefit such a squad, in what the Army now calls Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT) and then called Military Operations in Built-up Areas (MOBA). So in 1975, the Army began designing in its own labs, and calling for, from industry, a new weapon, at the same time it began to evaluate M16 improvements that would lead (through a winding path blazed mostly by the USMC) to the M16A2. Both improvements were aimed at MOBA as well as just generally increasing the lethality of the squad, and drew upon TRADOC studies that said fire volume was more important than fire precision.
The 6.0x45mm cartridge, centered between the 5.56 and 7.62 NATO.
The new SAW — the squad’s volume-fire weapon — would use either an optimum cartridge or the standard rifle cartridge. (Each approach had its adherents). The first round of paper SAW candidates were chambered for disparate cartridges, including a new experimental 6mm and the standard 5.56mm. The 6mm fired a 105-grain projectile at 2450 fps (6.8g/.747m/s) compared to the M193 round’s 55gr/3250fps (3.5g/990m/s), giving the new MG a range beyond 800m. One of the main drivers of the 6mm caliber wasn’t anything to do with ball ammunition — it was that given the tracer technology of the time, no known compound could trace to and beyond 800m in daytime, and be contained in the volume of a 5.56mm projo. Army ordnance guys really liked the 6mm; loggies, and the senior generals who would have to square a new caliber with our NATO allies, were more reserved, for entirely non-technical reasons.
Because it was no longer in production or actively being promoted, the Stoner XM207E1 was out of the picture. In any event, the Army’s ordnance officers had a strong prejudice against it: the SEALs loved the gun and used them until there were no parts to be had, but the Army considered it too maintenance-intensive to be reliable in the hands of draftees with GT Scores of 80. Likewise, Colt’s CMG-2; and like other guns rejected before the contest began, they fired the 5.56mm cartridge, which didn’t meet the Army’s desire for an 800m+ weapon.
The three contenders in the 1975-76 round were made for the 6×45 cartridge and given sequential model numbers. XM233 (left) was Maremont’s entry. As you might expect from the maker of the M60, it looked like a baby 60. The XM234, a spindly-looking thing, was prototyped by Philco (about which, more below). And the Army’s own Rodman Laboratories (at Rock Island Arsenal in Illinois) developed a radically new concept which was labeled XM235.
Two more-familiar 5.56mm guns that were being developed in Europe and entirely outside the Army competition at the very same time were not considered at this time: the FN Minimi and the H&K HK23. Ironically, they were rejected specifically because they were 5.56mm weapons. But we haven’t heard the last of the little round and these two commercial guns, either, because in Developmental Test/Operational Test 1, they, and a heavy-barreled variant of the M16, were used as controls and benchmarks for the “real” 6mm guns.
Philco’s 6mm gun was called the XM234, and it looked like this:
And that picture is almost all we know about it. At the time, we recall reading, and laughing about, the idea that Philco had entered a gun in the Army competition. Philco was the subsidiary of Ford that made the radios and 8-track players (don’t we keep telling you, The Past Is Another Country? Some of us lived there). And so, the idea of it making machine guns was pretty funny. But Detroit automakers are no slouches on mass production, and the Army has often turned to them when it needed quantity and quality. In World War II, the Navy threw a young officer named Henry Ford II out so he could take over from his ailing father and take charge of Ford’s war production, which included guns, gun parts, and complete B-24 Liberators. GM made M3 grease guns, and later would produce M16A1s with considerably less drama than Colt, despite a rather lacking Technical Data Package. So, Philco probably could make a gun; auto manufacturing technology was effective for guns; and mechanical engineering is the same discipline of materials, statics and mechanics for a gun designer that it is for a guy designing a valve train or power-steering mechanism.
By the time the 11th Edition of Small Arms of the World, from which a number of these facts and photos are taken, was published in 1977, the defense branch of Philco had taken on the more dignified name, Ford Aerospace & Communication Corporation.
There’s very little information about the Philco entry available, especially online; and at the end of the first phase, DT/OT1, in December, 1974, both its gun, the XM234, and Maremont’s weren’t what Army evaluators were interested in. But they really liked the Army’s entry, the XM235:
The XM235 had been developed by a dedicated team at Rodman, led by Curtis D. Johnson and including at least 7 more dedicated engineers, who all signed on to the patent US # 3,999,461 on the gun (USPTO link) (Google Patents link).
General Arrangement from Patent 399,461 is unmistakably the XM235.
One of the controls also fared well at the tests: the FN Minimi was as reliable as the best of the 6mm guns, and more so than the H&K. It used then-special FN ammo (SS109) which didn’t interchange with the riflemen’s 1:12 M16s. Nobody liked the HB M16 as a SAW.
At this point, the Army dropped the idea of the 6mm round. It not only complicated Army logistics to have a third entire caliber, but it would be hard to sell to NATO, where American allies had already had two Yankee cartridges rammed down their throats. So the SAW was going to be 5.56mm. How were they going to get the 5.56 to perform “beyond 800m” as the spec had said? They weren’t. So the new spec was “up to 800m.”
This set the Army up for the next round of testing, but they needed someone to produce the XM235. The prototype that so impressed everyone at DT/OT1 was handbuilt, and the Rodman guys weren’t manufacturing or production engineers. The answer seemed obvious: let Maremont and Philco, uh, Ford Aerospace, bid on producing the the XM235. Ford won the bid, and engineers being engineers, began improving the design even as they committed to building a couple of dozen prototypes in 5.56 for testing. The 5.56 quasi-production variant of the XM235 was the XM248.
Let’s take a look at the XM235 technically and see why it was so admired at the time. We’ll push back Ford’s many changes that produced the XM248 till tomorrow. (This post is already 1500 words long!)
The Rodman engineers began with a clean slate and the understanding that, other things being equal, automatic weapons firing bursts had always been less accurate than rifles firing single aimed shots. This wasn’t invariably a bad thing, as it allowed for the natural dispersion of a burst to “correct” in a way for a gunner’s aiming error, but it was terribly wasteful of ammunition.
Engineers being engineers, they asked why the automatic guns were less accurate, and they concluded that several things degraded the accuracy of automatic weapons:
Parts of the mechanism were moving whilst bullets were still in the barrel.
Whether operated by recoil or gas, the operating mechanism reflected excess energy back into the weapon, what the developers called “high restitution” from rebounding parts.
Extant light machinegun designs had overly high rates of fire (650 to 1000 rpm).
Peak recoil was high (500-1200 foot/pounds – 2,200-5,300 N).
Those items, taken together, degraded accuracy. So the characteristics sought in the 235 design were:
A long motion of recoiling parts.
A soft cycle without the hammering of buffers on stops often seen in LMGs.
Rate of fire reduced to 500 rpm, little more than half that of an M16A1 with M193 ammo loaded with WC846 powder.
Reduced recoil impulse (to 200 lb-ft) and reduced recoil effects on muzzle movement by careful placement and design of stock and grips, gas system, and so forth.
A change in belt handling to reduce the stop-and-go motion of the belt
Placing parts that induced motion inimical to accuracy (the belt feed, for instance) close to the weapon’s center of gravity, to reduce the moments these parts induced for a given force.
In addition, the engineers wanted to design a weapon with world-class reliability and maintainability. They wanted it to be made up of field replaceable modules, and readily field-stripped in 10 seconds. They wanted to reduce the parts count relative to the M60 (they cut the parts count by 40%).
The receiver was extremely unconventional. What looks like the receiver in pictures is a sheet metal cover with no structural function. The fore-end likewise is a simple stamped cover. The actual receiver comprises two long tubes, a forward end cap that joins the tubes to the barrel, and an aft end cap that contains a sophisticated hydraulic buffer. The bolt carrier rides between the tubes, and connects to upper and lower pistons and springs, which ride inside the receiver tubes (which do double duty as gas tubes). The bolt carrier also contains, of course, the bolt, which has three lugs like an AK bolt, dual extractors and a plunger ejector.
The bolt carrier also drives, in its long travels, a rotating cam tube that turns a feed sprocket that lifts the feed belt with rotary action. There is no reversing or reciprocating motion orthogonal to the direction of fire — unlike the classic MG34/MG42-inspired feed tray cover, or that of the Browning or Maxim for that matter.
A spring-loaded firing pin rode in the bolt, and the fire control and related switchgear were contained in the pistol grip. In order to hang the belt container exactly on the center of gravity, the pistol grip was also hung on the center of gravity front-to-rear but offset to the right. Several effects came packed with this: moments of any operator input on the pistol grip were reduced, because it was at an arm of nearly zero, increasing accuracy; the weapon gave the gunner unprecedented control; and the weapon required right-handed operation. The Army liked the former two, but were keenly aware that about 10% of troops are left-handed. The weapon also required left-handed operation because it was, in effect, a bullpup design. Previous Army skittishness about bullpup safety may have been reduced by measures taken to prevent an out-of-battery firing, and the bolt’s location within the heavy carrier and the solid sheet-metal receiver cover.
Ford Aerospace had the order to produce 18 production-ready XM248s, which were to be the XM235 in 5..56 (instead of the abandoned 6.0×45) with a few improvements. (In the end, they’d make two versions). The improved XM235 was the XM248. Then, post-Vietnam budget cuts savaged the SAW program. The money was there to make the XM248s, but not to test them. The XM235 had been set to compete against the Minimi — if the Minimi could be lightened enough to meet spec — and a couple of USMC-sponsored heavy-barrel M16s (again). That is, in fact, where the 1977 11th Edition of Small Arms of the World left the competition: uncertain, and potentially cancelled entirely. The budget for the competition had been cut so much that the Army had no money for testing the 18 5.56mm XM248s that Ford delivered under their contract, or anything else. IF FN was going to lighten the Minimi, they’d have to do it on their own — contract money wasn’t forthcoming. H&K was fuming on the sidelines, believing their HK23 had been unfairly DQ’d. And Army squads still had, by MTOE, an “automatic rifleman” whose only concession to firepower was a tinny little bipod for his M16A1; alternatively, they could carry a heavy M60 and its heavy ammunition along.
Tune in tomorrow as the XM235 emerges from its Ford chrysalis as the XM248 — and becomes the most advanced light machine gun the US Army ever rejected.
Gather around children and I will show you something from a world long past. During it’s day it was one of the best of it’s type. Sold in a metal container that had a place for all its items. A place for everything and everything in it’s place . It was made in a time when things were meant to last and look good. To give you a little pride of ownership.
I am a known fancier of vintage target gun,. gun and shooting accessories and various related paraphernalia. One of those items that falls within my interest is the older vintage cleaning tools. In particular the Marbles brand cleaning kits. Anytime I get a chance to buy one I will. They are a treasure in my opinion. They are well made and I love the tin they rod and various items it contains. They were considered pretty highly in the day and the USMC even provided a Marbles cleaning rod as the cleaning kit with m40/M40A1 rifles for a time. So lets have a look.
Getting a complete kit in good shape with all or most of its accessories is already hard enough. getting one with the cardboard outer wrap is almost a miracle. Luckily a miracle happened for me.
Below is a picture of the kit with the outer wrap as it would have been sold.
Taking out out of the slip cover you see the tin that holds the rod and other parts.
For something that was made to be sold in general stores or sears and gun stores, the metal box is impressive. There is no way something like it would even be sold as a mass market item now a days. Maybe a reissue to cash in on an anniversary maybe, but that is it.
Opening it up and first thing you see is another miracle. Maybe one even bigger than the slip case. The little paper sheet giving a few tips about the kit , why it does not come with brushes and how to apply the gun bluing on the back side.
As you can see , the kit contains a rod that will work on 22 caliber rifles up to 10 ga shotguns. It has a clever rotating tip that allows the brush and patches to follow the lands and grooves. You can see the adapter for shotgun brushes and mops and as well as a loop jag. The rod itself is a sectional rod. Not idea for cleaning a rifle bore especially if it is a precision barrel. As I have mentioned before a sectional rod will wear the bore and scratch it at the sectioned breaks. The gap between each section will also retain small particles or dirt, sand or other things that will scratch the bore as you move it to the muzzle and back to the chamber. It is best to use a coated single, solid rod with a bore guide. But back then, few people knew or cared about such things and others likely couldn’t afford or find a solid rod. All that aside, the Marbles rod is well made . It has an attractive wooden handle pinned to the rod that is sturdy enough. As I said above the end of the road that the brush or jag attaches to rotates easily and freely to allow brushes and patches to follow the groves of the bore.
To the upper right you can see the Marbles brand oil and bottle. Something very hard to find. The oil is advertised as an all purpose type and it smells like no other weapon lube I have encountered.
To the left is the small bottle of blueing . I have a few other Marbles kits that are not complete, but the all did come with a bottle of the blueing. Out of curiosity I have tried it on some of my training guns with worn finish and to my surprise it does work and it works great. It was pretty impressive how well it worked to me. It is way more effective and better looking than anything you can buy now.
Beside the blue in the tin you can see the box of cotton flannel Marbles cleaning patches. The box is still full with the original patches.
The box has the Marbles logo and artwork. Clearly from a time when companies had more pride in the art design of their products.
To give an idea just how old this stuff is, take a look at the printing on something as small as this box.
The inside lid of the tin has various tips and info. It looks very well done. Also of course it has the company logo and info about various things. For those new to guns and maybe buying their first cleaning kit, it gives instructions on how to clean the bore of your rifle or shotgun, pistol etc. Not my preferred method but.. It also has tips for cold and hot weather.
The lid folds down and secures nicely. It makes a nice compact little rig.
One of the trickest parts of the kit is the insert inside of the tin box. It can be removed if you want to do away with it. If you do remove the fitted insert you could store considerable more items in the box if you need to. Leaving it in place gives you a fitted insert with sections made exactly for each cleaning item and secure them with metal tabs made as part of the insert. They are strong and sturdy and with a little effort can be squeezed to hold tightly against the various parts. It holds it all secure and keeps the rod etc from rolling around inside it or coming loose when moving it around.
These old vintage cleaning kits are real beauties from a time long past. It may be silly to use the word craftsmanship for a mass market item but I can not help but use it. It is well made and clearly was meant to be something that you used for many years once you bought it. Not use once and toss away chinese made walmart junk you will see in modern times from the likes of Hoppes and outers.