Rifles an Illustrated History of Their Impact

RIFLES

Other Titles in ABC-CLIO’s

WEAPONS AND WA R FARE SERIESSpencer C. Tu c k e r, Series Editor

Air Defense, Shannon A. Brown

Aircraft Carriers, Hedley Wilmott

Ancient Weapons, James T. Chambers

Artillery, Jeff Kinard

Ballistic Missiles, Kev Darling

Battleships, Stanley Sandler

Cruisers and Battle Cruisers, Eric W. Osborne

Destroyers, Eric W. Osborne

Helicopters, Stanley S. McGowen

Machine Guns, James H. Willbanks

Medieval Weapons, James T. Chambers

Military Aircraft in the Jet Age, Justin D. Murphy

Military Aircraft, 1919–1945, Justin D. Murphy

Military Aircraft, Origins to 1918, Justin D. Murphy

Pistols, Jeff Kinard

Submarines, Hedley Paul Wilmott

RIFLESAN ILLUSTRATED HISTORY OF THEIR IMPACT

David We s t w o o d

Santa Barbara, California Denver, Colorado Oxford, England

Copyright © 2005 by David Westwood

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, except for

the inclusion of brief quotations in a review, without prior permission in writing from the publishers.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataWestwood, David, Dr.

Rifles : an illustrated history of their impact / David Westwood.p. cm. — (Weapons and warfare series)

Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 1-85109-401-6 (hardback : alk. paper) — ISBN 1-85109-406-7 (eBook)

1. Rifles—History. 2. Military weapons. I. Title. II. Series. TS536.4.W48 2005

683.4'22—dc222004028931

05 06 07 08 / 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

This book is also available on the World Wide Web as an eBook. Visit abc-clio.com for details.

ABC-CLIO, Inc.130 Cremona Drive, P.O. Box 1911

Santa Barbara, California 93116-1911

This book is printed on acid-free paper.Manufactured in the United States of America

for a.c.w.

In memory of my father,

who taught me to take care of the countryside.

C O N T E N T S

Preface xi

Acknowledgments xiii

Introduction to Encyclopedias of Weapons and Warfare Series,

Spencer C. Tucker xv

chapter onemilitaries in the fourteenth century 1

What Is a Firearm? 1

The Sixteenth Century 8

The Snaphance 12

The Flintlock 13

chapter twoball, bullet, powder, and cartridge: the development of the propellant

and the projectile 19

The Musket Ball 19

The Minié Ball 26

The Composite Cartridge 27

The Modern Military Cartridge 31

Major Treadwell’s Report 33

vii

chapter threebreech-loading rifles 43

The Breech Loader and the British Army 47

The Albini and Braendlin 50The Burton Rifles 51

Major Fosbery’s Rifle 52The Henry Rifle 52

The Joslyn/Newby Rifle 54The Martini Rifle 54The Peabody Rifle 55

The Remington Rifle 56

The Tests 57

The Result 58

The Martini-Henry Service Rifle 59

chapter fourthe percussion system 65

The Percussion System in the British Army 69

Lever-Action Repeating Rifles 71

chapter fiverifles and ammunition in 1855 79

The History of Rifling 84

The Rifle as a Military Weapon 87

chapter sixthe bolt-action rifle 91

The Repeating Bolt-Action Rifle 94

Lee and the British 95

The Mauser Rifle and Other German Makes 99

The French Lebel 102

The United States and the Bolt-Action Rifle 103

Conclusion 113

viii CONTENTS

chapter sevenself-loading rifles 115

German SLR Development during World War II 118

U.S. Self-Loading Rifles 123

The M14 Rifle 131New Rifle, New Caliber 132

Russian SLR Developments 133

The British Army and the SLR 141

Conclusion 146

Significant Rifles and Rifle Systems 153

Appendix A: The Schön Report 261

Appendix B: Rifles and Rifle Makers 287

Glossary 433

Bibliography 445

Index 457

About the Author 470

CONTENTS ix

P R E F A C E

This book will show how the infantry rifle first appeared andwhy. It will trace the history of the rifle from its early, rather suc-cessful start, through a series of near-disasters and singular suc-cesses, into the bolt-action, magazine-fed, rifle of the late nine-teenth and early twentieth centuries. There can be little doubt thatin its formative years the military rifle was far less effective than thelong bow, but that the long bow was impossible as a modern battle-field weapon due to the effect of artillery and the machine gun.

There are many points in time where one can ask whether a par-ticular weapon could have changed the course of history. In factonly one rifle with this potential springs to mind, and that is the veryearliest of the successful designs: Colonel Ferguson’s rifle of 1775.Had British troops been armed with this weapon, the length of theNapoleonic Wars might well have been curtailed and the War of1812 might have had a different conclusion.

Manpower is one of the main criteria for armies in the field.More men in the battle line means more men firing. In the short-range combat of the nineteenth century this was most important. Ifyou had more men, then you had greater firepower. The corollary tothis was that with massed ranks of men all they had to do was take arudimentary aim and massed firepower would do the rest.

The arrival of the “empty battlefield” of the twentieth century(caused by machine-gun and artillery fire) meant that men werenow living below ground level, emerging only to attack or to movearound in daily tasks. The rifle was of little real significance in suchconditions, except for the trained sniper. Snipers have a reputationof being deadly men whose activities involve underhanded methodsof warfare; in fact they merely use the terrain in which they are op-erating to their advantage and they exercise a skill in marksmanshipof which the average soldier is incapable.

xi

Modern rifles demonstrate a number of characteristics that areperhaps indicative of the nations issuing them to their troops. TheBritish, having been somewhat disappointed not to have their bull-pup design accepted in the 1950s, now have a bull-pup of their own,the history of which has not been happy. America has a dubious his-tory in regard to the M16, especially its ammunition, and the effortsof some officials to bar this weapon from consideration are ques-tionable. The Russians, however, came up with a really good designand then stuck to it: the AK47.

The actions behind the scenes in weapons development, espe-cially after the formation of NATO, sometimes are beyond belief,with nationalistic attitudes having more sway than common sense.But that is the way of the world, and the only people who seem tohave suffered are the PBI, the “Poor bloody infantry,” who get allsorts of crazy ideas foisted on them, often in the hope that theymight work really well.

The history of the development of the rifle is peopled with manyinventors who just wanted a military contract, but also with men ofideas whose inventive nature brought about significant improve-ments. Rather than name them here, the reader is invited to go intothe book where their names (and the names of some of the others)are to be found.

xii PREFACE

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S

I have a number of people to mention whose names cannot berecorded: to all of them (they know who they are) my sincerethanks. To those I can name goes the same dedication.

The latter are Martin Pegler, Major John Conway, Philip Abbott,Richard Jones, Rob Sharrock, and their respective staffs, all ofwhom provided me with time and the opportunity to work in theircollections.

Royal Armouries are based in Leeds, and their collections are sec-ond to none in worldwide terms. The Weapons Collection of theSmall Arms Corps, based at the School of Land Warfare in Warmin-ster, Wiltshire, is equally important to the student of firearms, espe-cially because there there is a working Ferguson rifle.

Others who started me on the long trail to this book include Rod-ney Bond, John Cannon, Dr. David Chandler, Dr. John Pimlott, Dr.Simon Trew, Professor Alan Lloyd, and Mr. Mike Simpson.

I should also mention a long-suffering and patient wife, RosWestwood, and two springer spaniels, Glinka and Puta, who oftenonly got to walk after I had finished a long day at the Apple Mac!

xiii

I N T R O D U C T I O N T O

E N C Y C L O P E D I A S O F W E A P O N S

A N D WA R F A R E S E R I E S

Weapons both fascinate and repel. They are used to kill andmaim individuals and to destroy states and societies, and occasion-ally whole civilizations, and with these the greatest of man’s culturaland artistic accomplishments. Throughout history tools of war havebeen the instruments of conquest, invasion, and enslavement, butthey have also been used to check evil and to maintain peace.

Weapons have evolved over time to become both more lethal andmore complex. For the greater part of man’s existence, combat wasfought at the length of an arm or at such short range as to representno real difference; battle was fought within line of sight and seldomlasted more than the hours of daylight of a single day. Thus individ-ual weapons that began with the rock and the club proceededthrough the sling and boomerang, bow and arrow, sword and axe, togunpowder weapons of the rifle and machine gun of the late nine-teenth century. Study of the evolution of these weapons tells usmuch about human ingenuity, the technology of the time, and thesocieties that produced them. The greater part of technological de-velopment of weaponry has taken part in the last two centuries, es-pecially the twentieth century. In this process, plowshares have beenbeaten into swords; the tank, for example, evolved from the agricul-tural caterpillar tractor. Occasionally, the process is reversed andmilitary technology has impacted society in a positive way. Thusmodern civilian medicine has greatly benefitted from advances tosave soldiers’ lives, and weapons technology has impacted such ar-eas as civilian transportation or atomic power.

xv

Weapons can have a profound impact on society. Gunpowderweapons, for example, were an important factor in ending the era ofthe armed knight and the Feudal Age. They installed a kind of roughdemocracy on the battlefield, making “all men alike tall.” We canonly wonder what effect weapons of mass destruction (WMD)might have on our own time and civilization.

This series will trace the evolution of a variety of key weapons sys-tems, describe the major changes that occurred in each, and illus-trate and identify the key types. Each volume begins with a descrip-tion of the particular weapons system and traces its evolution, whilediscussing its historical, social, and political contexts. This is fol-lowed by a heavily illustrated section that is arranged more or lessalong chronological lines that provides more precise information onat least 80 key variants of that particular weapons system. Each vol-ume contains a glossary of terms, a bibliography of leading books onthat particular subject, and an index.

Individual volumes in the series, each written by a specialist inthat particular area of expertise, are as follows:

Ancient WeaponsMedieval Weapons Pistols Rifles Machine Guns Artillery Tanks Battleships Cruisers and Battle Cruisers Aircraft Carriers Submarines Military Aircraft, Origins to 1918Military Aircraft, 1919–1945 Military Aircraft in the Jet Age Helicopters Ballistic MissilesAir DefenseDestroyers

We hope that this series will be of wide interest to specialists, re-searchers, and even general readers.

Spencer C. TuckerSeries Editor

xvi ACKNOWLEDGMENTSxvi SERIES INTRODUCTION

RIFLES

C H A P T E R 1

Militaries in theFourteenth Century

Foot soldiers during the Middle A g e s used pikes, bows, andcrossbows. Industry took a great step forward with the appearanceof the blast furnace; steel was now available for the manufacture ofweapons as well as plowshares. Crossbows benefited with steelbows, giving them a range of about 400 yards.1 The firearm had al-ready made an appearance in China, and the technology was slowlybecoming known in the West. Added to this was the discovery ofgunpowder, which made firearms a practical concept.

Cannons were the first weapons made to use the new powder,and interestingly the arrival of cannons in arsenals led to the cre-ation or consolidation of nation-states, because they were the onlygroups able to afford such highly expensive weapons. Add to this thefact that the firearm was eventually to lead to the demise of theknight on the battlefield in favor of the much cheaper-to-arm in-fantryman; thus military development is a much more importantfactor in social development than it is often credited for.

WHAT IS A FIREARM?

It is not too difficult to define “firearm,” and one attractive versionappears in a Harry Potter book, in a newspaper report that refers to“a gun (a kind of metal wand which Muggles [i.e., nonmagicians]

1

use to kill each other).”2 There is a lot of truth in this definition, al-lowing of course for the imaginative use of the word “wand.”

Firearms were impossible until the fire appeared; this was ofcourse gunpowder, which seems to have originated in the thirteenthcentury. There are a number of discussions on the subject and it isvaluable at the outset to understand what is meant within theframework of this work by the term “firearm.” A firearm is one thatuses the power of a propellant to fire a projectile. To limit the defini-tion further to the subject of this book, a rifle is a hand weapon thatis used to arm infantry soldiers (and others) for use on the battle-field and that has a barrel, a method of reloading or a loading mech-anism, a method of firing, and the means to aim and handle theweapon all assembled together in one unit.

There are a number of very significant stages in the developmentof the infantry rifle, which begin in the days before rifling wasinvented, and again before the modern composite cartridge was con-ceived. This book will deal with the changes using both a chronolog-ical and a holistic approach, so sometimes the date will be impor-tant, but sometimes the theme will take over in preeminence.

Gunpowder appears in many texts, and there was a suggestionthat the Hindu (Gentoo) Laws of 300 B.C. mentioned it, but this hasbeen discounted. The Chinese probably were the first to use gun-powder, but as a pyrotechnic (to “frighten the horses”) rather thanas a propellant. The real origin seems to have been in the mid-1200sin Europe, as a result of Arabic alchemical experiments, books relat-ing to which appeared, via Spain, at that time.3 However, once morethe Arabs did not use the mixture as a propellant; it seems that thisdoubtful honor is due to the Europeans, who were almost certainlythe inventors of the firearm.

Gunpowder is a simple mixture of saltpeter, charcoal, and sulfur.The proportions can vary, as can the fineness or otherwise in textureof the component materials. What was important was that whenconfined and fired, it almost instantaneously produced a largeamount of gas, which was harnessed eventually in the barrels ofweapons so that a projectile could be forced out of the barrel at thechosen target.

Rather like the flashes and bangs caused by wands in the magicaladventures of Harry Potter, when gunpowder was first seen, it toowas regarded as a remarkable mixture that when ignited “sound[ed]like thunder and flashes in the air can be made, indeed greater hor-rors than those produced naturally.”4 However, here Roger Bacon isreferring to a pyrotechnic, or a propellant for rockets, not a propel-

2 RIFLES

lant in a firearm to project a bullet out of a barrel. The invention ofthe firearm was, however, so closely allied to the appearance of gun-powder that the first firearms were being made less than 100 yearsafter Bacon first referred to the properties of gunpowder. Althoughthe powder itself was initially variable in performance, the inventionof granulation in the 1420s made the powder both safer to handleand more reliable in the field.5

The history of firearms and gunpowder is full of apocryphal tales(reading still like the Harry Potter books), and one legend is that ofBlack Berthold, a monk of either German or Greek origin who iscredited with the invention of the first gun and possibly with the dis-covery of gunpowder as well. In fact he never existed, although likemany legends, there is an element of historical truth to the story.

It seems clear that the first written evidence of guns is that of theedict of the Council of Florence of 11 February 1326. This orderedthat two officials were to be appointed to make iron bullets (or ar-rows) and metal cannons for Republican defenses. As earlierweapons, from which the gun was to take over, fired arrows, the ini-tial concept seems to have been to make weapons using gunpowderto fire arrows. This would achieve a twofold improvement inweaponry: the projectile would be propelled faster and further, andit would be accompanied by a morale-affecting flash and bang. Thislatter factor would have been particularly effective on the battlefieldagainst cavalry, whose horses would have been spooked by the lightand sound of the detonation.

The development of the firearm6 follows on from that of cannons.Cannons were big and unwieldy, but they had the advantage thatthey could use the new propellant without too great a risk of rupturefrom the forces generated on detonation. But ingenuity soon led tohandguns (guns that were handheld, not the modern pistol-typeweapon) on the same principle, although the artistic representationsleft to us today stretch credulity when the weapons and men areshown together. There can be no doubt that firearms were used byinfantry, for the simple reason that they could not (at the time) befired effectively from horseback, and mounted knights were unlikelyto take the personal risks involved in firing such new and apparentlydangerous weapons. Further, such weapons were not covered by thecode of chivalry and so were left to the lower orders.

The written history of firearms grows in strength from about1340; various artistic impressions are also to be found, but they areoften questionable by virtue of the fact that artists create what theysee, not necessarily what is there, and, unlike a modern video cam-

MILITARIES IN THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY 3

era, can reproduce only a moment of history rather than a sequence.By the end of this century the use of firearms had become general.One of the best sources concerning firearms is the accounts of theEnglish Royal Chamber that controlled the royal armory and arsenalin England in the second half of the fourteenth century.

The earliest records relate to the purchase of sulfur and saltpeter(1333/1334), but the significant entry from 1345 (the first of many)refers to repairs to guns with arrows and pellets.7 Guns held in theTower of London in 1346 were ordered to be sent to France to sup-port King Edward III’s campaign against the French as part of theHundred Years War; also to be sent were “storage chests, large andsmall lead pellets, pieces of lead for making pellets, and barrels ofpowder, saltpetre and sulphur.” Another order was for 912 pounds ofsaltpeter and 886 pounds of sulfur, so it is certain that cannonswere part of the military armory at the time. Possibly handguns werealso issued, and there is one reference to “hand engines calledguns.”8

The manufacture of firearms appears to have been commonplaceby the mid-1300s,9 and by 1373/1375 there is a record of a paymentmade for attaching handles to eight guns “ad modum pycoys” or “inthe style of pikes”—handheld weapons. References to lead and pel-lets bring the conclusion that small arms were being manufactured,although there are still a number of references to arrows among theaccounts, although the arrows were a far cry from the wood andfeather long bow projectiles, now being metal with iron fletching.Whatever the obscurity of these early documents, certainty comes inthe writ of 7 November 1388 that refers to “three small cannoncalled handguns.”10

At what exact moment in the fourteenth century the first firearmswere made is of less importance than the fact that man had ex-tended warfare from pitched, hand-to-hand fighting toward a con-cept of fighting at a distance: the range of the firearm now being themaximum fighting range on the battlefield. The archery arm hadhad great effect for centuries, but shooting was about to undergo aquantum change over the next few centuries until the present day,when a sniper can kill at over 1,000 yards with one shot. However,the practicality of this concept has been limited only by the ingenu-ity of man, infantry in particular, and even today the bayonet is stillissued as a last-ditch weapon to turn the rifle back into a pike, whenattackers, by skill at field craft, can come into body-contact range.

Many of the earliest examples of firearms have been lost—eitherjust plain lost, destroyed, rusted away, forgotten, or otherwise disap-

4 RIFLES

peared, and the firearms historian today is limited in physical exam-ples and restricted by artistic depictions of the weapons. TheSwedish National Historical Museum in Stockholm has an exampleof a very early weapon, the Loshult gun. This is similar in externalappearance to the famous Milimete gun, illustrated in the treatiseDe Nobilitatibus, Sapientiis et Prudentiis Regum (On the Duties of aKing), written by the eponymous Walter de Milimete for King Ed-ward III in 1327.1 1 Both are bulbous at the breech and were in-tended to fire iron arrows rather than bullets.

Fifteenth-century manuscripts show three ways in which thefirearm was held for firing: resting the stock over the shoulder, tuck-ing the gun under the arm, or resting the gun on the ground so thatthe muzzle pointed upward. In all cases woodwork had appearedthat enabled the barrel to be controlled and a rudimentary attemptat aiming made. It should be remembered that the firearm at thisearliest stage of its development was still something of a novelty, andwas more useful in frightening horses than in killing men.

One of the difficulties facing the operator of these very primitivehandguns was firing it. The barrel was loaded with a set amount ofblack powder, and the projectile poured (if shot) or loaded on top ofthe propellant. A trail of gunpowder was then laid to lead from the


These two drawings show foot and mounted firearms. The problems of aiming and recoil can be appreciated, and unless the horse was well trained, its reaction to the

firing of a hand cannon must have been spectacular. From W. W. Greener, The Gun and Its Development, Cassell & Co., London, 1910, p.45 ff.

touch hole to the propellant charge. Finally, to fire the weapon aslow match (developed by artillerymen) was applied to the powdertrail, which, some of the time, set off the main charge, and with a“flash and a combustion of fires, and by the horror of sounds,”12 theweapon discharged. But if it was raining, or if the powder was wet,or there was a high wind, and so on, there was a less than evenchance of any explosion at all, and the gunman would be flattenedby the opposition without mercy.

Reliability is a theme we will return to time and again throughoutthis book. No matter how horrifying and devastating a weapon mayprove to be in theory or in the demonstration, it is of no use whatso-ever if it cannot perform regularly and effectively in the hands of themen who have to carry it in battle. History is full of weapons thatjust could not do their job when it came to the test of action, eitherbecause they were too weakly constructed, were not properly de-signed, were worn out or broken, or were far too complex in designto be continually functional in the one place where all these faultsspell death to the user: the battlefield.

Once the idea of handguns was seen to be of some value, the nexttask for the gunmakers and designers was to devise a way of firingthe weapon mechanically, rather than with an easily lost or extin-guished handheld slow match. The problem they faced was thatthey had to continue to employ the slow match, as no other ignitionsystem had yet been invented. Thus the matchlock was born. Theearliest form was a simple lever, pivoted on the stock of the weapon,which allowed the firer to use his forefinger to bring the lit end ofthe slow match to contact with the touch hole. He could now useboth hands to control his weapon and maintain his aim, and onlyone finger was needed to fire. As Claude Blair points out, this was“an economy of effort that has not been improved on to date.”13

It was at this very moment that the modern firearm was created;although weapons of the period do not bear more than a passing re-semblance to today’s assault rifles, the firearm now had a barrel,weapon furniture (the wooden stock, and perhaps a fore end), and afiring mechanism. The sighting method was still rudimentary, withperhaps only a barleycorn foresight and no rear sight, but the basicsof the firearm were laid down for further development. It took an-other 300 years or so before the rifle was born, and the main prob-lems facing soldiers and weapon makers were to produce better andmore reliable firing mechanisms, make effective sighting systems,and explore in what way reloading could be made quicker and easier.

During the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries there was a defi-nite social structure that was reflected in the military forces of the

6 RIFLES

period. There were no such things as standing armies, rather thegatherings of servants of kings and nobles who took the field eitherfor conquest or defense.14 The higher the man’s social standing, thebetter equipped he was. Knights, at the top of the tree, held sway onthe battlefield for a long period, until the Welsh archers in Englishservice at Crécy showed what a clothyard arrow could do to armedmounted men. The revolution in military affairs caused by this de-feat of the French knights came about at the same time as thefirearm was going through its earliest development.

The infantryman (to use a loose term) was becoming the most ef-fective element on the battlefield, and when his efforts were com-bined with effective artillery and coordinated cavalry, a new era ofwarfare would dawn. However, firearms were still extremely slow toload and reload, difficult to aim, prone to the effects of weather (un-like cutting weapons and arrows)—in short, a lot needed to be donebefore the firearm was to become the only infantry weapon.

The first important development had been the mechanical meansof firing the weapon. A second development was the realization thatthe wooden stock, originally no more than an extension behind thefirearm for convenience, could be adapted to allow the firer to placethe rear end of the wood against his shoulder. This meant that therecoil of the weapon could be better controlled; previously there wasno resistance to the recoil, and the firearm could and would moveuncontrollably on discharge. The idea probably originated with thefitting of a hook fitted to weapons used for wall defense. To controlrecoil this hook was placed over a wall or other firm point, so thatrecoil did not throw the weapon about too much, which otherwiseled to spoiling the aim and almost certainly to a degree of warinessamong gunners who were using the piece.

The development in the firearm field was to take the stock or buttof the weapon and not merely make it suitable for fitting into thefirer’s shoulder but to bend the angle of the stock so that the barrellay in the line of sight from firer to target. This idea led to the devel-opment of the arquebus (or harquebus), but this occurred a littlelater in the timeline.

The invention of the matchlock led to refinements, and soon thesear lock appeared. In this system a spring was introduced to thelock; the spring was linked to the cock and was under pressure whilethe weapon was loaded and cocked, ready to fire. When the triggerwas pressed the spring forced the cock and its slow match into con-tact with the touch hole and the weapon fired. The first matchlockillustration is in a German manuscript of 1411.1 5 The spring lockappears around 1470, and searlock mechanisms survived until the


early seventeenth century. In addition, some weapons were fittedwith a pivoted, hand-operated pan cover in metal, which protectedthe priming powder, and had the added advantage that a gun couldnow be carried loaded and primed for use. The touch hole was alsoaltered, in that it was drilled from the side of the barrel and not fromthe top, as had been the standard in the days of hand firing.

So toward the end of the fifteenth century the firearm could befired by one finger, could be carried loaded and ready to fire, and thestock was developing toward the modern form. The weapon couldbe sighted along the barrel and aimed with some degree of accuracyas rear sights were introduced, and recoil was contained by thefirer’s body through his shoulder. There is documentary evidence ofthese new stocks,1 6 which were often called Landsknecht stocks(Landsknecht Kolbe) due to the frequency with which they are seenin illustrations of the Landsknechts, the mercenary infantry of thesixteenth century.

THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY

Up to the sixteenth century the majority of firearms produced hadbeen intended for use by the common man, the pressed infantry ofthe medieval period. The fact that this weapon had given him supe-

8 RIFLES

The matchlock firing system. In this example there is a spring that forces the cock and match into the priming pan. Here the trigger lever compresses the springwhen the weapon is fired. The movement of the cock depends upon the pressure

applied by the firer. Courtesy of David Westwood.

riority over his social superiors had not gone unnoticed, especiallyamong the social superiors who were threatened by this new armand, by inference, those who wielded it. However, the sixteenth cen-tury brought the invention of the first really mechanical firingmethod, whereby simple pressure on the trigger set in motion achain of events that caused the weapon to fire. This was the wheellock.

The introduction of the wheel lock brought with it an increase inthe stature of the gunsmith. Previously he was regarded merely assomeone who could forge metal and make tubes with it, to build thebarrels of the earlier firearms. Now he began to attract the status ofa clock maker, a far higher calling than heretofore. He became anengineer in miniature, not just the wielder of a large hammer.

The wheel lock works in the same way as a Zippo lighter. A pieceof iron pyrite (the flint) creates sparks by being in contact with awheel that is forced to rotate mechanically. The sparks created takethe place of the match in the matchlock, and the weapon is fired.The illustration above shows the principle by which it worked. Toset up the wheel lock the firer had to wind up the lock with a key,which coiled the chain around the wheel. The free end of the chainwas under tension from the spring so that when the trigger waspressed, the spring forced the chain to rotate the wheel. This in turncaused the serrated wheel to strike sparks from the flint to fire theweapon.

The illustration shows a typical wheel lock and the following oneshows it in some detail. The iron pyrite (the flint) was held betweenthe jaws of the cock. The two bridles hold in the wheel from bothsides of the lock and the inner bridle also supports the mainspring,which is a substantial V-shaped spring. The weapon is first loaded


The Wheel Lock Principle. Courtesy of David Westwood.

with powder, wadding, and ball from the muzzle. Once this has beenrammed down the weapon is ready to prime. To do this the lockchain has to be wound round the wheel with a key applied to thespindle of the wheel. Once the chain is tight the cock is moved to itscocked position as it is linked directly to the wheel. Then the pan isprimed. To fire the weapon the trigger is pressed. The chain ispulled from the wheel spindle by the mainspring, which in turn ro-tates the wheel. This causes the serrated wheel to spark the flint,and the weapon discharges.

This remarkable improvement in technology was invented at theend of the fifteenth century, probably by Leonardo da Vinci. Draw-ings in his manuscripts17 show a helical mainspring and a gun lock.A reconstruction of the Leonardo device worked (with some modifi-cations), tending to prove that the drawing was a design, not an il-lustration of something he had seen. What also seems very certain isthat although Leonardo may have invented the principle, putting itinto practical working order was done by the Nuremberg clockmaker Johann Kiefuss (or Kühfuss). In any event, in 1507 an Italiancardinal was sent to Germany to obtain “a gun of the type that ig-nites with stone.”18 A more primitive example of the same principleis to be seen in the Monk’s gun, which has a pull slide to activatethe metal-against-flint operating system.

Perhaps the most important social repercussion of the inventionof the wheel lock was due to its high cost. This meant that clientswith money were needed to patronize and buy it from the gun-smiths who made it. This meant the growing middle class and thearistocracy were the only people with the money to buy such a de-vice; in turn, they were more interested in hunting and shootingand would certainly not stand in a firing line in time of war. So itwas that soldiers in the field were, for the most part, left withmatchlocks, while their betters were engaged in the chase with farbetter equipment.

Another social effect was that with the invention of the wheellock, weapons could be carried about the person, concealed fromthe general view. In 1517 Emperor Maximilian I banned “self-striking handguns that ignite themselves” and then banned all man-ufacture and use of such firearms within the empire.1 9 We a p o n swere not only improving, but the criminal classes were armingthemselves, which the emperor was not prepared to allow. The sameproblem emerged in Italy, and the Duke of Ferrara issued an ord-nance in 1522 banning the carrying of arms in the streets of his city,especially “stone or dead fire guns.”20

10 RIFLES

The wheel lock survived throughout the period from 1540 to1600, and during this time German gunmakers acquired a reputa-tion that spread throughout Europe. Their fine quality and crafts-manship recommended them to all the courts and the gentry, whosewheel-lock sporting guns are still to be seen today in many Euro-pean museums and collections. Interestingly, one improvement thatdid not catch on, despite its obvious value, was the self-spanningwheel lock. In this mechanism, the action of pulling back the cockalso caused the chain to be pulled round the wheel, thus removingthe need for the separate action of winding the wheel with a key. Itseems that the complexity of the device was beyond most gun-smiths, and few examples were made, or indeed survive. There is anexample of this action, made by M. Kubík, which was in the Vo j e n-ské Historické Muzeum (the Military Museum) in Prague in1 9 5 6 .2 1

Military use of weapons fitted with wheel-lock mechanisms wasstrictly limited. Cost was one factor, and the complexity of themechanism was the other. Swedish infantry were issued wheel-lockmuskets in 1620,22 and troops in the reign of Louis XIV of France


Details of the Wheel Lock. Courtesy of David Westwood.

were also given such weapons. Infantry at that time were notori-ously uneducated and badly trained, and this lock was far too com-plicated. In addition, there were dangers of accidental ignition if theweapon was dropped, and the weapon was actually prohibited forthe Austrian Army.

There was a great need for a simpler, more robust firing mecha-nism. The problem with simplification as far as the suppliers of mil-itary equipment is concerned is that they earn less, but the problemwas overcome about the middle of the sixteenth century with thesnaphance mechanism.

THE SNAPHANCE

This development appeared in 15472 3 and was certainly a firingmechanism using flint and steel, but one in which the flint strikesthe steel and is not worked on by a rotating wheel. The origins of thesystem are not clear, but the principle of operation clearly opens theway for the flintlock to come. Various weapons survive fitted withsnaphance (or snaphaunce) locks, which were so simple that mili-

12 RIFLES

The snaphance. This simplified mechanism was a great step forward in firearmsdesign, yet gets little mention. Essentially, when the cock is pulled back, it compressesthe mainspring, and when far enough back, the sear is locked into the lock plate to

keep the cock in its cocked position. Pressure on the trigger releases the sear and thecock is thrown forward by the power of the compressed main spring, which causes

the flint to strike the steel and make the sparks to fire the weapon. Also visible is theseparately made sliding pan cover, which prevents wind and rain from disturbing

the priming powder in the pan. Courtesy of David Westwood.

tary weapons could be fitted with the new system at a cost that wasfar lower than the equivalent wheel lock. The mechanism was sosimple that it needed few, if any, repairs, which recommended it toboth soldiers and their generals. This mechanism was to lead di-rectly to the flintlock system of the seventeenth century, which re-mained in use until well into the nineteenth century.

THE FLINTLOCK

The principle of the flintlock is remarkably similar to that of thesnaphance, and because it was such a successful design, a numberof derivatives were evolved. However, it is important to look at thebasic design to see how it worked.

The essentials of the mechanism are the same as those for thesnaphance, but there are a few refinements. The most importantchange is that the steel and the pan cover are made in one piece.When the cock flies forward under spring pressure the flint scrapesdown the face of the steel to make the sparks, and at the same timethe pressure of the flint against the steel forces the steel backenough to uncover the pan. This enables the spark to get to thepriming powder and fire the weapon.

The use of the term “flintlock” as synonymous for “snaphance” isnot a real error, for both mechanisms use the same principle to fire a


The Flintlock. Courtesy of David Westwood.

weapon. Flint is scraped on steel to produce a spark. However, thestandard term “flintlock” became current quickly and was in vogueby 1683,2 4 although strict adherence to the definition that asnaphance had separate steel and pan cover cannot be objected to.

Nevertheless, the flintlock had arrived, and it was here to stay un-til well into the nineteenth century. Various forms of the flintlockexisted,25 but they need not concern the narrative now, for it is timeto look at other developments that had arrived during the history ofthe firearm up to the arrival of the flintlock.

Gunmakers are inventive people, and even in the days of thewheel lock they had noticed that archers had a trick or two up theirsleeves worth thinking about. One of these tricks was to fletch anarrow so that in the air it would rotate about its longitudinal axisand thereby gain stability in flight. It seems possible that rifling wasfirst introduced to firearms at the end of the fifteenth century, andthere is a questionable earlier example in colonial America: EmperorMaximilian’s rifle of between 1498 and 1508.26

Rifling consists of cutting away the interior of the barrel of afirearm so as to form spiral grooves upon its surface. The aim of thisexercise is, as the bullet goes down the barrel under the impulse ofthe propellant, to put spin onto the bullet when it emerges into theair beyond the muzzle. The spin preserves the longitudinal axis of thebullet and thereby achieves more accurate fire. With a round musketball, however, especially when deformed by ramming from the muz-zle, the practicality of this is debatable. Later, when bullets wereloaded at the breech and forced by gas pressure to expand at the rearand so engage with the rifling, rifling began to have a real effect, es-pecially after the conoidal bullet was invented. In sporting and targetweapons of the time the effect was felt, but minimally without doubt,for a round ball has little in the way of an axis in any direction whenit is spinning about after emergence from the muzzle.

Sights had developed, too, and now both a front sight and rearsight were fitted, but they were fixed sights that did no more thanconcentrate the attention of the musketeer toward his target. Thefact that musketry targets in battle were probably no more than 50yards away at this time really negates the value of these sights, butthey may have had some morale-raising effect.

The furniture of weapons, the woodwork surrounding the barreland fitted to the rear of the lock and the end of the barrel, was nowrecognized as very important to the firer. Barrel furniture savedhands from getting burned, and the butt and small of the butt en-

14 RIFLES

abled recoil to be absorbed and the right hand to have a firm grip sothat the forefinger could operate the trigger. By the time of arrival ofthe flintlock musket, firearms had assumed the general shape oftwentieth-century rifles, although the very latest rifles are far re-moved from any conventional appearance.

From the point of view of the man in the field, the arrival on themilitary scene of the flintlock meant that he was at last free of thematchlock forever and had a reasonably reliable lock with which tofire his weapon in battle. The cost of the flintlock in comparisonwith the wheel lock meant that armies could reequip en masse, andweapons could even be retrofitted with the flintlock, although thisseems not to have been necessary. Quartermasters now had to pro-vide flints in large quantities, after they had established where tobuy them.

The flints used27 were received from the quarries covered with athick layer of lime clay, which had to be washed off. Once dry, theknapping process produced a flint for use, with its top edge a sharppoint and the bottom edge shaped like a chisel. Flints were usablefor about fifty shots, after which they were thrown away. The Frenchgot their flints from the Département Cher in central France, andthey were prized in both Europe and the United States. In Englandquarries near Brandon in Suffolk supplied flints, while in A u s t r i aflints were bought from Transylvania, the Tyrol, and Italy.

The method of loading the weapon also developed in the lifetimeof the firearm. The first method had been simple: pour powder intothe muzzle, load a ball with a patch and ram it down, put a littlepowder into the pan, and the weapon was ready. Wheel-lock users inthe English civil war of the 1650s had improved methods: woodencartridges were preloaded with the right amount of powder, the plugwas taken off the cartridge, the powder poured as before, the ballloaded, and all was ready. Then came the paper composite in the lastthirty years of the seventeenth century. The ball and powder werecontained in a paper twist, and the musketeer bit off the bottom ofthe cartridge (hence the well-known phrase “bite the bullet”). Thisexposed the powder, a small amount of which was poured into thepan, the rest into the barrel. The ball, wrapped roughly in the paper,was then rammed into the barrel. The paper thus served two pur-poses: it contained one round of ammunition ready for use (but witha very short shelf life), and it then acted as the wadding for the bul-let. It had the further advantage of being self-consuming, in that itwas burned along with the powder when the weapon was fired.28


One task for the infantryman with a smoothbore musket was thathe had to make his own cartridges. King Louis XV in 1738 orderedthat the cartridge paper had to be unsized paper and contain acharge of 9 grains (5 drams) of powder and a ball of 28 grains (justunder 1 ounce). This procedure had been used for many decades tomake up each cartridge and had been basically unaltered since thedays of the matchlock.

Interestingly, each man was limited in the number of rounds hewas allowed to carry, despite the fact that he made his own. Fusiliersin the French Army during the Thirty Years’ War carried 18 rounds,the Prussian Imperial Infantry had 40 rounds in 1684, while theFrench infantry had 10. Prussian Imperial Dragoons had 24 roundsin 1740. This shortage of ammunition led to battle shortages, and atMollwitz in 1741 the Prussian infantry had to get spare ammunitionfrom the pouches of the dead and wounded. At the Battle of Torgauboth sides ran out of ammunition, and even during the NapoleonicWars there were still ammunition shortages.

It has already been noted that as fouling built up in the barrels ofthe muskets, it became more difficult to reload. One way in which itwas thought this could be alleviated was by cutting two groovesdown the barrel in a straight line, so that fouling would be concen-trated away from the main barrel, allowing better reloading; this wasthe principle of the Brunswick rifle. Unfortunately it was only par-tially successful.

ENDNOTES

1. Frances Gies and Joseph Gies, Cathedral, Forge, and Water WheelTechnology and Invention in the Middle A g e s . New York: HarperCollins,1994, pp. 204ff.

2. J. K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of A s k a b a n . L o n d o n :Bloomsbury, 1999, p. 34.

3. It is possible that knowledge of Chinese firearms and gunpowder ar-rived in Europe via Russia. There is archaeological evidence to prove thatthe Chinese had cannons by the thirteenth century. See Arnold Pa c e y,Technology in World Civilization: A Thousand Year History. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press, 1990.

4. Roger Bacon, Epistolae de Secretis Operibus Artis et Naturae et deNullitate Magiae, circa 1257.

5. Gies and Gies, Cathedral, p. 247.6. The term “firearm” will be used in the text to signify handheld

16 RIFLES

weapons of all types up to the appearance of the rifled weapon, when “ri-fle” will be used.

7. See T. F. Tout, in “Firearms in England in the Fourteenth Century.”English Historical Review 26 (1911): 666–702.

8. Ibid.9. Petrarch notes: “These instruments [firearms or cannon] were a few

years ago very rare . . . but now they are become as common and familiar asany other kind of arms. So quick and ingenious are the minds of men inlearning the most pernicious arts.” De Remediis, Book I, dialogue 99.

10. Iij canones paruos vocatos handgunnes.11. Now at the Bodleian Library, Oxford, England, as MS. Christ

Church College, Oxford, 92, f.70v.12. Roger Bacon, Opus Tertium, circa 1257.13. Roger Blair, “Early Firearms,” in Po l l a r d ’s History of Fi r e a r m s , e d .

Claude Blair. New York: MacMillan, 1983.14. The first standing armies appeared in the fifteenth century in

France (1445), Burgundy (1471), and Venice (1479). See J. R. Hale, Warand Society in Renaissance Europe 1450–1620. Leicester, England: Leices-ter University Press, 1985, p. 65. The situation 100 years later was the op-posite due to tactics becoming far more complex.

15. MS 3069, Austrian National Museum, Vienna.16. Diebold Schilling, Berne Chronicle (vars edns), 1474–1483.17. Codex Atlanticus, Ambrosiana Library, Milan, fo.56 v.b. There is also

some evidence of a similar device of French origin. See Zeitschrift für His-torische Waffenkunde 13 (1932–1934): 226–227, which gives details of awheel lock from about 1540 in the Real Armeria, Madrid.

18. C. Blair and J. F. Hayward, “Die Rechnungs-bücher des KardinalsIppolito d’Este im Staatsarchiv Modena.” Waffen-und Kostumkunde 1 9(1962–1964): 187–188.

19. Letter to the Emperor from the Ausschuss Landtag Innsbruck, rec-ommending against such weapons as being helpful to criminals by virtue oftheir easy concealment about the person (mentioned in Arne Hoff, Feuer-waffen. Ein Waffenhistorisches Handbuch. Braunschweig: Brunswick,1969, p. i.)

20. “Dead,” of course, means guns that need no live fuse or match tofire them.

21. References like this that carry the epithet “was in . . .” are caused bythe many changes that have happened in Europe since the beginning ofthe twentieth century. Their significance is that the author has traced theexistence of the examples to the specified place and time but has been un-able to ascertain their present whereabouts.

22. Jaroslav Lugs, Firearms Past and Present. London: Grenville, 1973(English reprint), p. 24.

23. From evidence in A. Angelucci, Catalogo della Armeria Reale, Turin1890, p. 421, where the author quotes a Florentine ordinance of 1547


mentioning weapons fucile. There is also a Swedish reference in Åke Mey-erson, Stockholms Bössmakerei, Stockholm 1936, p. 10, n. 21, to snap-plÅs.

24. Sir James Turner. Pallas Armata. London: Paul’s Church Yard, 1639.25. Such as the Baltic lock, the Netherlands lock, the Spanish lock (or

“Miquelet” lock), and the Italian lock.26. This weapon is in the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.,

and has a single-headed eagle painted on the stock, coat of arms of Maxi-milian I between the dates noted. However, the 12 faint grooves at themuzzle cannot be proved to go the length of the barrel, leaving this piece asdubiously the first rifle.

27. The flint was silex pyromachus and was bought from quarries inround or oval pieces. They had to be left to dry out slowly, otherwise theybecame brittle, and they were then knapped to form them for fitting toflintlocks. The operation was so simple that an artisan could produce be-tween 2,000 and 4,000 per day.

28. Combustion of charge and wadding was, however, never perfect, andbarrel residues built up until weapons could not be loaded with ball be-cause of these deposits. This problem has never been completely solved, al-though today barrel residue is of very little importance. In the day of themusket, however, it was significant, especially as there was no way ofcleaning the barrel entirely, as it was closed at the breech and so inaccessi-ble to a cleaning rod. The detailed procedure was: Fold a sheet of paperinto a trapezium 6mm x 12mm x 15cm. Then take a round stick 19cm longand 16mm in diameter, one end of which has a cavity large enough to takeone-third of the ball. Lay the stick with the ball on the end on the paper sothat the ball rests 13cm from the main base. Then wrap the paper roundthe stick, holding the ball in place, and with the right hand finish wrappingthe cartridge. Remove the stick and place the cartridge in a bronze cylinderin one of a row of hemispherical cavities. Pour the powder into the casesusing a funnel, and shake to settle the powder. Close with a double twist.See Jean Boudriot, Armes à Feu Françaises, Modèles d’Ordonnance, in theseries Modèles Reglementaires, 1717–1836, Paris, 1961–1963.

18 RIFLES

C H A P T E R 2

Ball, Bullet, Powder, and Cartridge:

The Development of the Propellant and the Projectile

THE MUSKET BALL

The first reference to musket balls is to “pellets” in an English docu-ment.1 One can assume musket balls were meant. The original mus-ket ball was a spherical lead ball in approximately the caliber of theweapon that fired it. Both metallurgy and mensuration were some-what crude arts in the fourteenth century, but it seems that ball wasusually made slightly smaller than weapon caliber to allow easyloading.

The lead balls were made by melting lead (and its impurities) andthen pouring the molten lead into molds. This process could bedone almost anywhere there was a fire, because lead has a low melt-ing point.2 Bullet molds are first mentioned in the EnglishWardrobe Accounts (records of state) in circa 1375, and the moldsmentioned were made of brass. In 1497 a list of military stores sentto Scotland included six “moldes of stone for castying of pellettes.”These were for the casting of shot for the “hakebusses of iron,”which were another part of the inventory.

By the reign of King Henry VIII every weapon was accompaniedby a bullet mold (and powder flask), and in 1512 a merchant sup-

19

plied 420 handguns with 420 “botelles [powder flasks] and moldesfor the same.” Recovered items from the wreck of the Mary Rose in-cluded a few bullet molds made of soapstone, a soft, easily carvedstone that was resistant to heat. Each mold consisted of a block ofsoapstone that had been cut in half, with a spherical cavity cut in-side. The top half of the mold had a channel cut to the top hemi-sphere of the mold, through which the lead was poured. When cool,the two halves of the mold were pulled apart and flashing removedfrom the shot produced.

Later molds were made with two hinged arms, which closed toform the mold. In the seventeenth century molds were still normallymade to cast one shot, but one example3 from France molded fourshots at once. Sprue or flashing cutters also became standard onbullet molds to cut away extruded lead that formed at the joints ofthe two halves of the mold.

In the nineteenth century, as engineering perfected its tech-niques, more accurate fitting of the two halves was provided in man-ufacture and the caliber of the ball more accurately represented.But by the middle of the nineteenth century a radical change in bul-let form had taken place, and bullet molds were made to allow theproduction of cylindro-conoidal and Minié bullets. Further, as engi-neering standards rose, the calibers of weapons became standard-ized, and one mold would serve any number of weapons.

The history of the lead ball is bedeviled by the fact that a roundball has no axis; when fired, it either spun or it did not, but what-e v e r, the trajectory of the ball was affected by chance as well aswind, range, and propellant power: they were really nothing morethan high-speed stones. The balls were loaded with a patch wrappedaround them. This was to fill the gap between the barrel wall andthe slightly undersized ball. The ball was undersized for one goodreason: if made to barrel size, only the first round would load easily;thereafter, fouling would make the process more difficult, and aftertwo or three shots the weapon would be unusable. Some attemptswere made to reduce fouling by waxing bullets, or soaking patchesin wax, but unless the whole patch was completely consumed on fir-ing (and most of the time even paper wadding was not burned outeither), fouling was certain to occur.

Patches were designed to be squeezed between ball and barrel onloading, allowing the ball to pass down the barrel easily, and patcheswere often greased or lubricated to make this even easier. They alsohad the advantage that once the weapon was loaded, the ball wouldnot roll out of the barrel if the weapon was pointed downward.

20 RIFLES

On firing the powder flash set fire to the patch as well as ex-pelling the ball, and the burning patch was flung out of the muzzle.This augmented the already large amount of smoke generated whenmuzzle-loading black-powder (another generally accepted term forgunpowder) weapons were fired. Problems could arise, of course, ifthe patch was too large or of the wrong material, which could makeit impossible to load the weapon. Loading in general often became agreat problem, and one report noted that “the force required to ramdown the ball being so great as to render a man’s hand too unsteadyfor accurate shooting.”4 The flaming patch could in itself be a dan-ger if weapons were fired at times of drought, as the patch would setfire to vegetation when it came out of the muzzle.

One of the problems that faced the makers of muzzle-loadingweapons was accuracy. The round bullet had to be made and loadedperfectly to ensure a true trajectory, but if the ball was in contactwith the barrel on one side as it passed up to the muzzle, the shotwould be affected in the same way as a golfer hooks or pulls hisshot. It was understood that the fit of ball to barrel had to be exact ifaccuracy was to follow, but this was negated by the requirement thata military weapon had to be extremely easy to load and reload, evenwhen there was fouling present in the barrel.

The military muzzle-loading rifle initially suffered from the basicproblem that even a rifled weapon could not fundamentally increasethe accuracy of a round ball, although it could improve its range.Some weapons under testing actually exhibited less accuracy whenrifled than the contemporary smoothbores they were intended to re-place. Reloading was a much more difficult task with rifling addingto the resistance in the barrel. Hammers were issued to help the ri-fleman to reload his weapon, with the obvious result of damage tothe barrel from the rammer when repeatedly hit by this tool, and tothe rammer itself.

One way to solve the problem was to issue ball that was subcal-iber but to have the ball rammed hard so that it deformed to fit therifling when fired. This cut down on windage5 initially but led toproblems of accuracy with what was a deformed ball, which wouldbehave erratically once it emerged from the muzzle. The answer wasa cylindrical bullet, which would gain accuracy from the spin im-parted by the rifling, and many designs of such bullets appeared. Be-fore this various gunsmiths worked toward making the bullet expandto fit the rifling when the weapon was fired.

Ezekiel Baker’s rifle was the first issued to the British Army aftertests in 1800 when his rifle beat all European and U.S. makes of-

BALL, BULLET, POWDER, AND CARTRIDGE 21

fered for testing. However, his rifle fired a round ball and was super-seded in 1835 by the Brunswick rifle. The Brunswick attempted toovercome fouling problems by having only two grooves and a beltedbullet.6 Even this design could not overcome the problem of fouling,and breech loading was seen to be the only answer.

Another attempt to overcome windage, similar to hard ramming,was that of Gustave Delvigne,7 whose carabine à tige appeared in1842. The original design appeared in 1826.8 The barrel rear had asubcaliber chamber in which the propellant charge lay. The spheri-cal ball was then rammed down onto the shoulders of the powderchamber. This deformed the bullet that cut windage but still left theproblem of the external ballistics of a deformed projectile.

The answer lay in a bullet that was easy to load but that expandedon firing so that it was gripped by the rifling not merely on a randompart of its surface but on a cylinder of lead that would allow the ri-fling to impart spin; the form of the bullet would bring its own sta-bility in the air. Gunmaker William W. Greener of Birmingham,England, solved at least part of this problem.

The Greener bullet was an oval ball that was 1.5 times longerthan the weapon caliber, with a flat end and a perforation nearly allthe way through it. In the perforation was fitted a cast-metal plugwith a head like a round-topped button. It could be loaded with theplug above or below the ball, because the pressure or accelerationwere both sufficient to push the plug into the ball, expand it, andmake it a sure fit in the rifling. Greener’s trick had been to make an

22 RIFLES

Delvigne’s System. Although this allows expansion of the ball, it also distorts it a great deal at the expense of accuracy and range.

Courtesy of David Westwood.

oval bullet and to make sure itwould expand, no matter whichway it was loaded into the weapon.

Accuracy was tested in A u g u s t1835 at Tynemouth in England.The report on the test confirmedthe value of this invention andadded that the bullet allowed riflesto be loaded as easily as muskets,yet range and accuracy were as fora rifle. When bullets were recov-ered after the test, they were seento have rifling groove marks firmlyengraved into their surfaces, proofthat they had been successfullyforced to fill the whole barrel, andnot just to skate lightly over the ri-fling lands or expand completelyinto the grooves.

However, this idea was rejected by the War Office on the groundsthat the bullet was compound.9 H o w e v e r, the British governmentawarded Captain C. E. Minié of the French Army £20,000 for virtu-ally the same invention, which was adopted.10

A number of other attempts to solve the windage problem ap-peared between the appearance of Greener’s bullet and the Minié.In 1833 Lieutenant Colonel Poncharra of the French artillery pro-posed seating a standard bullet in a sabot, a wooden cylindrical plug,together with a greased patch. It was found that the wooden sabotwas smashed by the rammer and the idea was rejected.11

In 1844 a Colonel Louis E. de Thouvenin published his inven-tion, in which there was no subcaliber chamber like that of Delvi-gne, but instead a round steel plug was inserted at the breech end ofthe barrel, around which the powder charge could lie. This breechplug had its axis parallel to the bore and could be adjusted in lengthso that it created a chamber just big enough for the powder charge.The bullet was then rammed down onto this tige, or anvil, where itexpanded. Once again, the problem was that although there wassome engagement in the rifling, it was not enough, and the bullet’sflight in the air was erratic. Nevertheless, this system was proved toexpand the bullet more effectively than Delvigne’s method, and theFrench Army adopted it in 1846.


Greener’s Expanding BulletCourtesy of David Westwood.

By 1845 Lieutenant ColonelJohn Jacob of the Indian Army12

had built for himself a rifle rangewith targets at up to 2,000 yards.He was experimenting with riflesmade by his London gunmakersto his own specifications, firingcylindro-conoidal bullets withfour studs on the sides to fit af o u r-groove rifling system. Hisbullets were effective out to2,000 yards, and he even de-signed an explosive bullet for theweapon. However, the East Indiagovernment rejected his pro-posal,13 but he nevertheless wentahead and formed his own regi-ment equipped with his rifle.

In 1853 Jacob began whatwere near official trials of hisown rifle. He paid for everythinghimself and sent reports when hefelt like it to the British govern-ment offices in Bombay. Jacobhad spent many years getting tothis stage, and his main aim wasto do away with the belted balland two-grooved barrel of theBrunswick rifle. He wanted eas-ier loading in a four-grooved bar-rel firing a double-belted ball. Hefound that the results of the firstfirings exceeded his expectations,and in 1846 he put his idea tothe government of India. The predictable result was rejection, onthe grounds that the British Army at home used the Brunswick, and“what was good enough for the royal army1 4 was good enough forthe Hon. East India Company.”15

Jacob was not to be deterred, however, and went on to design abullet with projections on the outside that were to fit the rifling.

Jacob was working toward the cylindro-conoidal bullet by stages,and the eventual form of the bullet for his rifle is shown in the illus-tration.

24 RIFLES

Thouvenin’s Tige. Courtesy of David Westwood.

In April 1856 Jacobs was allowed to show his rifle to the com-mander in chief in Bombay, and then to the Indian government, anda contemporary report said that “at ranges from 300 to 1,200 yards,the flight of the shell16 was always point foremost, and the elevationat extreme range inconsiderable.”17 Jacobs continued with his exper-iments (no doubt his area of India was free of native uprising at thetime), and he went on testing until “he found that his bullets wereeffective up to 2,000 yards range, with a penetration of four inchesin hard Indian brick, nearly like stone; and almost twelve inches at1,000 yards. He now saw, beyond all question, that he had obtainedboth the scientific and the practical data for a first class militaryarm.”18

What Jacobs had done was to produce a very special rifle, whichfired a bullet that allowed no windage whatever. This was perhapsthe finest weapon of its time but was little suited to military use ingeneral because the era of the muzzle loader was almost over. Fur-t h e r, the rifle was so strongly built that it was extremely costly tomanufacture, but the results in 1858 showed that it was accurate inthe extreme, and, fired at 500 yards, of 36 rounds fired “32 werehits, 4 were bull’s eyes, 2 on the edge of the bull’s eye, and about adozen clustered within six inches of it.”19

In 1845 and thereafter, the British Army was still issuing the En-glish Pattern 1842 musket. Testing at Chatham showed that thissmoothbore musket failed to hit a target at all at 250 yards, and evenat 150 yards only 50 percent hits were achieved. Even after this


A page from Daw’s Gun Patents showing the design of Jacob’s cylindrical bullets. George H Daw,

Gun Patents, G H Daw, London, 1864.

26 RIFLES

test,20 however, such was the conservative nature of the British es-tablishment (including the War Office) that the Select Committeeof the House of Commons was assured that the maximum range ofthe musket was between 1,600 and 1,800 yards, although no men-tion was made of accuracy. Some of the military was aware of theneed for change, and continental Europe and the United Stateswere all testing rifles with a view to changing over completely fromthe smoothbore musket.

THE MINIÉ BALL

Captain Claude-Étienne Minié had reexam-ined Delvigne’s ideas for a self-expandingbullet. He took the original idea of a hol-low-based bullet and inserted an iron cup.When the bullet was fired the force of thepropellant would ram this cup into the rearof the bullet, forcing it outward symmetri-cally into the rifling grooves, or even intothe barrel walls of a smoothbore weapon.The cup itself sometimes actually blewthrough the head of the bullet, however,but nevertheless the invention was hailed asa most important firearms breakthrough,which indeed it was.

Despite the obvious advantages of theMinié bullet, the French reversed their1849 decision to adopt the Minié in favor of another, rather ineffec-tive, design. The Belgians opted for the Peeter ball, another oddconcoction. Indeed, there were so many different ideas and designsfloating around in Europe at the time that Hans Busk wrote in1860:

There is, amongst other things, much discrepancy of opinion on thequestion of calibre, librating, as it does, between the Swiss as thesmallest (0.41in), and the Swedish or largest, which is .74-inch. Inthe number of grooves there is still great diversity; in Brunswick, Old-enburg, and Russia, the two-grooved rifle is yet in use; in Wurtem-burg, on the other hand, we find one with 12 grooves.

These numbers, 2 and 12, represent the extreme limits in militaryweapons; but the majority of those most in favour do not exceed three

The Minié Ball. Courtesy of David Westwood.


or four grooves. The number most generally adopted is f o u r ; r i f l e swith eight are the next most numerous. With respect to the shape ofthe grooves there is great want of uniformity. In some countries as inEngland, America and Switzerland, the rifles have neither t i g e n o rchamber, and in others they are fitted, as has been seen, with both.This is the case in Prussia and Sardinia. Some rifles, as the Austrian,Belgian and the French have a plug breech fitted with a tige.21

One other style of rifling, even if not thought of as such by the in-v e n t o r, was the oval type patented by John Beaver in England in1825. Charles Lancaster also took some interest in this idea, and hewas ordered to supply carbines with this style of rifling to the RoyalEngineers in 1855. Hexagonal or pentagonal rifling, in which thebarrel was of the selected cross section and twisted along its length,achieved a short period of interest in the 1850s. A rifle designed inthis way by Sir Joseph Whitworth outshot the service weapon of theday and was still hitting targets at 2,000 yards, a range at which theEnfield could offer no competition; range was still the importantfactor in selecting weapons for almost all countries. The bullet was ahexagonal hard lead bullet designed to screw into the barrel whenloaded.

In the mid-1860s all these efforts were superseded by the appear-ance of the first military breech loaders. The next bullet problemsarose for a different reason, and the way to the composite cartridgewas open.

THE COMPOSITE CARTRIDGE

The idea of the all-in-one cartridge was not a new one, even in the1850s, for Gustavus Adolphus, king of Sweden, had already issuedorders in the early 1600s that his army was to carry shot and powderwrapped together in a cartridge. Two hundred years later men werestill biting off the paper to pour the powder, then ramming paperand ball into the barrel.

One development, which originated in the United States and waslater emulated by Heckler and Koch in the late twentieth century,was the self-consuming cartridge. A number of inventors, includingSamuel Colt and Christian Sharps, laid claim to the idea, but nomatter who had the idea first, it was a good one. If the whole of thepowder envelope was consumed at firing, no residue would be left toadd to the fouling of the barrel. The paper wrapper for the cartridge

was therefore soaked in nitrates, making it very combustible. Thewhole cartridge was dropped into the muzzle (or the chamber ofbreech loaders) and then rammed with rod (or finger). Only ignitionwas now needed for the whole item to be consumed. The one prob-lem was the perennial one: paper cartridges were easily damaged. Tosolve this Sharps came up with the linen cartridge, fired from theSharps breech-loading rifles and carbines. The cartridge was loadedwhole into the breech, and on closing the breech block, it then cutinto the rear of the cartridge, exposing the propellant powder. Toavoid powder spillage the muzzle needed to be lowered, but this wasnot difficult. When so loaded, the Maynard tape primer provided in-stant ignition, and so the process of reloading was much simpler and

28 RIFLES

Early Cartridge Cases. Courtesy of David Westwood.

straightforward than it had been. Naturally, this Sharps systemproved very popular among civilians and the military.

The composite cartridge could not have appeared without twothings: there was a need for a compact primer, and metallurgy andengineering needed to be able to produce an effective cartridgecase. The first problem had been answered with the invention of thepercussion cap, which was easily redesigned to form the primer incartridges. The drawing of brass, perfected by the mid-nineteenthcentury, solved the other problem, although there were many stop-gap products that performed adequately if not magnificently. Thisallowed manufacturers to make a cartridge of metal that combinedi g n i t e r, propellant, and bullet in one unit; this in turn led to im-proved mechanical reloading systems.22

Combustible paper cartridges had been in use for some time andwere first made as a complete item by Johannes Samuel Pauly, whoinvented the brass-headed cartridge. Unfortunately the primer inPauly’s original design was too easily knocked out by handling, andthe cartridge itself was too vulnerable to the elements, but the firststep had been taken toward the composite metal cartridge. By 1829Clement Pottet had invented his metallic cartridge, which had abase depression for a fulminate primer, but this was not perfecteduntil 1855, when Pottet introduced threading into the primerpocket to allow the primer to be screwed into the cartridge.

In the meantime, however, to eliminate problems in handling andfrom the effects of the weather, cartridge designers tried to put theprimer within the body of the cartridge itself, and Casimir Lefau-chaux23 patented his pin-fire cartridge in 1832. This cartridge wasfired by means of the hammer striking a pin set into the cartridge atthe base and was arranged on being struck to come into contactwith the cap that was embedded within the body of the cartridge it-self. The cap was set on the opposite side of the cartridge case to thepin, so that there was firm resistance from cartridge and breechwhen the pin was struck.

Although this type of cartridge survived in use until quite late, itwas superseded by that of Johann Nikolaus (von) Dreyse, who notonly invented the needle gun but also the cartridge to go in it. Thiswas the Dreyse cartridge, in which the primer was fixed at the baseof the bullet, ahead of the propellant charge. The “needle” of the ri-fle was in fact the firing pin, which had to penetrate the propellantcharge completely before it could fire the cartridge. At almost theopposite end of this concept was that of John Hanson and WilliamGolden, who applied for a patent for a cartridge in 1841 with no


30 RIFLES

propellant charge. Their cartridge relied upon the fulminate primerto fire the cartridge and act as the propellant in itself. Due to theformer cartridge having to be fully penetrated before ignition (soonattended by problems as needles bent, weakened, or broke) and thelatter being too weak, they fell by the wayside.

However, once more in France, a new idea surfaced, in which theprimer covered the whole base. This was the Flobert cartridge of1849 (from Nicholas Flobert of Paris) and was in fact the first rim-fire. In no time the Americans appeared on the scene in this field,and Horace Smith and Daniel B. Wesson refined the cartridge sothat there was a distinct rim around the base of the cartridge, withinwhich was contained the primer. This was the first improvement, towhich they then added a propellant charge, lacking in the Flobertdesign, which was, however, entirely suitable for civilian fair groundand so-called “lounge” rifles. This was an exceptional advance, buthad the fault that the strength of the hammer hitting the rim had tobe great enough to compress the cartridge case metal to explode theprimer. For this reason military high-power cartridges could not bemade this way,24 but the principle remains in many small bore .22-inch rifles in use up to today.

The way forward had been shown; the arrival of a paper cartridgewith a brass head into which was fixed a central percussion cap,similar to Pottet’s patent of 1855, was the start of the final develop-ment phase. The cartridge was first introduced in England byGeorge Henry Daw of London and became the type of cartridgeused in the first British general service breech loader, the aptlynamed Snider rifle, invented by the American Jacob Snider andadopted by the British Army for a short period from 1867.

The threads of cartridge design and rifle loading systems weredrawing closer at this period, with all modern military thought beingdevoted to the breech-loading weapon and a suitable cartridge tofire in it. Cartridges of a sort were available, but the primer problemwas twofold: it was not always securely fixed and it was a one-shot-only concept, in that primers could not be reloaded. Further, brasscases were expensive, which meant that government treasuries werehappier with weapons that did not leave large amounts of wastedbrass on ranges or battlefields.

The final step was taken by Charles William Lancaster of En-gland, who produced a drawn metal cartridge,25 followed by GeorgeW. Morse of the United States (who offered a breech loading car-bine to the U.S. Army in 1857, which was underpowered by firing aprimer-only cartridge), and then almost simultaneously by Colonel

Hiram Berdan of the United States (who resigned his commission in1846 to concentrate on firearms design) and Edward MounierBoxer (commissioned into the Royal Artillery in 1849, and forced toresign from the British Army in 1869 after legal wrangles over hispatents). The latter pair of officers designed primers for center-firecartridges with internal “anvils” and soft outer faces, between whichwas the fulminate igniter. The firing pin struck and dented the outerface of the primer, thus compressing the fulminate against the anvil,causing it to ignite the propellant charge via flash holes into the car-tridge case.

THE MODERN MILITARY CARTRIDGE

By the time the British Snider conversion went into manufacture,everything that was needed, if not the method of achieving in-creased accuracy, was known to cartridge designers. The appearanceof drawn metal cases and center-fire primers with reliability madethe dream of the rifle designers a certainty: at last they could be surethat gases would not escape to the rear on firing, because the car-tridge case would act as its own obturator. Further, soldiers couldnow be given complete cartridges to load into their rifles, removingforever the need for separate powder and ball, wadding, and ram-ming. Each individual cartridge just needed to be put into theweapon, and it was ready to use.

Designs for composite metallic cartridges in the hundreds cameto the patent offices of both Britain and the United States. All werebased on this one principle, which was the containment within oneunit of primer, propellant, and bullet, and it is at this stage that pres-ent-day cartridge design stands, with one exception: although aban-


Dreyse and Chassepôt Cartridges. Courtesy of David Westwood.

Dreyse

Chassepôt

doned on the ground of costs, Heckler and Koch designed a self-consuming cartridge that had the bullet wrapped almost entirely bythe powder, which was entirely consumed at firing, removing theneed for extraction of the empty cartridge case and thereby also re-ducing all waste cases.

The design of the bullet has received a great deal of attention inthe last 200 years and has passed from round lead ball to muchmore complex designs that incorporate a metal jacket around aheavier core. The way to the modern bullet was as fraught as that tothe cartridge and bears examination here.

As noted, the original round ball was elongated in the first in-stance by Captain Gustave Delvigne, originally a captain in theFrench Army. In 1841 he announced his development of the cylin-dro-conoidal bullet with a hollow base, which was to be fired in hisown design of rifle, the pillar-breech, publicized in 1842. After theseinventions had been proved to work to an extent, Captain Claude-Étienne Minié took the bullet further, producing it in the ogivalform for which he became famous. The Minié ball needed no tige; itwas designed to expand under the pressure of the propellant gaseson firing and to enlarge itself to fit into the grooves of the riflingvery quickly. To aid expansion, Minié balls were often fitted withbase plugs, which were forced into the base of the bullet on firing,thus aiding bullet expansion. Experiments in various countriesproved that the separate plug often damaged the bullet in theprocess, and it was often done away with in favor of the simple hol-low base, filled with grease to lubricate the bore.

Yet another French officer, Captain Tamisier of the artillery,found out by experiment that the center of gravity of a projectile wasbetter arranged at the front, making the bullet far more effective. Toconcentrate the weight forward he gave his design an ogival nose,and to stabilize the bullet better in flight, because the center of grav-ity was forward, he added three transverse grooves around the bulletwaist. This increased drag on the bullet behind the center of gravity,removing its tendency to roll about its axis in flight.

Various other experiments established the value of the cylindro-conoidal bullet, but it was still made of lead, simply because lead isheavy and easily molded. The development that bullet and cartridgemen were waiting for was the composite cartridge and the breech-loading rifle. Essentially both dreams were fulfilled by the 1850s,even though many of the breech loaders were either weak in theiractions or so complicated that they would never stand the test of ac-

32 RIFLES

tion in the field. Some designs, however, emerged that were sturdyand simple enough to be considered for military use.

One of these was the Snider rifle-musket and its cartridge, one ofthe first composite cartridges ever successful in the field. TheSnider cartridge was basically designed by George Henry Daw ofLondon; it was a modification of the Schneider cartridge he had im-ported from France. (Daw bought the rights to the Schneider de-sign.) However, it was Colonel Edward Mounier Boxer who createdthe actual cartridge, using his own primer design.26

Ten years earlier in the United States a fundamental advance inthe manufacture of cartridges had occurred when Morse’s andBurnside’s cartridges were produced for rifles of their own design.Burnside’s cartridge was, as can be seen from the drawing on page30, conical in shape and designed to be loaded from the front of ahinged breech; it was not a composite cartridge, however, in that itwas fired by the flame from a percussion cap directed through thehole at its base into the propellant charge. The drawing of Morse’scartridge shows it to have been a true composite cartridge, with ac e n t e r-fire primer and anvil. The cartridge was not a militarydesign,27 it is assumed, but it was probably the first of the new gen-eration.

MAJOR TREADWELL’S REPORT

Frankford Arsenal in Philadelphia tested a large number of car-tridges between 1860 and 1873, and the commanding officer wrotea valuable report on the subject (as noted above). In the preamble tothe report the author gives the reason why breech-loading weaponswere not issued to the U.S. Army in the 1850s:

Considerable attention was given to the subject and production ofbreech-loading small-arms in this country some twenty years ago,2 8

and their invention was stimulated by legislative enactment and ap-propriation. It was at that time designed [i.e., intended], however,and for some years later, to produce a suitable arm for mountedtroops; one that was safe and more readily manipulated in the saddlethan the muzzle loading rifle or musket with swivelled or separateramrods, and provided with a cartridge not requiring so great a num-ber of motions in loading and firing.29


Treadwell continues by saying that the real problem of all breech-loading weapons was the closure of the breech after loading, but“paper and linen ammunition had been used” and not until the“adoption of expanding cartridges” could the problem be properlysolved. The Sharps rifle and carbine were “most excellently well-made weapons, and believed by many military authorities to be the

34 RIFLES

Composite Cartridges from Treadwell’s Report. From Maj. T D Treadwell, Metallic Cartridges,

Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1973.

very best breech loader produced for the use of paper or linen car-tridges.” The original version of the Sharps 1848 had a knife edgethat slid across the rear of the breech to cut into the cartridge, ex-posing the propellant to the fire from the percussion cap. Needlessto say, the perfection of the cutoff afforded by the rear of the breechdid not always prevent leakages of flame, especially when theweapon was carelessly handled, fouled, or just getting old.

The report goes on:

For a long time the idea of the g e n e r a l adoption of breech-loadingarms for troops of all services met with almost no encouragementamong military men, and it was not until as late as after the battle ofGettysburgh that it became popular and prevailed in the service. Thisprejudice once overcome, by what may be fairly termed an entire rev-olution of the character of the arms and ammunition, the new breechloaders became rapidly popular, and gained many advocates through-out the A r m y, where their great superiority to the old muzzle-loaders isnow universally recognised and assured. The use of some effectivebreech loaders and magazine arms3 0 had, for some time, popularisedthem for the cavalry, but many of the best infantry and artillery offi-cers were averse to their employment by foot soldiers. A marked con-trast to the two systems was furnished by the Department [of Ord-nance] by the recovery of upwards of 25,000 stands of muzzle-loadingarms from the battlefield at Gettysburg . . . [which] were found to benearly all loaded; some with one, two, three, four, six, and even as manyas twenty rounds of cartridges in the barrel. (emphasis added)

This was good enough reason, it was felt, to provide the soldier witha weapon that could not be loaded twice or more without first firingthe round in the breech.

The solution was already available, and it seems that innate suspi-cion of the new, both within the U.S. Army and at Springfield Ar-mory, kept the new rifles at bay. The Spencer had proved itself, withits rim-fire cartridge, and the Henry had a good reputation, too, anddespite the report, little was done for nearly three decades. Ammu-nition, however, benefited from the need for breech-loadingweapons, and the report contains details of many of the new car-tridges developed up to 1873.

The great step forward was the combination of the primer and thecartridge. This had been done in rim-fire cartridges (as with theSpencer), in pin-fire cartridges (the Lefauchaux), and then the cen-ter-fire cartridge, of which more designs were appearing seemingly


by the week at that time. In England the Snider cartridge had givenway to the smaller-caliber .45-inch (or .443-inch) Martini-Henry ri-fle cartridge, which in makeup was like the Snider cartridge. It was awrapped-metal cartridge (see “Significant Rifles and Rifle Systems”section) with a solid brass base into which the primer was firmlyfixed.

The advantages of a cartridge in which the primer was firmly setin the center of the base, and which did not protrude below the flatsurface of the base, would be of tremendous value to the military.Other advantages were “sure explosion when struck by the point ofthe firing-pin; less fulminate and less strain on the head of the car-tridge; greater security in handling and using under all exigencies ofs e r v i c e . ”3 1 Naturally all cartridges considered for service were putthrough innumerable tests, which Treadwell described in somedetail:

These cartridges have been subjected to the severest tests to demon-strate their capability to resist all accidents, such as smashing up theboxes of ammunition, and even firing into them with bullets. Onlythe cartridges actually impinged upon exploded under such tests,their neighbours being only blackened and not otherwise damaged.The safety of handling and transporting this ammunition in compari-son with that of the old-fashioned kind is vastly in its favour, and therisk attending its carriage is almost nothing. Its greatly superior qual-

36 RIFLES

Boxer and Berdan PrimerSystems. Courtesy ofDavid Westwood.

Boxer

ity to resist exposure of climate, moisture &c., has also been provenby such severe tests that it may be asserted to be practically water-proof. A central and direct blow on the point primed is an essentialand highly important feature of the center-primed cartridge; its gen-eral adoption, and the adaptation of all breech-loading service smallarms to its use, is the best proof of its acknowledged superiority. Sim-ple modifications of the form of the head adapt it to safe use in mag-azine arms, even though the front of one bullet rests on the head ofthe preceding cartridge.32

The actual construction of U.S. service cartridges and of experi-mental cartridges offered for testing varied greatly, but the A m e r i-cans, interestingly, settled on the British Boxer primer system,whereas the British chose the U.S. Berdan system. The differencesbetween the two types of primer are not dissimilar at first glance,but the fundamental differences are that the Boxer anvil is insertedbetween cap and cartridge, whereas the Berdan primer is formedfrom the cartridge case metal itself. When struck, the flame fromthe primer flashes through the vents, igniting the main propellantcharge.

From this point on, very little has been done to improve the basicform of the cartridge. The rim has various forms, and up to the endof World War II, both rimmed (particularly the British .303-inch ri-fle and light machine gun ammunition) and rimless (the German7.92mm and the U.S. .30-inch round especially) were in use. Sincethen, the advent of the assault rifle and self-loading weapons, rim-less cartridges have shot into the lead, because any form of rimmakes loading magazines correctly a matter of difficulty except inthe quietest of situations. Rimmed rounds have a tendency to jam inthe magazine, and are therefore no longer in vogue.

One development that has been of significance has been theadoption by many countries of smaller caliber weapons and ammu-nition. During World War II the Germans developed the assault ri-fle, particularly the StG 44 (see Chapter 7), which was designed to


The Martini-Henry Cartridge. The case is actuallycompressed by twisting the soft casing so that the front part and the ball fit into the breech. Courtesy of David Westwood.

fire a 7.92mm cartridge with a lighter load of propellant. This was toallow controlled automatic fire from the weapons, which were in-tended to be harder-hitting arms than the submachine guns that ap-peared so prolifically during that war. The assault rifle was meant tobe a short- to medium-range rifle, capable of burst-firing whenneeded, ideal for urban and battle-range combat, and never in-tended to be used beyond 300 yards.

The cartridge the Germans designed was the 7.92mm kurz(short), which was identical in many respects to the original full-caliber 7.92mm Mauser round, except that it was only 42.6mm long(compared with 79.7mm), the propellant was 1.58 grams (originally3.5 grams), and the bullet weighed 8.1 grams (originally 12.8grams). What this meant was that infantry had a rapid-firingweapon that fired a lighter cartridge (in all senses: weight, muzzlev e l o c i t y, and muzzle energy) but for which each man could carrymore ammunition, and at battle ranges (which were shortening forthe rifle all the time) he could lay down a curtain of fire against themasses of the Russian infantry opposing him.

This led the Russians, never ones to let a good idea go to waste, todesign the AK range of assault rifles firing the 7.62mm x 39mm car-tridge, the ideal cartridge for an assault weapon. This cartridge andits user weapon are still available, and recent film from Iraq hasshown the AK47 is alive and well and being used there, as well as bymany other nations throughout the world, which is unsurprising re-a l l y, because it is probably the best assault infantry weapon evermade (see Chapter 7).

For many years U.S. ordnance and military men considered thatthe only cartridge that they wanted (as opposed to what theyneeded) was the trusty .30-06,33 the caliber .30 full-bore long-rangerifle cartridge. However, British designers were looking hard at theGerman idea and came up with the 7mm (0.280-inch) rifle. Britishmilitary thought had realized that long-range shooting was a thing ofthe past on the modern battlefield, except for snipers and mediummachine guns. The battlefield of the infantryman extended now onlyto about 300 yards around him. Further, the massed infantry of for-mer battles had to be replaced by small, very mobile units that hadlittle combined firepower except for the machine gun that each sec-tion (squad) carried with it. This meant that more ammunitionneeded to be available to every infantryman of the battlefield, andthe ammunition needed to incapacitate the enemy, not necessarilykill him stone dead with one shot.

Just as the Germans had led the way with shorter assault rifle am-

38 RIFLES

munition, so the British led the way with smaller-caliber cartridges.The British 7mm Enfield rifles were a direct result of German workand first appeared in 1947. The British Army tried cartridges in .25-inch, .27-inch, .30-inch, and .33-inch sizes but eventually selectedan Enfield design for a .270-inch (7mm x 46). This was then dis-carded in favor of the .280-inch (7mm) Enfield cartridge, aroundwhich the revolutionary bullpup design sometimes known as theEM1 and later EM2 were designed.34

In the United States, Eugene Stoner (as chief engineer of the Ar-malite Division of the Fairchild Engine and Airplane Corporation)designed a number of weapons, including his survival rifle for theU.S. Air Force, the AR-5. This fired a .223-inch (5.56mm) cartridgeand was intended for pilots who might need a rifle for survival afterparachuting from a damaged aircraft. The cartridge was a develop-ment of a commercial sporting cartridge, the .222 Remington Spe-cial. This was redesigned and designated the .223 Armalite. TheU.S. Air Force did not adopt the weapon, but the idea was born.

Armalite and Stoner then offered their AR-10 rifle for evaluationby the Infantry Board of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization( N ATO) 7.62mm. It was immediately recognized as a departurefrom standard, being made partly of aluminum alloy and fiberglassand weighing seven pounds. However, it failed to be acceptedagainst what became the M14 rifle, although its promise was great.Stoner also had reservations about the 7.62mm x 51mm NAT Oround that, he claimed,35 was too powerful to be used in a rifle fir-ing at full automatic.

In comparatively little time Stoner then took a concentrated lookat the .22-inch caliber and designed his own slightly enhanced ver-sion for his rifle. The recalibered rifle now became the AR-15, andwhen the U.S. Army adopted it as its issue service rifle, it took itsplace in the ordnance catalog at the next available number as theM16. The caliber was seen by many of the military as so small as tobe of little value to the infantryman on the battlefield, just as manyarguments had ranged against the .280-inch British weapons. Thetest, in Vietnam in particular, seems to prove that the cartridge per-formed well, although there are still some doubts about the stoppingpower of this bullet against determined, advancing men. However,the fact that the cartridge was adopted by NATO caused no small re-sentment in British circles, having had their own .280-inch cartridgerejected by the U.S. Infantry Board as too small a caliber for battle.

This is the situation at the moment: NATO uses the 5.56mm car-tridge (designed originally by Stoner, but modified by Fa b r i q u e


Nationale at Herstal in Belgium), the former Soviet states36 still usethe AK47 with its shortened round, and the rest of the world useseither these cartridges or the old 7.62mm NATO round. Va r i o u sother old calibers are to be seen in odd places, but the mainweapons of the modern military are firing either Russian- or U.S.-designed ammunition.

ENDNOTES

1. English Wardrobe Accounts, circa 1375. These documents are essen-tially inventories of the possessions of the English (later British) Crownand are to be found in the British Museum and the British Public RecordOffice.

2. The melting point of lead in its pure form is 327°C. Chambers Scienceand Technology Dictionary. Edinburgh and New York: Chambers, 1991, p.511.

3. In the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, No. 14.25.1439.4. Report of a Select Committee on Small Arms, (British) War Office,

1852.5. “Windage” is the term for the gap between ball and barrel as the ball

passed up the barrel. Obviously, deforming the ball meant that initiallythere would be little or no windage, but as the ball went toward the muzzle,if it altered its position, windage could occur, and the deformation of theball affected its accuracy significantly.

6. A belted bullet has a circumferential ring of lead that fits into the twogrooves on the Brunswick at the muzzle, and when it is rammed the beltstays in the grooves.

7. Delvigne was a former French Army officer who became a ballisticsexpert. His first weapon was a cap-lock carbine (1827), a cylindro-conoidalbullet (1841), and the Carabine À Tige (1842). His work paved the way forClaude-Étienne Minié.

8. W. W. Greener, The Gun and Its Development. Poole, UK: New Or-chard, 1899, p. 629.

9. This was due to the fact that after firing, the plug sometimes becamedetached from the bullet. Report of Major Walcott who conducted thetests (and see note 6 above). Quoted in Blair.

10. Like many instances in the nineteenth century the matter becameone in dispute, and members of Parliament took up Greener’s case, eventu-ally getting him £1,000, which was acknowledged as for “the first publicsuggestion of the principle of expansion, commonly called the Minié prin-ciple, in 1836.”

11. Other suggestions were also promoted, and a certain amount of dupli-

40 RIFLES

cation occurred. Baron Heurteloup applied for a British patent of his system,which was in fact a direct copy of the essence of the Delvigne invention.

12. At the time commanding the Scinde Horse, later known as Jacob’sHorse. Jacob was later promoted to the rank of general.

13. On the fallacious ground that “the Brunswick, being consideredgood enough for the British Army, was good enough for service in the Hon-ourable East India Company.” Greener, op. cit.

14. A term in use in India for the British regular army, which was sepa-rate from the Indian Army.

15. Quoted in G. H. Daw, Daw’s Gun Patents. London, 1864, p. 55.16. This report concerns Jacob’s rifle shell and exploding bullet, but the

form of this bullet was the same as the inert rifle bullet, and so the report isvalid for this study.

17. Quoted in Daw’s.18. Ibid.19. Ibid., p. 63.20. Report of Experimental Musket Firing Carried on at the Royal Engi-

neer Establishment Chatham Between 8 April & 8 May 1846.21. Hans Busk, The Rifle: And How to Use It. 7th ed., London, 1860, p.

154, quoted in Blair, op. cit.22. See Chapter 3.23. Claude Blair, ed., Pollard’s History of Firearms. (reprint) New York:

MacMillan, 1983, pp. 240ff.24. But rim-fire cartridges were used in the very effective Spencer re-

peating rifle, which saw service in the U.S. Civil War.25. Blair, op.cit., p. 241.26. Jean Huon, in Military Rifle and Machine Gun Cartridges (Alexan-

dria, VA: Jean Huon/Ironside International, 1986), p. 343, states that Col.Boxer “brazenly copied the ideas of . . . George Daw, who had bought andimproved on the French Pottet and Schneider patents for his design. De-spite proof of his claims, Daw’s complaints were dismissed.”

27. Introduced “a short time before the war of the rebellion, but notthoroughly experimented with at the time or introduced into service. Itsmerits over paper or similar ammunition are apparent, the chief, perhaps,being that it was designed as a self-primed cartridge, had a flanged head forextracting the case, and that it reduced the operations of loading.” T. J.Treadwell, “Metallic Cartridges (Regulation and Experimental) as Manu-factured and Tested at the Frankford Arsenal, Philadelphia, PA.” Washing-ton, DC: U.S. Government, 1873 (hereafter Treadwell Report).

28. In 1855 the U.S. Army was issued the new Springfield muzzle-loading rifle.

29. Treadwell Report, p. 1.30. For instance, the Spencer repeating rifle.31. Treadwell Report, p. 5.32. The magazines referred to were the tube magazines then in vogue in


the Henry, Winchester, and Spencer weapons, and the system in which thepointed head of a bullet resting against the primer of the next cartridge wasthe main reason for nonacceptance of such weapons by the European mili-tary and the cause of a number of accidents. The solution, a round-nosedbullet, was also not acceptable in military circles.

33. For an example of this cartridge, see the photo of the Garand M1 inthe “Significant Rifles and Rifle Systems” section.

34. Also known as the XL 65 E5 Assault Rifle, now redesigned, and laterdeveloped as the SA80 series.

35. Stoner was not alone, because the Germans, Russians, Belgians,and British had all come to the same conclusion: a full-caliber round wastoo powerful to control in automatic firing.

36. Once the Soviet Union, but now the Confederation of RussianStates.

42 RIFLES

C H A P T E R 3

Breech-Loading Rifles

One fundamental problem affected the muzzle-loading rifles:although the principle was sound, the deformation caused to thebullet in loading was sufficient to diminish accuracy to a great ex-tent. An under-caliber ball (which was easy to load, being smallerthan the bore) was tried, as has been seen, but this did not really im-prove accuracy, and the only solution had to be some methodwhereby the bullet could be fired without deformation on loading.The only way to ensure this was by breech loading the weapon. Thisin turn brought problems of safety; for any such weapon would havea means of gas escape at the rear of the barrel, where the user washolding the weapon close to his face and upper body.

One of the first breech-loading weapons that saw military servicewas the Ferguson rifle. This was designed by Captain Patrick Fergu-son of the 70th Regiment (Surrey Regiment).1 In March 1776 hetook out a patent in London for a flintlock screw-plug breech-load-ing rifle.2 Ferguson acknowledged his debt to Chaumette but incor-porated in his design certain modifications that were intended toovercome the fouling problem that had bedeviled the design up tothat point. He introduced a smooth section cut across the threadsthat faced the chamber when the weapon was loaded and closed, hehad vertical grooves cut into the threads, and he had a small reser-voir behind the breech plug.

The system operated in a very simple, soldier-proof fashion, inthat one turn of the trigger guard opened the mechanism to the fullextent. The soldier then put a ball into the hole on top of the rifleand let gravity feed it to the forward part of the chamber. He thenpoured powder in to charge the weapon and simply rewound the

43

trigger guard to close the weapon. He could then brush any surpluspowder left on top of the breech directly into the pan or, if it waswindy or there was no surplus, could charge the pan, cock, and fire.

The Ferguson rifle was a remarkable piece of engineering in thatthe matched screw threads of the male (the rotating plug) and thefemale (the breech hole) were mated exceptionally well, making theaction extremely smooth to operate. The example (by Durs Egg)held in the Weapons Collection of the Small Arms School Corps (atthe School of Land Warfare on the outskirts of Wa r m i n s t e r, Wi l t-shire, England) is still operable, and even fireable, and the rotatinglever action functions perfectly.

The weapon was a rifleman’s dream at the time, being easy toload and fire and relatively easy to clean and maintain. It also has apleasing balance. It was a weapon that would have made the BritishArmy, had it adopted it wholesale, the leading force in rifle use andwould have served the army far better than the rag-tag of weaponsthat were used in its stead.

Of course, before any weapon could be adopted, it needed to betested, and following a series of very favorable press reports,3 h earranged to show the weapon to senior officers of the British Army.Lord Townshend and members of the Board of Ordnance saw the ri-fle in action,4 and Lord Townshend was so impressed that he

44 RIFLES

The Ferguson Rifle. Illustration enhanced from W. W. Greener, The Gun and Its Development, Cassell & Co., London, 1910.

arranged another, full-scale demonstration on 1 June 1776. Thistook place in rain and wind on the marshes of Woolwich Wa r r e nnear London. The report of the event recorded that

[Ferguson] performed the following four things, none of which hadever before been accomplished with any other small arms;

1st He fired during four or five minutes at a target, at 200 yardsdistant, at the rate of four shots each minute.

2dly He fired six shots in one minute.3dly He fired four times per minute, advancing at the same time at

the rate of four miles in the hour.4thly, He poured a bottle of water into the pan and barrel of the

piece when loaded so as to wet every grain of the powder, and in lessthan half a minute fired with her as well as ever, without extractingthe ball.

He also hit the bull’s eye at 100 yards lying with his back on theground; and, notwithstanding the unequalness of the wind and wet-ness of the weather, he only missed the target three times during thewhole course of the experiments.5

With such results the Board of Ordnance felt confident in order-ing that 100 Ferguson rifles be made, to arm a small detachment ofmen to test the rifle under war conditions in the American Revolu-tionary War. This detachment was raised in February 1777 with Fer-guson in command. This, the Corps of Riflemen, arrived in theUnited States in May 1777 to join General Sir William Howe’s army,and they fought at the Battle of Brandywine, where they distin-guished themselves and the rifle was put to good use. Fortunatelyfor the Americans Ferguson was wounded, and during his convales-cence the Corps of Riflemen was disbanded, the riflemen being dis-tributed in small numbers among the light companies of other regi-ments. Ferguson was killed at the Battle of King’s Mountain in1780, and his rifle virtually died with him as an issue weapon of theBritish Army. No doubt Christopher M. Spencer (see below) wouldhave smiled ruefully at this demise of a great weapon.

A number of breech-loading designs had appeared before Fergu-son’s breakthrough, some of which had separate chambers, loadedindividually into the weapon, and some with pivoted chambers. Thedifference lay in that the former weapons needed a supply of cham-bers as well as cartridges to make them effective, whereas the latterweapons just needed cartridges. This simpler and less logistically de-pendent method was chosen by many armies,6 mainly because of

BREECH-LOADING RIFLES 45

the advantage that the paper cartridge was an all-in-one method ofconveying and loading the weapon.

One of the earliest breech-loading service rifles to be issued wasthe Hall breechloader. John H. Hall and William Thornton7 took outa joint patent in 1811 with a tip-up breech chamber. The differencewas that the Hall rifle had chamber and lock integrated in thebreech block.

Hall’s weapon did have its faults. Although the combined lock andchamber made it more efficient than other weapons, there had beenno real effort to seal the junction between chamber and barrel, andthe weapon was disliked for the gas leakage. The Hall was adoptedin 1819 as the official U.S. Army rifle, and although the gas escapepersisted, the thing that really upset the soldiers was the hook catchused to lock the chamber in position. This protruded below thestock, dug into shoulders, and got caught in equipment.

The chamber of the Hall was made slightly larger in caliber thanthe barrel, which meant complete sealing of ball within the riflingon firing. Further, such a fit meant there was less cleaning involved,as the ball swept the barrel of fouling quite effectively with everyshot. Another advantage was that the rifle could not be doubleloaded, as sometimes happened with muzzle-loading weapons. Orig-inally the Hall was a flintlock weapon, but it was modified to percus-sion firing during the time it was in service.

The feature of the Hall design that caught the eye of the militarywas Hall’s proposal that parts should be interchangeable, making

46 RIFLES

Hall’s Breech Loader. The weapon is loaded via the front of the breechblock, and fired by means of the standard flintlock. The pivot of the

block is at the rear, and the lock and chamber are integrated into the one-piece breech block. Illustration enhanced from W. W. Greener,

The Gun and Its Development, Cassell & Co., London, 1910.

battlefield repair of weapons a reality. At the time, any weapon dam-aged in the field had to be returned to the armory for repair; thisproposal of Hall’s meant less time to repair weapons—and thereforeless cost. Nevertheless, various staff at Springfield Armory and oth-ers elsewhere made Hall’s life extremely difficult, and it was not un-til 1819 at Harper’s Ferry that Hall started work on designing thetools needed to produce the interchangeable parts. Finally, in 1824he finished the first 1,000 rifles, much later than expected.8

In trials the new rifle did come up to expectations, and the ArmyBoard (a board set up by the British Army to evaluate entries in thecompetition) reported that in tests carried out in 1818 and 1819one of the Hall rifles was fired 7,186 times and a musket 7,061times; the Hall proved superior in rate of fire and accuracy. One rea-son for the improved accuracy was that the barrel caliber was .52inch, whereas the chamber (or “receiver,” as it was called by Hall)was .545 inch. The rifling, which also contributed, was 16-grooved,with a pitch of one turn in 8 feet. As an aid to muzzle-loading,should the chamber-receiver be jammed, the barrel was reamedsmooth back to the foresight.

The validity of Hall’s claim that rifles could be made with inter-changeable parts was totally vindicated in 1834 when ColonelSimeon North in Connecticut set up a factory that duplicated Hall’stooling. The rifles he made had parts interchangeable with theH a r p e r ’s Ferry rifles. Nevertheless, despite this success and thegrowing use of breech loaders in Europe, in the United States opin-ion was turning against the Hall rifle, and Hall himself was in failinghealth. By 1842 the Hall rifle was effectively withdrawn, to be re-placed by a muzzle-loading rifle, the Model 1841. The decision wasdue to prejudice against the somewhat ungainly appearance of theweapon and the conservatism of senior officers and officials. Thefact still remains, however, that in the year that Prussia introducedthe bolt-action needle rifle, the United States reverted to muzzle-loading rifles.

THE BREECH LOADER AND THE BRITISH ARMY

The first-issue breech loader that served generally in the BritishArmy was no more than a conversion of the famous Enfield musket.This was the Snider, a conversion system invented by Jacob Sniderof Baltimore, and was adopted officially in 1865 by the British. Pre-


viously the British Army had been firing muzzle-loading rifles withthe Minié bullet. Events in Europe, however, forced the British intothe realization that they were falling behind the French in firearmsdevelopment, and the Snider conversion was seen as a stopgap untilbreech-loading weapons could be examined in detail.

The Snider action was a simple side-hinged block, which could beraised laterally to open the breech. A rearward pull on the block al-lowed the empty case to be ejected. The use of metallic cartridgeswas approved by this time in Britain, which the French had yet toadopt (the Chassepôt rifle fired a paper cartridge). The metallic car-tridge case solved a problem that had bedeviled the designers ofbreech-loading weapons since the idea was first thought of, in thatall the gases were contained now by the base of the case, and ablowback into the firer’s face was now an occasional accident(caused particularly if the cartridge base split) rather than an occu-pational hazard.

Although the original accuracy of the weapon was not even up tothe standard of the muzzle loader, the adoption of Colonel Boxer’scartridge in 1867 removed this problem. However, it was realizedfrom the outset that the Snider conversion was no more than an in-terim solution, and a committee was formed by the War Office toexamine the breech-loading rifle. To ensure that all available gun-makers were enthused to enter, prizes were offered to the winninggun design and the best cartridge.

Earlier, in 1864, a subcommittee charged with looking at breech-loading systems had tested Snider’s idea against eight otherweapons.9 The report described Snider’s design:

The effective length of the barrel is reduced by about two inches, andthis is occupied by a breech stopper, which works laterally on a hinge.The arm is adapted for a cartridge with a metal cup at the base, andcarrying its own detonating arrangement in the centre; the blow fromthe hammer is communicated by means of a wire [sic] which passesthrough the breech stopper. There is an arrangement for withdrawingthe old cartridge case.10

Once the tests had reduced the original entries to the nineweapons under consideration, each entrant was sent six Enfield ri-fles to work on, which, once modified, were to be returned to Wool-wich, where further tests were to take place.

Firing then took place and the Snider had the fastest time in onetest and lay third overall. But the appeal to the examiners was that“this is a new system, and dispenses with the nipple and percussion

48 RIFLES

cap, being adapted for a cartridge carrying its own ignition.” A l s o ,“The method of conversion is very simple. About two inches of theupper part of the Enfield barrel are cut away at the breech, and asolid breech stopper working sideways on a hinge is placed in theopening thus made. A piston [the ‘wire’ mentioned above] passesthrough this stopper, and when the breech is closed one end of it re-ceives a blow from the hammer and the other communicates it tothe center of the cartridge and fires it” (emphasis added).

The committee was also happy with the ejection arrangement,whereby the operator just pulled the whole breech block (or stop-per) to the rear. Even though the cartridge case was not actually re-moved from the body of the weapon, it could easily be removed withthe fingers or by rotating the weapon.

When the final results were published, the Snider came in secondto a weapon prepared by William Green of London. Although theSnider did not win the competition outright, it had one factor in itsfavor that outweighed its defects: it fired a composite cartridge. Thecommittee commented:

The ultimate armament of the infantry with breech-loading weaponsis determined upon . . . [although] no converted arms can possess theprecision which will be easily attained in a new breech loader ofsmaller gauge and quicker twist . . . [the Committee recommends]that Mr. Snider be encouraged to pursue his experiments by thepromise that on the production of a pattern arm that will give satis-faction to the Committee, 1,000 muskets (or enough to arm one bat-talion) shall be placed in his hands for conversion.11

It is interesting to note that as soon as this was decided, work wentahead, and another committee was almost immediately appointed tolook at better methods of breech-loading.

The new committee eventually reported its finding only threeyears later. On 22 October 1856 the War Office issued an invitationto all “Gunmakers and Others” requesting that they make “proposals. . . for breech-loading rifles, either repeating or not repeating,which may replace the present service rifles in future manufac-t u r e . ”12 There followed a list of basic service criteria, including aweight and length limit13 and a number of technical specificationson recoil, accuracy, fouling, and penetration. However, caliber andrifling were left to the individual who was submitting the rifle. Inter-e s t i n g l y, there was also a note on magazine and repeating arms,showing that the committee was aware of the existence of such sys-tems and was prepared to examine them.


On 11 June 1867 the committee issued its first report.1 4 No fewerthan 104 rifles had been submitted for their consideration, withevery inventor being invited to explain his design and then to fire theweapon. The committee then divided the weapons into two classes,classifying 37 as falling within the terms of the advertisement andtherefore eligible for the money prize, and a further 67 weapons thatfailed to comply but that were still going to be looked at “on theirown merits.” Further, from the first group some 21 weapons were re-jected for a number of reasons.1 5 H o w e v e r, nine rifles were retainedfor further testing, those submitted by Augusto Albini and Fr a n c i sAugustus Braendlin, Major G. V. Fo s b e r y, Bethell Burton (twoweapons), Benjamin Franklin Joslyn, Alexander Henry (his No. 2),Henry O. Pe a b o d y, Freidrich von Martini, and Samuel Remington.

It is now worth looking at these nine rifles individually becausethey represent the best that was available in 1866–1867.

The Albini and Braendlin

This was described by the report:

The rifle is adapted for metallic centre-fire cartridges. The breechblock, which closes the breech, works on a hinge. . . . A piston, with

50 RIFLES

The Albini and Braendlin Rifle. Illustration enhanced from W. W. Greener, The Gun and Its Development, Cassell & Co., London, 1910.

spiral spring, passes through the axis of the breech block, and servesto communicate to the cartridge the blow which it receives from abolt worked by the lock. This bolt, which thus fires the gun, at thesame time prevents the breech block from being blown open by anaccidentally unsound cartridge. The breech action is made on a shoe,which afterwards receives the breech end of the rifle.

Braendlin16 fired the rifle on two occasions and achieved a rate offire the second time of 12 rounds in one minute, one second.17

The Burton Rifles

Rifle No. 1.—Has a cast steel barrel; it is adapted for the central-fireBoxer cartridge. The breech block works on a hinge under the barrelby means of a handle in front of the trigger guard. The cartridge is ex-ploded by a piston in the breech block and ordinary lock. The car-tridge is extracted by the act of opening the breech. The piston has nospring, but is withdrawn by the action of the breech.

The breech can be opened without raising the hammer, but thehammer must be raised afterwards before it can be closed again.


The Burton Rifle. Illustration enhanced fromW. W. Greener, The Gun and Its Development,Cassell & Co., London, 1910.

The rifle cannot be fired unless the breech block is well home.Rifle No. 2.—It is also adapted for the Boxer center-fire cartridge;

the breech is closed by means of a sliding bolt worked by a lever han-dle; the cartridge is exploded by a piston within the breech bolt. Therifle cannot be fired unless the breech bolt is in its proper position.

Both rifles were fired by Burton and by a Royal Marine marksman.The rate of fire was consistent, and both managed to fire 12 roundsin about a minute.

Major Fosbery’s Rifle

The rifle is adapted for central-fire metallic cartridge, but with aslight alteration, self-consuming cartridges might be used. Thebreech is closed by means of a block which works on a hinge at thebreech end of the barrel, in the same manner as the chamber of the“Mont Storm” rifle. The breech is opened, and the empty cartridgecase extracted by means of drawing back a rod attached to the rightside of the barrel. The cartridge is exploded by means of two pistons,the one passing through the center of the breech block, and the otheracting as a striker, which also serves to secure the breech block, andprevent it flying up in case of any escape of gas.

There is a stud in the shoe that greatly facilitates the ejection ofthe empty cartridge case. The lock is in the center of the stock, and isof simple construction.

Twelve rounds of .568-inch Boxers were fired in 50 seconds, and theaccuracy of the weapon was acceptable at 500 yards.

The Henry18 Rifle

The rifle is adapted for the Boxer cartridge. The breech is opened bymeans of a breech block, which works vertically by the movement of alever under the stock; this lever, when the rifle is loaded, is fastenedby a catch under the trigger guard. The cartridge is exploded by a pis-ton passing diagonally through the breech block, and driven by acommon lock. The empty cartridge case is extracted by the samemovement that opens the breech block.

The weapon was able to fire 12 rounds in 57 seconds with accept-able accuracy.

52 RIFLES


The Henry Rifle. Illustration enhanced from W. W. Greener, The Gun and Its Development, Cassell & Co., London, 1910.

The Joslyn/Newby Rifle

The rifle is adapted for a copper rim-fire cartridge, but can be equallywell adapted for central-fire. The rifle is closed by a breech blockopening laterally on a hinge, which is hollowed out so as to fit over acollar at the end of the barrel; the recoil is thus taken on two bear-ings. A spring piston passes through the breech block and is driven bythe hammer of an ordinary side lock. The extractor is worked by ascrew thread on the hinge joint of the breech block.

Edwin Henry Newby, a gunmakers’ agent of London, was there, andBird fired the weapon, firing 12 rounds in 47 seconds.

The Martini Rifle

The rifle is adapted for a copper rim-fire cartridge, but can beadapted equally for central-fire.

The rifle is closed by a breech block, which falls and rises on ahinge, and is worked by a lever in the rear of the trigger guard. Themethod of opening and closing the breech is similar to that of thePeabody rifle (see below). The breech block contains a spiral springand piston for striking the cartridge. The action of opening the

54 RIFLES

The Martini Rifle. Illustration enhanced from W. W. Greener, The Gun and Its Development, Cassell & Co., London, 1910.

breech throws out the empty cartridge case, by means of a lever ex-tractor, and at the same time cocks the rifle.

The ordinary lock is entirely dispensed with.The gun is placed on half cock, or rather in a position of safety, by

pushing forward the lever rather slowly, so as not to throw out thecartridge, and pulling the trigger while the breech is partly open. An-other slow motion of the lever re-cocks the piece.

Twelve rounds were fired in 48 seconds by Marine Bristow, who, itwas noted, “was not well acquainted with the manipulation of therifle.”

The Peabody Rifle

The rifle is adapted for a rim-fire metallic cartridge. An iron breechframe closed at the sides unites the barrel with the stock. In this isplaced the breech block, working on a pivot fixed at the rear andmoved by means of a lever which forms the trigger guard when the ri-fle is ready for firing. In the upper side of the breech block is a


The Peabody Rifle. Illustration enhanced from W. W. Greener, The Gun and Its Development, Cassell & Co., London, 1910.

groove, which coincides with the bore of the barrel when the breechis open. The extractor is in the form of a lever, which is moved by thebreech block, and throws the cartridge case clear of the rifle whenthe breech is opened. The breech is secured by a lever affixed to thelower side of the block, and worked with a spring which presses itagainst a strong pin. The block carries a striker driven by the hammerof a common side lock, which explodes the cartridge.

Sergeant Bott of the Royal Marines, “who was unacquainted withthe rifle, and did not, therefore, attain the highest rate possible,”fired 12 rounds in 53 seconds.

The Remington Rifle

56 RIFLES

The Remington Rifle. Illustration enhanced from W. W. Greener, The Gun and Its Development, Cassell & Co., London, 1910.

E. Remington & Sons of Herkimer and Ilion, New York, designedthis particular action, which eventually saw worldwide military use.The committee reported:

The rifle is adapted for copper cartridges, either central or rim-fire,there being a duplicate breech piece. The breech piece or block workson a transverse pivot below the barrel, and is secured by the hammerof a central lock, the hammer being also the tumbler of the lock.

Mr. Remington claims as advantages of this system, simplicity ofconstruction and of action, combined with great strength. The sur-faces in contact are few and well protected.

Mr. Kerr fired for Remington and managed a rate of 11 rounds in40 seconds of .5-inch caliber cartridges.

THE TESTS

All these weapons were then subjected to a number of tests, perhapsthe most telling of which was the exposure test. For this, 100 roundswere fired on four consecutive days, with the rifle being kept dirtyand exposed to the weather throughout. They were then left un-cleaned for a further 14 days and nights, then fired again. Finally,they were disassembled and examined. The results for the rifleswere as follows:

Albini and Braendlin: “The breech mechanism of this rifle workedwell throughout. On the last day much difficulty was found in placingthe cartridge in the chamber, owing to an accumulation of rust. Theinterior of the lock and breech mechanism were in good workingorder.”

Burton No. 1: “This rifle was in good working order. The interiorof the lock and breech mechanism were unaffected by the exposure.”

Burton No. 2: “In firing five rounds on the last day of the trials,there were four miss-fires, probably owing, either to the weakness ofthe spiral spring, or the wax which had accumulated at the end of thepiston. Either, or both, of which causes would lessen the strikingforce. The breech mechanism was, otherwise, in good order; the spi-ral spring had been completely protected from the weather, and thesliding bolt worked perfectly well.”

Fosbery: “The breech mechanism worked well throughout, andfive shots were fired from the rifle after the fortnight’s exposure. On


dismounting the lock it was found that the eye of the tumbler and theswivel were broken. This breakage must have occurred when the lastshot was fired.”

Henry: “The breech mechanism worked well throughout.”Joslyn: “During the trial the breech block jammed, and required so

much force to open that much difficulty was found in firing fiverounds. This jamming was apparently due to the cartridges bulgingafter firing, consequent of their not fitting the chamber properly. Therifle was not affected by the exposure. On taking it to pieces the woodof the stock was found to be cracked near the breech tang.”

Martini: “The cartridges of this system repeatedly burst near therim, occasioning a great escape of gas. After the fortnight’s exposure,only one shot could be fired as the extractor would not work. On dis-mounting the rifle it was found that the breech mechanism had be-come greatly clogged by rust and fouling, (the latter) due to the es-cape of gas, consequent on the bursting of the cartridges. Before thebreech mechanism could be taken to pieces it was found necessary tosoak the parts in oil.”

Peabody: “The cartridges of this system occasionally burst near therim, causing a great escape of gas. During the trial several of the car-tridges required to be pushed out by a ramrod, the claw of the extrac-tor having passed over the rims. This was probably due to the im-proper fitting of the cartridges, and also to the claw of the extractorbeing exceptionally short. On dismounting the rifle the breech mech-anism was found to be in good order.”

Remington: “During the trial the breech block frequently jammed,and was so hard to open that five rounds were fired with great diffi-culty. This defect was owing to faulty cartridges, which allowed gas toescape at the breech. On dismounting the rifle a considerableamount of rust was found below the hammer. In other respects thebreech mechanism was in good order.”

THE RESULT

The board were unanimous in declaring the Henry rifle to be thebest, although there were some accuracy problems (all the rifleswere lacking in the accuracy specified in the original invitation), butthe Henry rifle was only one of two that was capable of firing at1,000 yards. So Alexander Henry received £600, but his rifle wasnot adopted for issue. His action, however, was so striking that it

58 RIFLES

was decided that a number of gunmakers were invited to present ri-fles with Henry actions with their own barrel designs. The firms in-volved were Henry himself, Whitworth, Westley Richards, Lan-caster, and Rigby.

Tests were conducted in 1869, and the final recommendation ofthe committee was adoption of a Martini-designed breech block(which was almost identical to that produced by Henry) and a .45-inch barrel designed by Henry. Thus was the Martini-Henry rifleborn. After troop trials and the issue of a bottle-necked cartridge,the weapon was considered suitable for issue to troops in the springof 1871. One fault was present in the rifle in action, in that the ejec-tion system was weak, which had actually been pointed out at thetime of adoption. One thing is quite sure: this design did not repre-sent the state of the art in rifle design, and the lead was still firmlyin European hands.

THE MARTINI-HENRY SERVICE RIFLE

The Martini-Henry rifle in .45-inch caliber (actually .443-inch) wasadopted for use by the British Army in 1871. At the same time an-other weapon was available. The importance of this weapon was notin its action but the fact that it “really would shoot straight.”19 Thisability was a result of the work of William Ellis Metford, who was agreat barrel designer. He won the 1,000-yard Duke of Cambridgeshooting competition at Wimbledon with a rifle fitted with his ownbarrel design. The rifling, the most important barrel factor, madethe prospect of delivering effective rifle fire at 1,000 yards a realityrather than a dream. Despite this success, his own rifle was notadopted in 1869 or 1871; the Martini-Henry was. Only later wouldMetford come into his own as a rifle designer.

The Martini-Henry was a simple lever-action single-shot rifle.The trigger guard was the actuating lever, which, when depressed,caused the breech block, hinged at the rear, to drop down away fromthe breech face. At the same time an ejector forced the spent car-tridge out of the breech, and the weapon was cocked. A new roundwas then hand loaded into the breech, and lifting the trigger guardclosed the breech, when the weapon was ready to fire.

The original rifle was rifled according to Henry’s design, withseven shallow grooves. The rifle fired a bottle-neck rolled brass car-tridge and a bullet of 480 grains (just over one ounce), with a shock-


ing recoil. Interestingly the weapon had no safety mechanism of anysort and was also prone to discharge if sand or grit got into the trig-ger mechanism. This made the rifle rather dangerous, and earlierversions, used by troops in Ireland, were ordered never to be carriedloaded.

The weapon, once adopted, was found to be singularly unsoundin its design, and extraction and ejection were poor. The We s t l e yRichards system had overcome this problem, but it was too late forthe British. The idea of the Martini-Henry was sound and simple; itwas only in the detail that it fails. To this must be added that thecartridge also suffered from one defect: it was originally a rolledbrass case, which was fragile and very prone to pick up sand or dust.This, of course, increased the danger of accidental discharge, but itwas only in 1885 that the solid case cartridge was issued.

The Martini rifle was not really up to scratch according toweapons experts at the time, and a report20 said:

The breech-loading arrangements in this combination21 were consid-ered by practical men to be mechanically defective, although the boreof the barrel, the turn of the rifling, and the weight of the bullet gavethe best results as regards accuracy, trajectory, penetration, and ra-pidity of fire. The principle of the falling block in the breech action,which was a previous American invention, was generally admitted tobe the best that had been suggested, and so far as the arm justifiesthe decision of the committee. The faults said to exist in it were thespiral striking spring,22 the lock arrangements, the lever, the stocking,and the ammunition. All these were said to be defective in principle.. . . It was considered, however, that to adopt such a rifle would notbe a mechanical credit to the country. Since the end of 1868 thecommittee has been endeavouring to perfect the arm, and severalpatterns of it have been made at Enfield, but it still retains its inher-ent defects and objectionable features.

The Westley Richards weapon, which was favored by many buthad not been adopted, was the subject of another analysis:23

In the Westley Richards arrangement some valuable advantages aregained. The lifting lever acting upon the free extremity of the breechblock is a better arrangement than lifting the block near its centre ofmotion as in the Martini, since the wear will be less in consequenceof the diminution of pressure, and will not so much affect the accu-rate lifting of the block. The position of the lever in front of the trig-ger guard, and fitting down close to it when closed, is more conve-

60 RIFLES

nient, and requires less change from the position of firing than is thecase with the Martini lock, where the lever is situate behind the trig-ger guard. The position of this latter lever, too, is found to interferewith the proper grasp of the stock in bayonet exercise.

The rifle was nevertheless issued, despite the opinions of these“practical men,” and comments and reactions were requested fromthose regiments that were equipped with it. Two reports (12 July1870 and 8 February 1871) were compiled of the responses, and thecomments included some criticisms of the wrapped cartridge, whichwas prone to deformation. This problem was solved by issuing a fullmetal cartridge. Extraction and ejection were sometimes a problem,and one unit in Dublin wrote that “when the cartridges missed firethe ramrod had to be used to get them out, the extractor not gettingsufficient bite of the case of the cartridge to move the weight of theunfired cartridge.” There was also the problem of grit or sand mak-ing the rifle prone to fire when the breech was closed, and a unit inPortsmouth reported that

all the rifles had been dismounted by the armourer-serjeant to theproper pull off. After remounting, rifle No. 5 went off twice without afinger near the trigger or the firer ready to fire. In the second instancewhen the breech was closed the lock was not at full cock, although in-dicated by both indicator and trigger. After several attempts the lockwas put right, but on passing it over to the firer it went off in the air.

The official reply to the last criticism of the rifle was that “in allprobability . . . they had not been remounted correctly.” The unwill-ingness of officialdom to recognize that a weapon can have inherentfaults is not confined to small arms, but it is seen time and timeagain with reference to weapons that individuals had to carry in bat-tle, and upon the reliability of which a man’s life could depend. TheMartini-Henry was a reasonable weapon and bridged the gap be-tween the converted muzzle loaders (the Snider rifles) and the soon-to-appear bolt-action rifles, which were to be so important in thefirst half of the twentieth century.

ENDNOTES

1. W. W. Greener, in The Gun, Birmingham: W. W. Greener, 1910,states that “Major Patrick ‘Fergusson’ [sic] was an officer in the 71st. High-landers, not the Surrey Regiment.”


2. Almost identical to an earlier design by Isaac de la Chaumette, aFrench inventor. The La Chaumette had much success but was never is-sued to troops (although some sources suggest it saw service withNapoleon’s troops, but there is no documentary evidence of this).

3. Annual Register, The Gentleman’s Magazine, and many British news-papers of June 1776.

4. Ferguson had Durs Egg, the London gunmaker, make two rifles to hisspecification. One of these may be the weapon now in the Small A r m sSchool Corps Weapons Collection.

5. Quoted in Pollard’s History of Firearms, ed. Claude Blair. New York:MacMillan, 1983, p. 196.

6. Despite proof that breech-loading weapons could safely be operatedby loading with separate powder and ball.

7. Interestingly, Hallahan notes that Thornton was the Superintendentof Patents. He forced Hall into sharing the patent by claiming to have al-ready invented a similar mechanism. However, he may have improved uponH a l l ’s original design; see Philip B. Sharpe, The Rifle in A m e r i c a . N e wYork: Funk and Wagnalls, 1947, p. 13.

8. Delays were caused by intransigence and the sheer inability of variousAmericans to bury their differences for the common cause. This is a storythat is constantly repeated in ordnance circles, particularly with respect toweapons for the U.S. military.

9. These being the Mont Storm, Green’s, Westley Richards, Joslyn’s ,Shepard’s (2), Royal Arms Factories’ and Wilson’s designs.

10. Second report of the Subcommittee of 11 October 1864, BritishWar Office.

11. Subcommittee report of 14 March 1865.12. This and subsequent quotations are from the Reports on Breech-

Loading Arms, published by the War Office in April 1868.13. ”Weight not to exceed 9lbs 5oz without bayonet . . . Length—To be

51 inches, with short stock . . .”14. Report of the Small Arms Committee, issued 14 March 1865, under

the authority of Brigadier General J. H. Lefory, R.A., President, British WarOffice official publication.

15. Including “incomplete,” “a decided want of accuracy,” “the breechblock was blown violently open,” and “the breech could not be opened.”

16. Francis Augustus Braendlin, probably Belgian, patented this designjointly with Augusto Albini as No. 2243/66 of 30 August 1866 and subse-quently.

17. Although this was with a .577-inch rifle. He was slower with theoriginal design caliber of .462 inch.

18. Alexander Henry, a well-known Edinburgh gunmaker, not to be con-fused with Benjamin Tyler Henry of Claremont, New Hampshire.

19. Blair, op. cit., p. 259.20. In Engineering, 27 April 1871, by W. P. P. Marshall, entitled “The

62 RIFLES

Comparative Merits of the Martini Rifle and the Westley Richards Rifleand Ammunition.”

21. Of the Martini breech, a Henry rifle barrel and the Boxer cartridge.22. Or the firing-pin spring.23. By the same W. P. P. Marshall, entitled “The Principal Construc-

tions of Breech-Loading Mechanisms for Small Arms, and Their RelativeMechanical Advantages; Illustrated by Specimens of Breech-Loading Ri-fles,” which appeared in Engineering on 5 May 1871.


C H A P T E R 4

The Percussion System

The Reverend Alexander John Fo r s y t h , minister of Belheviein Aberdeenshire, Scotland, published a very important article inJuly 1799 entitled “On certain useful properties of the OxygenatedMuriatic Acid.”1 Forsyth was typical of churchmen of the period, inthat his days were spent between caring for his parishioners and en-joying himself. His particular sport was shooting; of an inquiringmind, he had looked at the problems of the flintlock. He saw thatthe flintlock depended upon the sometimes uncertain spark of flintand steel, the effect of dampness on powder and priming and ofwind on priming, and the delay between pressing the trigger and thedischarge of the shot (from a sporting muzzle-loading gun). Addedto the delay was the jet of smoke and sometimes fire that emergedfrom the barrel vent on firing, which could startle both firer and tar-get equally.

These problems applied equally to troops in the field, and theclouds of smoke that gathered around a firing line were notoriousfor obscuring sight of the enemy on days when there was little or nowind to disperse the smoke. Further, in the heat of battle it was onlytoo easy for a man to forget to prime his pan, or to have the primingpowder made inert by rain or even blown away from the pan as heattempted to prime his weapon.

Forsyth was not the first to look at the properties of fulminate ofmercury, and an article in 18002 on the properties and preparationof this important salt led the way to further examination of its use asa propellant. The salt proved, however, too violent in its explosionfor the original purpose, and the idea was discarded. Forsyth, how-ever, saw the possibility of using fulminate of mercury as an initiator

65

for the main propellant charge of gunpowder. He found that thespeed of combustion of the fulminate was such that the propellantcharge ignition was virtually simultaneous with pressing the trigger.

In 1805 Forsyth had achieved his aim and had converted a flint-lock to his new system. In the place of the frizzen lock, Forsyth fitteda small revolving magazine containing the detonating powder to thelockplate. To prime the Forsyth weapon the perfume bottle–shapedmagazine was rotated, by which means enough detonating powderfor one shot was placed in the path of the hammer when the maga-zine was returned to its original position. The magazine held enoughfulminate of mercury for between twenty and thirty shots. Later ver-sions of the lock had an automated system for priming the weapon.3

The system was seen for what it was: a groundbreaking step in thedesign of firearms, but the perfume-bottle concept was perhaps too

complicated for military use,although many such fittedweapons were sold to thecommercial market. Whatwas needed was a simplemethod of preserving thedetonating powder in someway that it could easily beput between the hammerand the vent in the breech,so that the ignition processcould occur.

A number of inventorscame up with solutions, oneof whom was JohannesSamuel Pauly (of Pa r i s ) ,4

who made the detonator insmall balls with waterproof-ing coatings. By 1812 hewas putting these small ballsinto the rear end of car-tridges to create the firstc e n t e r-fire cartridges. (Fo rthis development, and sub-

66 RIFLES

Forsyth Scent Bottle. Illustration enhanced from Military Smallarms,HMSO, London, 1929.

sequent variations on that theme, Pauly has gained universal fame.)Another, later method was to make paper tapes of percussion pow-der, rather like the cap gun tapes today, which were invented by Dr.Edward Maynard, but that was not until 1845. In 1818 anothermethod was invented by English gunmaker Joseph Manton, who putthe explosive into small tubes of thin sheet copper. The most effec-tive method, however, was that to which no inventor can be confi-dently ascribed. The copper priming cap was created between 1814and 1816, and a number of gunsmiths can be given a share in thecredit, for the simple reason that no one man can be definitely saidto have come up with the idea first. These were, in no order ofmerit, Joseph Manton, Joseph Egg, and Captain Joshua Shaw.5

Shaw certainly applied for a U.S. patent in 1814, but as he hadnot been resident in the United States for the previous two years,his application was refused. Originally made of iron and intendedfor reloading (which was rapidly discarded as an idea), the caps weremade of pewter in 1815, and in 1816 the copper cap was developed.This led the way for percussion weapons for military use, althoughadoption of the new idea by armies was slow in the extreme.

A further development in the percussion system was the inven-tion of continuous fulminate primer strips. In 1834 Charles Louis

THE PERCUSSION SYSTEM 67

The Pauly Breech-Loading System. Illustration enhanced from Military Smallarms, HMSO, London, 1929.

Stanislaus, Baron Heurteloup,6 patented his muzzle-loading gun fit-ted with a continuous tube of priming, cut by the hammer at themoment of firing. (This was a soft metal tube enclosed in the butt,and moved by the action of the hammer on cocking.) He then in-vented the under-hammer system, which had the advantage of pro-tecting the firing mechanism from the elements, which he namedthe Koptipteur. This, too, was fitted with tape priming, and it wasclaimed there was enough in one strip of the tube to fire 70 rounds.The British Army was interested but rejected the system after trialsin 1837 and again in 1842; some weapons were, however, pur-chased by the French, Belgian, and Russian armies, but there is norecord of their service available.

The idea of automatic priming systems would not go away, be-cause it was one way of making reloading simpler: powder and shothad to be loaded as before, but at least the extra task of either prim-ing the pan or placing a cap on the nipple was dispensed with if thesystem of priming was effective. The most effective of the systemsevolved at the time was the Maynard tape primer, invented by Ed-ward P. Maynard, a dentist from Washington, D.C. He had begunhis career as a firearms designer with his mechanical primer feed fit-ted to a Jenks breech-loading carbine in the 1840s. What he haddone was to enclose the priming compound in a continuous paperstrip, which was held in a small magazine actuated by the hammer.As the hammer cocked, a fresh part of the primer strip was movedinto position, to be struck by the hammer over the vent at the mo-ment of firing.

The Maynard tape primer (see photo in the “Significant Riflesand Rifle Systems” section) “consisted of a roll of about 50 pelletsbetween layers of paper. These were very nicely made and while theyare very similar to the . . . rolled caps used in ‘cap pistols’ . . . the ma-terial was constructed with a larger amount of priming materialsperfectly formed into little round ‘pills’ and sealed between two lay-ers of varnished paper.”7 A number of similar inventions appeared,8

but the principle was established and may well have contributed toseveral later inventions (for example, automatic feed mechanismsfor rifles and belted ammunition for machine guns).

By 1845 the United States began to make its own caps ratherthan obtain them from private manufacturers, and in the same yearMaynard sold the U.S. government the right to use his tape primer.The first weapon so fitted was the Springfield Model 1842, whichwas smoothbore, immediately followed by a rifled version, theModel 1842 Percussion Rifle, made by rifling the barrel of earlier

68 RIFLES

smoothbore muskets. A large number of other weapons appeared in1842, but the percussion rifle from Springfield Armory is of signifi-cance in the military field.

This was the first-issue rifled weapon of the U.S. Army and was of.52-inch caliber. The rifling was set at a pitch of one turn in 6 feet,in a barrel length of 33 inches. It fired a round ball weighing .5ounce, with a propellant weight of 4.9 grams of powder. The powderand ball were issued as a unit, wrapped in paper, which merely hadto be torn by hand or, more often, by the teeth to release the powderinto the bore. The ball was then forced into the barrel and rammeddown to the powder. Within the paper packing intended to be dis-carded, but often used as wadding, the bullet was wrapped in astring-sealed square of waxed cloth that lubricated the barrel on fir-ing. This ball was supplemented after 1849 with various cylindro-conoidal–type bullets for experimental purposes, eventually leadingto the issue of Minié-type bullets.

The percussion system bridged the gap between the flint/powdersystem and the cartridge, and the percussion cap was the answer tothe problem of how to put powder, ball, and primer into one unit. Sothe story continues with the development of the composite car-tridge.

THE PERCUSSION SYSTEM IN THE BRITISH ARMY

George Henry Daw reported on the percussion system and its devel-opment in Great Britain; after a note on the history of its develop-ment, he continues:

In 1831 the Board of Ordnance, approving of Dr. Ure’s experimentsin gunpowder, requested him to make such researches as would en-able the authorities to introduce the percussion system into the army.It was found that the quantity of gunpowder ignited by a percussioncap was 8 to that of 10 ignited by the flint, to produce the same pro-jectile force. To this saving was to be added that of priming the pan ofthe flint lock, and the advantages were self-evident.

Then the safety of the caps for military purposes had next to beconsidered. Upon this point Mr. Lovell, late of the Royal Arms Fac-t o r y, Enfield, set about ascertaining what liberties could be takenwith them.


Here again some singular results were shown. Some of the compo-sition for the caps was exploded in various ways, covered over withand surrounded by gunpowder, without exploding the latter, althoughblowing it away in all directions; had the explosion taken placethrough the nipple into the breech of a gun, it would have been a verydifferent affair.

A tin box containing 500 caps had a hole made in the top, and oneof the caps was exploded by a hammer and punch through the hole,when only two others went off although the explosion took place in-side the box, the remainder were discoloured. This experiment wasrepeatedly tried, but never more than three or four caps fired. A steelhammer was next made red hot, and plunged into the box, rightamong the caps, but it only flashed those where the iron actuallytouched the fulminate composition. A few grains of gunpowder werenext introduced into the box and ignited, when the flame of the latterblew off every cap instantly.

The same experiments have been gone through at Woolwich withsimilar results, large quantities of caps—several thousands—havebeen fired into with bullets from fire-arms, when it has been foundthat only those actually hit by the shot have exploded. These experi-ments were, therefore, considered conclusive with respect to theportable safety of percussion caps.

The first government that adopted the percussion cap for the useof the army was that of Austria. A man named Console, in the Arsenalof Milan, discovered the mode of making and charging the caps inone uniform style for soldier’s weapons. Experiment succeeded exper-iment, and in 1840 the cap had entered the army. France followed in1842, and Great Britain in 1843.

Thus it will be seen that it took thirty-six years from the first prac-tical application of the principle before it was handed over to the useof the soldier; an entire generation had passed away in that time.

The reason why I have taken so much time to explain these mattersis that I mean this little pamphlet to be something more than a meredescriptive Trade Circular; to give points of information in connexionwith fire-arms that may be deemed useful and interesting at a distance.

After the explosive forces being ascertained, we are next directedto their control and application to fire-arms, the resistance which theprojectile has to overcome in its flight, such resistance acting againstthe propelling force. This naturally brings us to the laws of motion, acourse which the reader will see bears directly upon the nature of theweapon to be used.9

70 RIFLES

LEVER-ACTION REPEATING RIFLES

The lever-action rifle never had any real military support in Europe,where the breech-loading musket and rifle were reloaded by meansof hinged breech blocks or similar devices. However, in the UnitedStates the lever-action repeating rifle was very popular among sport-ing riflemen, and one particular lever action was adopted by theU.S. Army. This was the Spencer rifle.

However, the history of the lever action is worthwhile telling, as isthe saga of the Spencer itself, which fell into the Springfield Armorytrap. Repeating lever-action weapons first appeared in the earlyeighteenth century, and one version was the Lagatz weapon of circa1700. This was in turn preceded by the Lorenzoni and Berselli sys-tems of Italy.

Michael Lorenzoni of Florence and Domenico Berselli ofBologna are both credited with the invention of a system10 that hadtwo magazines, one for shot, the other for powder, each accessed inturn by means of a rotary breech operated by an external lever (seephoto in “Significant Rifles and Rifles Systems” section). The ballwas picked up by the ball chamber and transferred to the breech bygravity. Further rotation of the lever allowed powder into the powderchamber that was once more brought to the breech by gravity. Thelever was then returned to the forward position, the pan primed, andthe weapon was ready to fire.

Other manufacturers and gunmakers followed this principle, butthe military was not interested because of the possible safety issuecaused by the chance of double-loading powder, which could causean explosion and injury to the user. The Lagatz weapon was morecomplex than the Lorenzoni-Berselli, and for this reason alone itwas not considered by the armed forces to whom it was presented.

The real problem facing gunmakers was that separate actionsneeded exact completion before the weapon was ready to fire. Whatwas needed was the composite cartridge, in which ball and powderwere self-contained. The paper cartridge was incapable of being me-chanically fed into the breech of any weapon because it was not uni-form in shape or size and was easily torn.

The invention of the composite cartridge allowed gunmakers todesign systems that could contain magazines in which a number ofcartridges could be loaded; it also allowed them to create reloadingsystems based on a mechanical rather than a physical method. Thisled to Christopher M. Spencer designing the Spencer repeating rifle(and carbine), and Tyler Henry, who had been involved in the design


and production of the earlier Volcanic rifle, designing his own lever-action repeater.

The Spencer is rightly regarded as one of the most important de-velopments in the history of the repeating rifle. Spencer’s patent wasissued in 1860,11 and he described his design in the patent papers asfollows:

My invention consists of an improved mode of locking the movablebreech of a breech-loading firearm whereby it is easily opened andclosed and very firmly secured in place during the explosion of thecharge. It also consists of certain contrivances for operating in com-bination with a movable breech for the purpose of withdrawing thecases of the exploded cartridges from the chamber of the barrel andfor conducting new cartridges thereinto from a magazine located inthe stock.

The Spencer had a tubular magazine in the butt, which was easilyremoved for reloading. The trigger guard, as with the later famousWinchester rifles, was the actuating lever. A semicircular breechblock was used. Once the cartridge in the chamber had been fired,the trigger guard was pushed straight down, rotating the breechblock, at the same time extracting the spent cartridge case, whichwas ejected as the trigger guard reached the end of its travel. Thisaction also cocked the rifle ready for reloading.

When the trigger guard was at its lowest position, the breechblock engaged with the rear of a cartridge from the magazine, and asthe trigger guard was pulled up to its original position, the cartridgewas forced into the breech of the weapon. With the rifle alreadycocked, all the user had to do was aim and fire, then repeat the ac-tion until the magazine was empty.

72 RIFLES

The Spencer Action. Illustration enhanced from Jaroslav Lugs, Firearms Past and Present, Grenville, London, 1956.

The weapon was issued in small numbers and was spectacularlysuccessful. At Hoover’s Gap on 24 June 1863 during the U.S. CivilWa r, a mounted brigade of Union infantry was moving toward thegap to clear the area of advanced Confederate pickets. That these in-fantry were mounted was one fundamental change in tactics; thatthey were armed with Spencer’s rifle was another. The weapons,h o w e v e r, had been bought by the soldiers themselves, because Gen-eral James Wolfe Ripley (who has been met before in the saga of thebreech-loading rifle; see above) refused to supply Spencer rifles. Thetroops had each spent $35 on their own rifles,1 2 and the effect ofthis was terrible as far as the Confederate soldiers were concerned.

So the troops mentioned above, Wi l d e r ’s First Mounted Rifles,were exceptionally mobile and extremely well armed—if the Spencerlived up to its promise. In fact, although Wilder’s men were attackedby Confederate rifled cannon, causing in all the loss of 51 killed andwounded in the action, the Union troops caused the Confederatesto lose 156 men. Later, on 1 July 1863, a cavalry unit of 2,500 menarmed with Spencer carbines held up a Confederate force of 7,500men for over an hour. The following day General George Custer andhis Fifth Michigan Cavalry halted General Jeb Stuart’s advance atthe Battle of Gettysburg with the fire of just 479 Spencer rifles.

Eventually the government bought 12,471 Spencer rifles, at anaverage cost of $37.50. Tests showed that the rifle could fire 99 car-tridges in 8 minutes, 20 seconds, with the magazine being reloadedmanually during this time. The weapon could fire a 60-grain car-tridge and a 380-grain bullet without damage. Spencer himself at-tended the tests and fired nine rounds in one minute, with sevenhits on target.

The Spencer carbine was a similar weapon, and the governmentbought 94,196 of them, at an average cost of $25.50. The carbinefired a special .56/56 cartridge. In all, during the Civil War the U.S.government bought 58,238,924 Spencer cartridges, at an averagecost of 2.5 cents each. Despite the reputation they gained, theSpencer rifles and carbines were never issued in large numbers toUnion troops.13 Had they been, the outcome of the war would prob-ably never have been in doubt. The rate of fire was such that single-shot weapons had no reply, and the weight of fire that small unitscould put down on the battlefield was out of all proportion to theircomplement. Interestingly, in June 1868 records show that 4,875Spencer rifles and carbines were on issue to troops, while no fewerthan 35,176 were in racks in the various arsenals. The rifle was thenreplaced, amazingly, by the single-shot .50/70 Sharps carbine.


The best known of the lever-action rifles has to be the Winches-ter, immortalized in film14 and known to every schoolboy as well asthe Colt revolver. However, the action was designed by B. Ty l e rHenry, who appeared at about the time the Volcanic Arms Companyceased to exist. The Henry rifle is best described in a report by thecommanding officer of Washington Navy Yard to the chief of ord-nance. He wrote:

Henry’s Repeating Rifle, presented by Mr. Winchester . . . has beensubmitted to the usual examination and test.

The principal novelty in this gun is the magazine, and the mannerof loading from it. It consists of a tube, under the barrel, extending itsentire length, of sufficient diameter to admit the cartridges freely. Asection of this tube, near the muzzle, contains a spiral spring, tothrow the cartridges upon a carrier block in the rear. When the springis pressed into this section, it turns upon the axis of the bore, leavingthe magazine open for the introduction of cartridges, of which itholds fifteen. Upon closing it, after filling, the spring throws a car-tridge upon the carrier block, which, by a movement of the triggerguard, is raised to a level with the chamber, the hammer by the samemovement being carried to a full cock. A reverse movement of theguard, bringing it into place again, forces the cartridge into the cham-ber and the gun is ready to fire.

The ammunition is fixed, metal cased, with fulminate or cap in therear. The hammer, upon falling, strikes a rod, or breech pin, upon thefront of which are two sharp points, which are driven into the rear ofthe cartridge, thus exploding it . . . 187 shots were fired in 3 minutes,36 seconds . . . 120 shots were fired at 328 feet; 270 shots were firedat . . . 728 feet. It is fair to say to the inventor that these shots are nota fair test of accuracy. . . . Fifteen shots were fired for accuracy at atarget 18 inches square, at 348 feet distance. Fourteen hit direct. . . .The firing was then continued to test endurance, and so forth, up to1040 shots, the gun not having been cleaned or repaired from thefirst shot. The piece was then carefully examined, and found consid-erably leaded and very foul, the lands and grooves not being visible.In other respects it was found in perfect order.

It is manifest from the above experiment that this gun may be firedwith great rapidity, and is not liable to get out of order.15

The reply to this encomium was summarized by Brigadier Gen-eral James Ripley, who wrote that the Henry rifle was “defective inp r i n c i p l e ”1 6 and added some personal objections to the weapon,

74 RIFLES

including the weight and the fact that “special ammunition” was re-quired. The special ammunition was the composite cartridge, as op-posed to powder and ball. He noted specifically in respect to the am-munition that “it [is] impossible to use the arms with ordinarycartridge or with powder and ball.”17

The famous Winchester action is shown below:

The need for “special ammunition” was where the problem lay indeveloping breech-loading rifles. Only fifty years before, powder andball were still being loaded separately; less than ten years later thecomposite cartridge was generally accepted for military service. Am-munition supply was fundamental to military operations and espe-cially to the rifleman in the field. The composite cartridge originallymerely combined powder and ball to make reloading simpler; the ar-rival of the fully composite metallic cartridge would lead the way tomechanical operation of rifles—something impossible with paper orcardboard cartridges.


Winchester Rifle Action. Illustration enhanced from Jaroslav Lugs, Firearms Past and Present, Grenville, London, 1956.

ENDNOTES

1. Nicholson’s Journal of Natural Philosophy, July 1799.2. By Edward Howard, F.R.S., who published his article in the P h i l o-

sophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1800, Part 1, pp.204–233.

3. Jaroslav Lugs, Firearms Past and Present. London: Grenville, 1973(English reprint), pp. 58f.

4. His idea was groundbreaking, but not suited to military needs, as theprimer was prone to falling off the cartridge, and the paper cartridge wasvery liable to suffer from moisture and heat.

5. The first two were British gunmakers, the third an American fromPhiladelphia. Shaw was certainly the originator of the percussion cap inthe United States, and he received written acknowledgement in the letterfrom Lieutenant Colonel G. Talcott to William Wilkins, Secretary of War,11 June 1844, in support of Shaw’s claim for personal injury while in gov-ernment employment, working on the primer caps, in 1831.

6. By profession a urologist. He was something of an adventurer and hadthe habit of “borrowing” ideas from others, particularly those of Leboeuf deValdehon, inventor of a percussion magazine lock weapon patented in Lon-don in 1821.

7. Philip B. Sharpe, The Rifle in America. New York: Funk and Wagnalls,1947, p. 19.

8. Including those of Lieutenant J. N. Ward of the U.S. Army (1856),S h a r p ’s patent (1852) and Lawrence’s (1857), but credit is still due toMaynard as originator.

9. G. H. Daw, Daw’s Gun Patents. London, 1964, pp. 50ff.10. Lugs, op. cit., p. 138.11. U.S. Patent 27,393 of 6 March 1860.12. William H. Hallahan, M i s f i r e . New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons,

1994. Later the U.S. War Department reimbursed the cost of the weaponsto the men. Ibid., p. 176.

13. Both sides in the U.S. Civil War were armed overwhelmingly withbreech-loading single-shot muskets or rifles. The refusal by General Ripleyto consider Spencer and other similar-action rifles was utterly negligent,causing the deaths of thousands of men whose lives would have beenspared by the issue of the decisive repeating rifles. There can be littledoubt that if the North had had Spencer rifles and carbines, the Southwould have surrendered far earlier than it did.

14. The film Winchester ’73, directed by Anthony Mann and starringJames Stewart, Shelley Winters, Dan Duryea, Tony Curtis, and Rock Hud-son, appeared in 1970 and told the story of a Winchester Model 1873 thatpassed through various hands before the showdown, when the hero re-gained possession of the rifle he had won at the beginning of the film.

15. Ripley was chief of ordnance, based at Springfield Armory, where his

76 RIFLES

conservatism and reactionary nature resulted in the U.S. Army being de-nied repeating rifles on the grounds that they consumed needless amountsof ammunition. Ripley was of the long-range single-aimed-shot school,who had no notion of fire and movement tactics or of the morale effect ofheavy rifle fire on the enemy.

16. Letter from Ripley to Secretary of Wa r, Simon Cameron, dated 9December 1861, and quoted in Philip B. Sharpe, The Rifle in America, 2nded. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1947.

17. Ripley, although he believed he had the service at heart, was so un-willing to examine new ideas that his mind-set was fossilized.


C H A P T E R 5

Rifles and Ammunition in 1855

On 30 March 1858, Major Alfred Mordecai1 of the U.S. Army Ord-nance Department wrote to John B. Floyd, the secretary of war ofthe United States. He had been charged by Floyd’s predecessor, Jef-ferson Davis, with traveling to the Crimea and observing operationsthere in the course of the Crimean War between Great Britain andRussia. He noted that he had been unable to reach Sebastopol untilafter the Russians had abandoned the city, but he submitted his re-port2 on the state of European armies and equipment.

The report is of singular importance because it gives details of,among many other matters, infantry weapons in service in Europe,particularly in Russia, Prussia, Austria, France, and Great Britain, atthe time of the Crimean War. His report is important because of itsimpartiality and the desire to present all known or available factsabout the countries concerned. He also, as will be seen later, re-ported on any other countries about which he could get informa-tion; in this connection his report on the Swiss infantry arm showsthat even then the Swiss were preoccupied with secrecy.

The Russians, reported Mordecai,3 seemed to have been copyingweapons made in other countries, and “The great body of infantry isarmed with the smooth-bore musket, being either a new percussionmusket or a flint-lock altered to percussion, according to themethod used in France and Belgium. . . . The usual ammunition forthe smooth-bore musket is the round ball; but of late much use hasbeen made of the Belgian projectile known as the ‘Nessler’ b a l l . ”

79

The Nessler ball was a short cylindro-conoidal ball, hollow at thebase as was the Minié pattern ball. The ball was said to be accurateat 300 or even 400 yards and “is made in the usual way as for roundballs, and the ball part of it is dipped into melted tallow, the ball be-ing inserted into the gun with the paper with which it is wrapped.”Waxing the ball was to waterproof and preserve the cartridge. Thepowder charge was loaded first, then ball and paper were loaded, thepaper being used as wadding to cut windage.

80 RIFLES

Part of Plate 21 included in theMordecai Report. From AlfredMordecai, Report of the MilitaryCommission to Europe, US Houseof Representatives, 1856, Plate21.

Some progress had been made toward more modern weapons,however, and Mordecai reported that “many of the percussion mus-kets have been rifled, by cutting in them four wide grooves. . . . Theball used for these altered arms is of cylindro-conoidal form; also onthe Belgian system, with a projecting point in the cavity at theb a s e . ”4 H o w e v e r, some units were armed with French carbines àtige, while others had Brunswick rifles (made in Liège in Belgium),which fired, however, “an ogival ball.”

Examination of the battlefield of Inkerman revealed all of thetypes mentioned. As far as range was concerned, “We heard, in theEnglish camp, of a man having been killed (an accidental shot, nodoubt) by a rifle ball at 1,500 yards.” The effectiveness of the Minié-type projectile was in no doubt, and this fatality shows how effectivethe bullet was when compared with the minimal range of a roundedball of the same caliber.

Prussian line infantry (two battalions in each regiment) and theLandwehr (Prussian border guards) were armed with smoothboremuskets, altered to percussion firing. However, the “new percussionmusket” was a redesigned weapon, in which there was a conicalchambered breech and the firing nipple was displaced to the right sothat there need be little bending of the hammer, similar to the U.S.musket as adapted for Maynard’s tape primer (see Chapter 4).

The needle gun (Z u n d n ä d e l g e w e h r) was also described, despitethe efforts of the Prussians to keep the new technology secret. Infact, said Mordecai, “it is described in several published books, andspecimens are to be had in Liège [sic], New York, and in many otherplaces.” Having had some contact with Prussian officers in his trav-els, he noted that “the arm is highly approved by the Prussian offi-cers with whom we conversed respecting it, and it is understood thatthe use of it will be extended in their army; but they have had no op-portunity of trying it out in actual service, except on a small scale inthe Schleswig-Holstein War.”5 However, “Its complicated structure. . . seems to have prevented it from finding favour in any othercountry.”

Thouvenin tige rifles were issued to Jäger regiments, equivalent tothe British rifle brigade, in that their duties including scouting infront of the main body of troops and skirmishing, when their skillsas marksmen were founded upon accurate rifles. The weapons weresighted to 600 yards, had a hair trigger, and the barrel had eightgrooves with a twist of one turn in 36 inches.

Austrian troops were armed with converted smoothbore muskets,but they were fired by means of

RIFLES AND AMMUNITION IN 1855 81

percussion powder placed in a copper tube of such size that it can beintroduced into the vent of the flint musket.6 Thus inserted, theprimer lies in the groove of an iron seat which is substituted for thepan of the old musket; it is there protected by a cover which corre-sponds to the lower part of the flint “battery,” and is held down by thebattery spring; the percussion hammer, substituted for the flint cock,strikes on the top of this cover, and causes a point that projects fromthe cover of the pan to strike the tube of the percussion powder, andthus fires the charge.

Some men, however,7 were armed with rifles of the same caliberas the musket but built on the Delvigne principle, having a chamberof less diameter than the bore, upon the rim of which the ballrested, to be expanded by a blow from a “heavy hammer.”8 The Aus-trians were rearming at this time, however, and the report notes thatrammers were concave at the head to fit the form of the ball, whichwas obviously to try to avoid the deformation theretofore. Interest-ingly, only noncommissioned officers and rear-rank men were to beequipped with t i g e weapons, the other two ranks being equippedwith a standard weapon. The weapons were essentially percussionmuzzle-loading rifles, however, which many armies were attemptingto replace in the near future (see “Breech-Loading Rifles”).

There was little difference in French weapons; “the great body ofthe infantry of the line are still armed with the simple percussionmusket, (new or altered from flint-lock,) and use the spherical ball.”Some weapons, however, had been rifled, but the caliber was large,at just over .7 inch. Again, some weapons were fitted with the tigesystem.

Of important note, however, was the fact that

the practical objection to the use of the “tige” (the difficulty of clean-ing the chamber, and the uncertainty of effect resulting from its be-ing foul, &c.) have caused experiments to be made in France . . . forsubstituting some other method of expanding the ball. . . . For thispurpose experiments are now in progress on a large scale at Vi n-cennes, at the school of infantry practice, under the direction of Mr.[sic] Minié, instructor of the school, to ascertain the best form of ballto be used . . . without the “tige.”9

The U.S. team had visited Vincennes and was shown three typesof balls (see illustration of Plate 21, figures 2, 7, and 8), one theMinié ball proper, one an Imperial Guard ball, and the last by

82 RIFLES

Colonel Timmerhans. The best results seemed to be with the Miniéball proper, and one added advantage was that the powder chargecould also be increased with this bullet, giving greater range. TheNessler ball mentioned above was inferior in that it was too short inlength and did not expand as effectively in the rifling; further, it wastoo like a rounded ball and could roll in the barrel.

Interestingly, the Emperor’s Palace Guard10 was equipped with abreech-loading rifle-carbine, with the seemingly small caliber of .36inch. The breech system was “similar to that of Sharp’s carbine.” Re-action to the system and the small caliber was that it was too smallto be effective, but the French had plans to adopt this caliber,which, because of the greater length of the bullet, had very effectiveballistics. The French claimed an effective range for the weapon,with a 180-grain bullet in an elongated form, of 600 yards, and amaximum of no less than 2,000 yards.

Mordecai then turned to the British Army, of which he wrote:

In 1840, the only rifled arm used in that service was the two-groovedgun, known as the “Brunswick rifle,” from which a round, belted ballwas fired. In 1851 a rifled musket was adopted and a considerablenumber (28,000) of the arms were ordered for issue to the troops.This musket was of the old caliber .702 inch; the barrel was rifledwith four grooves, having half a turn in the barrel. The ball adoptedwas the Minié system, (Plate 21, Fig. 9,) having an iron cup in thecavity of the base, but without the exterior grooves—weight 680grains—charge of powder sixty-eight grains.

He went on to remark that

on account of the great weight of this arm and ammunition, and theconsequent difficulty of the soldiers carrying the requisite number ofsixty rounds, further experiments were made, with a view to adoptinga lighter caliber. For this purpose a commission of officers met at thegovernment manufactory of arms, at Enfield, in 1852, for the com-parative trials of many kinds of rifled arms, offered by different man-ufacturers, which are described in the published report. These exper-iments resulted in the adoption of the ‘Enfield Musket.’ This ‘musket’[sic] had a 39 inch barrel, caliber .577-inch. Rifling was three groovesset at half a turn in the barrel.

The weapon was issued with a cartridge in which was a ball simi-lar to the Pritchet Ball (see illustration of Plate 21, figure 10),


which had a cavity at the base, but no expanding cup or wedge. Thereport continues:

A considerable number of the arms and cartridges were . . . issued tothe troops just before the assault on Sebastopol. . . . Partly, perhaps,for want of proper instruction of the men in their use; partly, also, forwant of accurate adaptation in the size of the ball to that of the bore,the trial of these muskets in service was attended with some embar-rassment; it was found that when the barrel became foul after a fewrounds, great difficulty occurred in loading.

As a result of this a new ball was issued, which was a Minié-typeball but had a wooden plug in the base of the bullet instead of thecup of sheet iron (see illustration of Plate 21, figure 11). Trials atthe British School of Infantry Practice at Hythe were said to be“highly satisfactory,” but the troops in the field had not yet receivedany of the new ammunition.

Mordecai also comments briefly on the Lancaster system, whichwas an elliptical bore with an increasing rifling rate as the barrel pro-gressed to the muzzle. The system was invented by Charles Wi l l i a mLancaster of London,1 1 and the barrel contained two grooves thatwere smoothed out so that there were no edges between groove andland. Later developments overtook this idea, but it was seriously ex-amined at the time and considered an innovation of value.

What was of prime importance to the development of rifles hadoccurred in Germany: Dreyse rifles had been issued to the Prussiani n f a n t r y, and these rifles fired a form of composite cartridge andwere closed at the breech by means of a bolt action. The subsequentinvention of the complete metallic cartridge would allow more de-velopment of mechanical loading by means of bolt actions, some-thing already available in the Dreyse system.

THE HISTORY OF RIFLING

It seems a logical deduction to assume that the principle of rotating aprojectile in flight to improve accuracy was learned from the archers,whose arrows were fletched in such a way as to impart spin to theclothyard arrow. This was done by setting the flights at an angle sothat when the arrow flew, air pressure forced the shaft to rotate.

There is some doubt about exactly when rifling first appeared1 2

84 RIFLES

and whether it was straight13 or spiral rifling. However 1520 is onedate upon which some authorities are agreed. This was the year inwhich Augustus Kotter of Nuremberg first produced a spiral-rifledbarrel. Other authorities suggest that it was the invention of Gas-pard Kollner of Vienna in the fifteenth century. Whatever the out-come of this argument, it is clear that by the sixteenth century ri-fling was a part of the gunmaker’s art.

The invention was, no matter when it is dated, Continental ratherthan English. The earliest reference in an English text is dated to159414 in which there is the following passage relating to rifling:

How to make a pistol whose barrel is two feet in length to deliver abullet point blank at eight score [i.e. 160 yards]. A pistoll of the afore-said length and being of petronel bore,1 5 or a bore higher, hauingeight gutters (grooves) somewhat deepe in the inside of the barrell,and the bullet a thought bigger than the bore, and is rammed in atthe first three or four inches at the least, and after driuen downe withthe skowring stick, will deliver his bullet at such a distance.

The only question of the text is whether the rifling was spiral orstraight, but the striking results obtained would suggest spiral ri-fling. The problem that went with rifling is also hinted at: gettingthe bullet seated firmly at the breech of the weapon, which had tobe achieved through brute force with muzzle-loading weapons.

More detailed discussion on rifling occurs in a text of 1644,which mentions that “there are other arquebuses rifled within withgrooves which generally make in the length of the barrel half a turn,or one turn, or a turn and a half.”16

This now raises another matter for the gunsmith, whose craft wasbecoming more and more scientifically based, which was the rate ofturn of rifling and whether or not it related to the bullet or the bar-rel. The solution was only arrived at considerably later. De Espinarcomments on the problem that the grooves can be shallow or deep,and numerous or not, as follows: “These last [deep grooves withwide bands, or lands, separating the grooves] are best; and to have agreater or less number is a matter of taste . . . and similarly thequestion of the gun containing a large or a small ball. . . . In using alarge bullet one can put more grooves for it, for in this there is nofixed rule.” He goes on to note that loading a rifled weapon wasmore exact than with a smoothbore because of the barrel resistancein the former weapon. The ball was to be rammed down as hard aspossible onto the charge, the result of which was more barrel pres-


sure, which would overcome the resistance of the rifling and putmore power behind the bullet.

He also wrote in some detail of the type of wadding or patchingrequired, saying that a good wad or patch improved the ease of load-ing, because the wads were waxed. De Espinar also mentions theproblem of fouling and comments that with a rifle one may get onlytwo shots before having to wash the barrel. This passage actuallymentions many of the problems to be overcome in shooting a rifledweapon, problems that have not entirely been eradicated even today,although they are a lot less severe than in the seventeenth century.

The earliest rifles seem to have had six to eight rifling grooves, ac-cording to whim. One of the ways in which the turns were describedwas to calculate the number of calibers of the weapon in which afull single turn of the bullet would occur, and many early rifles havea slow twist, some fifty to ninety calibers. Later rifles exhibit evenmore gradual turns, and ones from the seventeenth century go up to200 calibers. The form of rifling varied as well; depending on thehardness and accuracy of the tools used, it could vary from a shal-low hemispherical groove to rectangular deep grooves, and all was atthe time “according to taste.”17

The rifle was slow to be adopted in England, particularly by thearmed forces, which is not surprising in view of the traditional con-servatism of the establishment with reference to new equipment forinfantry. It was known by 1740 but rarely used even in civilian sport-ing weapons.18 However, Ezekiel Baker in 1800 talked knowledge-ably about rifled weapons, arguing that the one-turn-in-four- f e e tprinciple, adopted by English rifle makers, was not correct. He alsonoted that if the powder charge was increased to overcome the re-sistance of the rifling more readily, there was a tendency for the bul-let to strip, or pass over the rifling altogether. His experiments con-vinced him that the best barrel length was 2 feet, 6 inches, rifledwith one quarter of a turn along its length.

Soon after Baker’s book appeared, a Colonel Beaufoy19 argued formore rapid turns, saying that a three-quarter turn in the barrel wasfar better, and that accuracy at longer ranges was better with this in-creased twist. He gave as his evidence the fact that “guns havebeen . . . constructed on this plan, they were first of all (we believe)adopted in the Duke of Cumberland’s Sharpshooters where theywere found to answer so well that all their crack shots, and such aswere fond of the sport, abandoned their old barrels, and procuredothers on the new plan, which was that of three-fourths.”

This system was soon improved on, and one full turn showedeven better results, but, as can be seen, it was still very much a mat-

86 RIFLES

ter of guesswork, for there had been no serious scientific treatmentof the problem. Further development was carried out in the UnitedStates, and one rifle made there had a 39-inch barrel with one fullturn of rifling, which was very successful.20

There was one instance of straight rifling, which became an ad-vantage when it was twisted, and this was in the Brunswick rifle.This weapon succeeded the Baker rifle in British service in 1839 (is-sued to the Rifle Brigade of the British Army). The two-groove sys-tem firing a banded round ball was fitted at a twist rate of one turnin 30 inches, four times as fast as the Baker rifle it had replaced.The main point is that the pitch or rate of rifling is linked to the ve-locity required of the bullet being fired; with a round ball fast riflingand high velocity result in stripping.21 The answer lay in the form ofthe bullet, and the cylindro-conoidal form solved this problem al-most completely.

Sir Joseph Whitworth, one of England’s great engineers, con-ducted a number of experiments around 1860, and showed that inthe Enfield 0.577-inch rifle, the rate of twist (one turn in 78 inches)was enough for the bullet being fired, but would not steady a longerbullet. He further discovered that if the caliber was reduced, the rateof twist could be considerably increased, even to as much as one turnin one inch. To allow him to fire such bullets, however, he had to firethem from his hexagonal bore rifle with hardened, hexagonal bullets.

The next man on the scene was William Ellis Metford, whose in-terest in rifling arose from the competition scene. An avid and ex-tremely knowledgeable shot, he estimated that using the normal-pattern rifle, if the rifling were increased to one turn in 34 caliberstoward the muzzle, the loss in muzzle velocity would be negligible.The principle he was working on was that the bullet should have itsrotation increased in proportion to the increase in velocity as it trav-eled up the barrel. As the gases behind the bullet expanded so thebullet accelerated. By plotting the acceleration in relation to time,distinct time segments denoted where the bullet rotation could beincreased. However, manufacturing processes make this more adream than reality, and it can only apply to soft bullets, not long,jacketed projectiles.22

THE RIFLE AS A MILITARY WEAPON

The rifled arm as a military weapon did not truly come into use untilthe eighteenth century. However, the Landgraf of Hesse had a troop


of riflemen in 1631, and ten years later Maximilian of Bavaria hadseveral troops armed with rifled arquebuses. Louis XIII armed hisbodyguard with rifles, and later ordered that two men from everylight cavalry regiment should be so armed. These men were laterformed into a regiment of carbineers, but the first issue carbine didnot appear until 1793. The English learned the value of the riflewhen it was used against them in the American War of Indepen-dence; they hired Continental Jäger to take on the American back-woodsmen, whose accuracy was streets ahead of the musket armedinfantry of the line.

There are other examples of small rifle armed units in the eigh-teenth century, such as the Austrian chasseurs, sharpshooters, ands k i r m i s h e r s2 3 who were issued with a rifle in 1759. Austrian borderguard sharpshooters were issued with special over-and-under riflesin 1768, with a smoothbore lower barrel and a rifled upper barrelfor firing patched ball. The rifle was fired resting on the hook of along pike, which served as a protection if the riflemen were at-tacked. The Russians issued a similar weapon between 1776 and1 7 9 6 .

As far as the British Army was concerned, it received its firstfirearms in 1471, when the hand cannon was introduced. This wasfollowed by the matchlock, which remained in use (only a fewwheel locks were ever issued on the grounds of cost and complica-tion) until the reign of James I (1603–1626), when some flintlockswere issued to the leading regiments. Muskets came into generaluse in the reign of William III; from these muskets developed the“Brown Bess” weapon, which served the British Army for over 100y e a r s .

Brown Bess fired a ball two sizes smaller than its caliber,24 to al-low for easy loading, but range and accuracy were laughable.Greener commented that “the immense escape of explosive matterpast the ball prevented the possibility of any velocity worthy of thename being given to the ball, and the range is the most contemptibleof any gun I know: 120 yards is the average distance at which theballs strike the ground when fired horizontally at five feet above thelevel.”25

Rifles were issued to the British Army as early as 1800, but insuch small numbers as to be ineffective. The 95th Foot, the RifleBrigade, was the first regiment to have this new weapon, which itused, it seems, without being officially noticed by the British Wa rOffice, until the Brunswick rifle was introduced in 1835.

88 RIFLES

ENDNOTES

1. See Appendix A for a more detailed description of the contents ofSchön’s report, which was appended to Mordecai (see note 2 below) andwhich is fundamental to an understanding of the more mechanical aspectsof rifles at this time.

2. Military Commission to Europe in 1855 and 1856, Report of MajorAlfred Mordecai. Washington, DC: George W. Bowman, 1861.

3. Ibid., pp. 157ff.4. See the partial reproduction of this plate.5. By 1870 the needle gun had had its war, being used to great effect in

the Franco-Prussian War.6. This was the consol ignition system and was very much a stop-gap

method of ignition, in that the slightest imperfection in the tube putweapons out of action.

7. The noncommissioned officers and “some of the men in each com-pany”; Military Commission to Europe in 1855 and 1856, op. cit., p. 160.

8. One of the reasons for the invention of the Minié principle was thisloading system, which caused so much deformation in the bullet that accu-racy was severely affected, as was energy at target.

9. Military Commission to Europe in 1855 and 1856, op. cit., p. 163.10. Prince Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, nephew of Napoleon I, was at

this time president of France and known as Emperor Napoleon III.11. English Patent No. 13,161 of 1850.12. For instance, Fremantle notes (p. 4) that Major Angelo A n g e l u c c i

refers to an inventory of 1476 that mentions the sclopetus unus ferri factusa lumaga, and also says that one Hungarian rifled barrel from 1848 wasthen (1901) in the Museum at Woolwich. Hon T F Fremantle, The Book ofthe Rifle. London and New York: Longmans Green, 1901.

13. Straight rifling was thought to be an antidote to fouling. That it wasnot was soon realized.

14. In Sir Hugh Plat, Jewell House of Art and Nature, 1594.15. The petronel was a weapon designed to be attached by its rear to a

breastplate or similar body armour. The caliber would be between 0.5 and1.5 inches.

16. Alonso Martinez de Espinar, Arte de Ballesteria y Monteria. Madrid,1644; reprinted 1761.

17. Fremantle, op. cit., p. 8.18. Benjamin Robins, Mathematical Tracts of the Late Benjamin Robins,

Esq., Containing His New Principles of Gunnery &c. London, 1761.19. Col. Beaufoy, Scloppetaria: Or Considerations on the Nature and Use

of Rifled Barrel Guns. London, 1808. 20. General George Hangar, “To All Sportsmen, Farmers and Game-

keepers: Above Thirty Years Practice on Horses and Dogs.” London, 1816.


21. See Lt. James Forsyth, The Sporting Rifle and Its Projectiles. Lon-don, 1863.

22. See Fremantle, op. cit., p. 21.23. Who were obliged to buy their own weapons until 1759. See Lugs,

op. cit., p. 35.24. Based on the shotgun caliber measurement system, so a 10-bore

weapon (10 balls to the pound weight) fired a 12-bore bullet.25. William Greener, The Science of Gunnery. London, 1846.

90 RIFLES

6

The Bolt-Action Rifle

The first bolt-action weapons were invented in the nineteenthcentury and were initially an alternate method of closing the breechand firing a breech-loaded, rifled, single-shot weapon. The first suc-cessful weapon of this type was the Dreyse needle rifle, invented byJohann Nikolaus Dreyse near Erfurt, Germany. His work started in1827 and concentrated on standard smoothbore muzzle loaders, buthe progressed to breech-loading weapons, and by 1835 he had per-fected the needle rifle.

The weapon required a special, all-in-one cartridge, in which bul-let, charge, and primer were contained together in one item. TheDreyse cartridge had a paper case with the bullet at one end, oppo-site the charge. In the middle of the cartridge was the primer. Theneedle rifle used a long firing pin to penetrate the rear of the car-tridge and pass through the powder charge, firing the cartridgewhen it struck the primer immediately behind the bullet.

The action of this weapon is so important in relation to the devel-opment of the military rifle that it is worth detailing how it works.The drawing of the Dreyse action shows (top) the weapon and itstrigger mechanism. The weapon in this drawing is not loaded. Thebreech was designed in the following way: The breech, comprisingthe bolt and its operation knob, slides into the receiver, which iscylindrically machined to fit it. The bolt head has a plate into whichthe needle bush is screwed. This guides the needle as it passes for-ward on firing. The sear nose passes through a recess in the under-side of the receiver and is mounted on the trigger spring, on one endof which is the two-arm lever. The bolt contains a lock including abush, the needle guide, and a spring with a leather inlay. A brass rod

91

with the needle attached is screwed into the bolt needle guide. Thereceiver has a recess for the double-toothed spring pawl, of whichthe underpart locks the bolt in the receiver.

As the cartridge was charged with black powder, the face of thebolt had an air chamber machined into it to accept powder residue.This needed careful attention and cleaning on a regular basis. Theneedle and its mounting rod could be field stripped, as could thecomplete bolt.

To load the weapon the soldier needed to perform the followingactions:

1. Push the head of the spring pawl (to release the rear notch)and then pull the cocking piece out to the second notch.

2. Unlock the bolt and open it by rotating it to the left and thenpull it to the rear.

3. Place the cartridge in the breech.4. Push the bolt forward and then rotate it to the right. 5. Push the bolt rear forward into the bolt proper so that the rear

notch of the spring pawl engages the bolt sear.

The trigger sear prevented the needle and rod from moving forwardand compressed the main spring.

To fire the weapon pressure was applied to the trigger that disen-gaged the sear, allowing the needle, under pressure from the mainspring, to move forward. The needle went through the rear of thepaper cartridge and through the powder charge to the primer. On

92 RIFLES

The Dreyse Needle Rifle. Enhanced illustration from The Engineer, various dates.

striking the primer, the shot was fired, and the soldier now neededto reload.

The success of this rifle was marked by rapid acceptance into thePrussian Army as the issue weapon on 4 December 1840. Theweapon saw a lot of action due to the political situation of Prussia atthe time. Expansion under Chancellor Otto von Bismarck was tak-ing place, and the rifle had great success in the Austro-Prussian Warof 1866, even though it was already obsolete.

The cartridge of the Dreyse was quickly superseded by a betterdesign, in which the primer was at the base of the cartridge andtherefore of the charge as well. One of the problems with the needlerifle was the corrosion caused to the needle by being in the heart ofthe chamber on firing. The heat and the gases produced by theblack powder soon caused damage to the needles, which limited theworking life of these weapons.

The French Chassepôt rifle was very similar to the Dreyse exceptthat the cartridge was base primed, eliminating the need for the ex-

THE BOLT-ACTION RIFLE 93

The Chassepôt Rifle. Enhanced illustration from The Engineer, various dates.

ceptionally long and fragile needle of the latter. It was, however, ob-turated with a cork ring that soon deteriorated and became useless.

THE REPEATING BOLT-ACTION RIFLE

The invention of the composite cartridge allowed breech-loadingweapons to be developed, and the increasing skills of engineers fa-cilitated making weapons and cartridges that were within close tol-erances, close enough that the weapons and ammunition could besaid to be identical for practical purposes. This meant that every ri-fle could fire a standard cartridge, and although interchangeabilityof weapon parts was never intended, weapons and mass-producedcartridges would be dependable.

The bolt action itself was not enough, for with the earliest rifle re-loading was done by hand, with every cartridge introduced individu-ally by the firer. Various attached cartridge holders were tried to easethe situation, but what was needed was a means of holding a num-ber of cartridges within the weapon itself. Earlier repeating weaponshad held ammunition in tubes below the barrel, or within the butt ofthe weapon, but the breakthrough came with the invention of thevertical magazine. This held five or 10 cartridges (on average) belowthe bolt so that, on operating the bolt, the spent case was extractedand ejected, and, on pushing the bolt forward again, a new cartridgewas taken from the magazine and pushed into the breech. At thesame time, the bolt was recocked so that all the firer had to do afterthat was squeeze the trigger.

The first successful magazine design was that of Walker, Money,and Little, which was patented in 1867.1 This was a vertical boxmagazine beneath the bolt that held six cartridges that were fed intothe path of the bolt on reloading by a “false bottom pressed upwardby a spiral spring.”2 A rotary magazine was also designed, the “Spi-t a l s k y,” and both the Mauser and Mannlicher companies were ex-amining the idea closely.

The breakthrough in practical terms came, however, with the de-sign of James P. Lee of Ilion, New York. His design was a bolt-actionrepeating rifle with the magazine under the bolt. The magazine heldfive cartridges, which were pushed up to the feet position by a Z-shaped spring beneath them. This system was patented on 4 No-vember 1879 as the “Lee detachable magazine gun.” An improvedversion was patented on 3 March 1882, and the U.S. OrdnanceCommission tested the weapon, pronouncing it serviceable.3

94 RIFLES

LEE AND THE BRITISH

The British Army in 1860 was equipped with the Martini-Henry,lever-action, single-shot rifle in .443-inch caliber, but events in thefirearms field in Europe led to the establishment of the BritishSmall Arms Committee under General Philip Smith in 1863. Itstask was to examine the new bolt-action and other rifles with a viewto reequipping British infantry with a bolt-operated magazine rifle.

The committee remit stated that it was to consider “the desirabil-ity or otherwise of introducing a magazine rifle for naval or militaryuse, or both.”4 A large number of rifles were presented for examina-tion, some of them from abroad, but only three weapons were cho-sen for extensive trials. The three were the Lee magazine rifle, animproved Lee with a Bethel Burton magazine, and the Owen Jonesmagazine rifle. The Bethel Burton magazine varied from the maga-zine system of the other two by being mounted high on the upperright side of the receiver.

All rifles were in caliber .45 in the 1855 trials, and the Owen Jonesfell at this hurdle. By the time the 1887 trials took place the Lee ri-fles were both recalibered to .402 inch, in barrels designed byWilliam E. Metford, who had invented the polygonal rifling method.The result was the choice of Lee’s rifle with his own magazine.

On the Continent, however, the Swiss had just reduced the cal-iber of their service rifle to .295 inch, and suddenly the British cal-iber looked too big for modern weapons. This led to the decision to


The Lee Bolt-Action Magazine Rifle of 1879. This is the first exampleof Lee’s designs, and brought in a clean, easy-to-operate bolt-action

system that served the British Army for well over 60 years. Enhanced illustration from The Engineer, various dates.

reduce the caliber to .303 inch, which was a momentous decision.The problem persisted, however, in the powder used, for the Britishhad no smokeless powder available for the new caliber. Metfordcame to the rescue and drew up a specification for the rifling andthe chamber of the new weapon.

This rifle was to be known as the Lee Metford, and 350 exampleswere made in 1888 and issued for troop trials. At this time Joseph J.Speed was working at the Royal Small Arms Fa c t o r y, and he de-signed some magazine refinements that were incorporated into thisrifle. (His designs were also marketed commercially as Lee-Speed ri-fles, made by the Birmingham Small Arms Company.) The trialweapons had a muzzle velocity of 1,850 feet per second (fps), pro-duced by a cartridge charge of 70 grains of compressed black pow-der, developing a chamber pressure of 18 tons per square inch.

In anticipation perhaps of developments soon to come, the riflewas sighted to 2,000 yards, but with the cartridge powder initiallyused the accuracy of the weapon was unsatisfactory. Despite thisproblem the rifle underwent various modifications and after 1891had a 10-round magazine (approved by the new Small Arms Commit-tee in December 1891); other, less significant changes were madeuntil, in 1899, the Lee-Enfield Mark I appeared. There was little ofsignificant change except for the removal of the cleaning rod, whichhad been fitted under the barrel in the ramrod style up to that time.

The cartridge propellant problem had persisted for a short time,but by 1891 Hiram S. Maxim, Sir Frederick Abel, and the Nobelfirm all and separately arrived at the solution, which was cordite (acompound of 58 percent nitroglycerine, 37 percent guncotton, and5 percent mineral jelly). The resulting compound was smokeless andleft almost no fouling deposits in the weapons firing the new car-tridges. The important factor for the soldier was that with the in-creased power of the cartridge the trajectory of the bullet was flatter,meaning that lower standards of marksmanship would still producebetter results than in the black-powder days. Further, increasedranges could be covered, and the concept of rifle fire used againstgroups of men, horses, and, later, vehicles, was born.

One more improvement was made to produce what was nowcalled the Cartridge SA Ball Magazine Rifle Mark I. In the black-powder era, lead was quite sufficient for ball ammunition, as it wasnot subjected to stresses that it was incapable of handling. Leadwhen fired with cordite propellant, however, was subject to pres-sures in the rifling that it was incapable of withstanding, and roundswere either “stripping” (going through the barrel without beinggripped by the rifling) or deforming when gripped by the rifling.

96 RIFLES

In 1875 Major Bode of the Swiss Army had invented a design fora jacketed bullet that could cope with the higher pressures, and thiswas supplemented by another Swiss, Major Eduard Rubin, who de-signed a copper-jacketed bullet that could not only cope with thepressures in the new rifles but also could withstand the effect of thetorque produced in the barrel by the rifling.

As noted above, the British and the Swiss had made drastic re-ductions in the caliber of their service weapons. As a result of thiscaliber reduction, to ensure that the round had military efficiency(that is, it would be capable of wounding or killing the target), the


Lee’s Rifle Designs. Enhanced illustration from The Engineer, various dates.

bullet had to take on a long profile, with the jacket surrounding acore of lead or other similar heavy filling. Further, bullets had tohave ballistic weight, otherwise the long-range performance wouldbe adversely affected by the fact that the velocity of a light bulletfalls off very rapidly due to air resistance.

So between 1889 and 1891 the British changed from black pow-der to cordite in their new .303-inch service rifle. It was with

98 RIFLES

This drawing shows the British bolt that was fitted to all service riflesfrom the appearance of the Number 1 rifle to the Number 5 rifle

(a lightened jungle version of the Number 4 rifle). Note that SMLE stands for “Short, Magazine, Lee Enfield.”

Enhanced illustration from The Engineer, various dates.

slightly modified versions of the 1899 rifle that the British went towar in 1914, when, during the retreat to the Marne, German troopsassumed the British had a lot of machine guns because British in-fantry rifle fire was so rapid and accurate.

The British Army continued to use bolt-action rifles until the late1950s, when the self-loading rifle (SLR) was issued. British bolt ac-tions were extremely smooth to operate and, despite the fact thatthey were often criticized for being rear-locking, maintained a relia-bility for service second to none. In World War I the Lee-Enfield Ri-fle No. 1 and its variants did sterling service, not being supersededuntil the latter half of World War II by the Lee-Enfield Rifle No. 4.The bolt, which was the heart of the system, was, with very minormodifications, the same throughout.

THE MAUSER RIFLE AND OTHER GERMAN MAKES

Peter Paul Mauser must stand by the side of Mikhail TimofeyevichKalashnikov in the annals of rifle designers. Just as Kalashnikov andhis famous rifle are known to everyone today, so, too, was Mauser inthe period 1900–1945. He was born in Oberndorf, Germany, in1838, the son of a gunsmith who worked in the Wurtemberg StateArsenal.5

The younger Mauser served his apprenticeship in the same fac-t o r y, and by 1866 he had produced an experimental self-cockingDreyse needle gun. By 1867, however, he had moved to Liège, Bel-gium, where a modified Chassepôt rifle was produced. At the time,Mauser was associated with an American, Samuel Norris of Spring-field, Massachusetts, but this partnership was dissolved when Rem-ington and Sons, Norris’s employers, found out what he was up to.By 1870 his C/70 rifle design was seen to be vastly superior to theDreyse design and to the Beck modified versions of the needle rifle.(Johannes Beck redesigned the bolt head to improve the originalneedle rifle mechanism.) This resulted in the production of an ini-tial 2,500 versions for field trials, and the Infanterie-Gewehr (In-fantry Rifle) Model 1871 was officially adopted by the PrussianArmy on 22 March 1872. This rifle underwent modification, andthe revolution in magazine design was soon incorporated, the desig-nation becoming the Infanterie-Gewehr M1871/84.

The arrival of new cordite technology stopped Mauser for a while,


but he soon fought back with designs that were sold abroad, al-though some of his designs were not bought by the German govern-ment. By combining the need for more chamber strength (to copewith cordite) and by incorporating a five-round box magazine,Mauser brought his rifle up to world standards, and via variousmodifications he finally brought out the Gewehr 98, a rifle that ri-vals the Lee-Enfield in the affections of gun collectors and crackshots all over the world. The rifle also confronted the Lee-Enfield inthe serious business of war on two major occasions, with Britain andGerman fielding their own versions of the rifles against one anotherfrom 1914 to 1918, and again from 1939 to 1945.

The rifle was a bolt-action box magazine weapon. Acting on vari-ous reports received about previous weapons he had designed,Mauser set out to make the perfect infantry rifle, and in manyminds he succeeded. The design itself concentrated on safety andease of use in the field. The weapon was strong and had more thanadequate safety features to ensure that the user was not injured bythe firing pin penetrating through the primer into the cartridgebody; the receiver was strengthened as well, against the event of anoverloaded cartridge being fired.

The action of the bolt is considered rather sloppy, but this is be-cause Mauser allowed generous tolerances for his working parts,which made sure that the rifle was able to function in the most ad-verse conditions of mud or ice. The standard version was 4 feet, 1inch long and weighed 9 pounds, 4 ounces. The magazine held fivec h a r g e r-loaded cartridges.6 The barrel was 29.1 inches long, with

100 RIFLES

The Mauser Rifle, 1895. Enhanced illustration from an original series of catalogues, 1898.

four clockwise rifling grooves with a pitch of one turn in 9.39inches.

The weapon was chambered for the 7.92mm Mauser cartridge.7

This cartridge originally held 40.75 grains of nitrocellulose powderbehind a 227-grain cupro-nickel–coated, steel-jacketed bullet. Muz-zle velocity was a remarkable 2,093 fps. Acceptance of the rifle bythe German Army was instantaneous.8 I n t e r e s t i n g l y, after Wo r l dWar I, Mauser sued the U.S. government successfully for infringe-ment of his patents, because the U.S. Army adopted the SpringfieldM1903 rifle, a Mauser in all but name (see below, “America and theBolt-Action Rifle”).

Another German designer who made a significant mark on rifledesign, even though his weapons were never adopted in Germany,was Ferdinand von Mannlicher. He was born in 1848 in Bohemiaand was educated in Vienna at the technical college. In 1876 hewent to the World Exhibition in Philadelphia, where, instead of con-centrating on the railway exhibits since he worked for Austrian rail-ways, he became sidetracked by the Winchester and Hotchkissweapons exhibits.

Mannlicher went into rifle design from that moment and receivedhonors for his work, including a Gold Medal at the 1900 Interna-tional Exposition in Paris. Although many of his designs were fail-ures, his place in rifle history is assured because of his inventive ge-nius. One significant design was a semiautomatic rifle patented in1895, improved by 1900, which was operated by gas tapped from


The Mannlicher Rotary Magazine System. Mannlicher’s rotating magazine systemwas one method whereby the single-tube magazine was improved by putting three

parallel tubes together. However, the system proved too complex for field use.Enhanced illustration from The Engineer, various dates.

the barrel that forced a piston to actuate the mechanism. This prin-ciple is at the heart of most SLRs today. One area in which hisweapons still survive is that of stalking, for Mannlicher sporting ri-fles made around 1900 can still be seen doing excellent work in theScottish Highlands.

THE FRENCH LEBEL

France has a history of producing weapons that are slightly out ofsynchronicity with the rest of European design, and the Lebel of thenineteenth century and the later FAMAS are examples of this trend.The Lebel rifle was fed by a tube magazine fitted below the barrel inthe same way that the Winchester was fed, but with a bolt action.The rife adopted for military service stayed on issue from 1886 until

102 RIFLES

The Lebel Rifle. Enhanced illustration from The Engineer, various dates.

1936. What makes the rifle important is that it fired the first smoke-less propellant cartridge that was in the smaller 8x50 Lebel car-tridge.

THE UNITED STATES AND THE BOLT-ACTION RIFLE

It is interesting to note that in its history, the U.S. Army has issuedonly two bolt-action rifles to U.S. troops, the Krag-Jorgenson 8mmand the Springfield Model 1903 caliber .30. The first was an abjectfailure, the second being a copy of another famous weapon—theGerman Mauser Gew 98. It is also interesting to note that whereasin Europe the bolt action appeared in the 1840s, the United Statespersisted in the use of single-shot breech loaders such as the Spring-field and the Sharps carbine. Why Spencer’s repeating rifle was es-sentially sidelined has been mentioned above, but the mind-set to-ward procurement and that at the Springfield Armory seem to havebeen almost traitorous as far as the well-being of U.S. infantry wasconcerned. One can only wonder what would have been the effecthad Custer’s troops been armed with the Spencer at the Battle ofthe Little Bighorn.

The decision was made, albeit delayed, to examine the Europeanfascination with bolt-action rifles, and in 1891 General Daniel W.Flagler was appointed the new chief of ordnance for the U.S. gov-ernment. Although considered by the conservative General StephenV. Benét (his predecessor) to be even more conservative, Flagler waslooking to the future and to the replacement of the old trapdoorblack-powder single-shot rifle then on issue to the U.S. Army. In hisfirst annual report he wrote unequivocally that the United Stateswas years behind the rest of the developed world in that it had notadopted a modern, small-caliber, high-velocity magazine-type rifle,and he added that what remained of the army was seen as under-armed.

General Benét had been obdurate in his refusal to considerrearming the infantry, even though the Hotchkiss, Lee, and Mauserdesigns were all superior to the trapdoor Springfield in every re-spect. General Flagler was determined to change this, but he hadtwo problems. One was a Springfield Armory staff totally unwillingto consider new ideas; the other was that he had none of the newsmokeless powder, which was only available outside the U.S., to


make cartridges for any new weapon. Luckily the second problemwas solved by Hiram Maxim, who made his own, and 500 pounds ofWetteren powder was obtained from Belgium.

The designers at Frankford Arsenal were now equipped to designthe new caliber .30 cartridge as soon as the rifle and its magazinewere decided upon. General Flagler now reassembled the RifleBoard, under Captain Stanhope E. Blunt, to examine all submittedweapons. Fifty-three weapons were submitted, including some ofthe very best from Europe. There were no U.S. designs for the sim-ple reason that U.S. rifle makers were unable to cope with the newpowder.

The board and General Flagler decided it was important that U.S.inventors participate and to this end issued a supply of the new car-tridge and some new caliber .30 barrels. By doing this, less finan-cially well-off manufacturers could also participate, and no onecould manufacture nonstandard barrels or ammunition for the tests.Having said that the general was a man who looked to the future, itis important to realize the philosophy driving the search for a maga-zine rifle. The magazine was seen not as a supply of replaceable am-munition but as a safety device, only for use in extremes, when sin-gle loading was dangerous. In other words, the army was looking fora rifle that had a reserve of ammunition in the magazine, but thiswas not to be used while there was time to load each cartridgesingly, just as the old Springfield had been operated. The magazinecontents were to be used only in the last stages of an operation,when loading single rounds would be too slow. The old principle ofaccurate long-range shooting was still alive.

The Mauser rifle was the first to run afoul of this particularly ar-cane train of thought, because it could not be loaded with singlecartridges. The German Army wanted rapid-fire weapons, so theweapon was loaded with five rounds in a clip, and German soldierswere issued all their ammunition prepacked in clips. At the timemuch opinion was against the magazine rifle in principle, and theNew York Times reported that an unidentified source claimed thathe had

repeatedly put twenty-three shots in one minute from a Springfield ri-fle into a target two feet square at 200 yards . . . the only gain inlabour one obtains with a magazine gun over a single-loader is thehandling of cartridges and the time gained in the handling is practi-cally far more than offset by the time lost in shifting magazines andmisfires when magazines are emptied.9

104 RIFLES

Despite efforts to encourage U.S. inventors, no weapons wereforthcoming, and the board reported in September 1892 that it hadmade its choice: the Krag-Jorgenson. This rifle was the brainchild ofNorwegians Captain Ole Krag and Erik Jorgenson. (Krag was a cap-tain in the Norwegian artillery and superintendent of the Konigs-berg Armory; Jorgenson was an engineer.) The rifle was already inservice with the Danish Army. The weapons were designed for U.S.use to fire the .30/40 rimmed cartridge, and the first issue was madeto troops in October 1894. The weapon weighed 9.35 pounds, was49.14 inches long, with a 30-inch barrel. Subsequent modificationswere introduced as the Models 1896 and 1898, but all suffered incomparison with European magazine rifles from one glaring defect:they were intended to be loaded singly, with the magazine serving asan emergency reservoir only.

U.S. reaction to the choice was predictably one of outrage, andthe board was accused of predetermining the outcome. Certainlythe Krag failed the Rifle Board tests on a number of occasions, andthe weapon was nevertheless reworked at Springfield Armory, some-times by the inventor himself. Efforts to have U.S. designs consid-ered after the event were determined, but no U.S. design managedto get consideration, in part due to the fact that the same boardmembers sat in judgment of these late entries.

Not only was the Krag doubtful as far as its magazine and loadingsystem was concerned; in comparison with other infantry rifles ofthe time, it was the longest and heaviest. Interestingly, although thefeed mechanism was not really suited to the modern maneuver styleof warfare, it did turn out to be quite accurate. The Danish Armyused it for some years, and a modified version was bought by theNorwegian Army.

The U.S. Army thus had its first magazine rifle, and it soon ap-peared that it was not an altogether felicitous choice from the pointof view of the troops. Despite some claims to the contrary, the accu-racy of the weapon was found wanting and was not as accurate at


The Krag Rifle. Enhanced illustration from The Engineer, various dates.

600 yards as the old Springfield. Experience in general pointed tothe fact that the weapon was not performing well, and accuracy al-tered as the weapon heated up. Again, parts were prone to fall off(particularly the magazine cutoff, which when in operation forcedthe rifleman to load single cartridges), weaknesses in metallurgyproduced a bolt that jammed, the ramrod head was too big to fit thebarrel, and there had been some cartridge accidents as well. Theproblems were confronted to an extent, but a real test was soon toface the rifle in Cuba.

Spanish rule in Cuba had been a sore point with the U.S. Con-gress for some time, and in 1898, following a revolt by revolutionar-ies, Congress recognized the independence of Cuba; an army wasraised, to be commanded by U.S. General Nelson A. Miles. Spainthen declared war on the United States, and General Miles askedthat his troops be armed with Winchester rifles, which had beenturned down by the Rifle Board in favour of the Krag. A l t h o u g hMiles got approval to test the Winchester, General Flagler failed therifle for not meeting the (unspecified) standards of performance ofthe army, and the United States went to war. The National Guards-men who formed the main body of General Miles’s army were armednot with the Krag-Jorgenson but with the old black-powder trapdoorSpringfield. The number of Krag-Jorgenson rifles available was in-sufficient for an army of 200,000 men, and production at Spring-field Armory could never hope to equip all the men with the newrifle.

The army that finally went to Cuba was a sorry sight; some150,000 men were still wearing heavy wool uniforms, armed withantiquated rifles, and supported by artillery that also used black-powder propellant. Furthermore, these ill-equipped troops were tocome face-to-face with the Spanish service rifle: the Mauser. Onedescription of the first encounter with this rifle and its effect is verytelling. William Hallahan writes in Misfire:

On July 1, 1898, at the Battle of San Juan Hill, ordnance people ex-pected to get their questions about the Krag answered. True, therewere too few Krags, only enough for the Regular Army and Roo-sevelt’s Rough Riders, but enough to give measure. As they proceededthrough the Cuban countryside, U.S. troops soon encountered a ter-rifying sound—a terrible buzz that turned into a high shriek as it wentwhizzing past their heads into tree trunks and branches. A man hit inthe arm by the force of it would spin on his heels and be slammed

106 RIFLES

down on the ground. . . . The deadly accuracy of the Mauser stoppedthe Americans’ advance more than once with a seemingly incrediblevolume of fire from such a small force of Spaniards.

The Krag could not hack the fighting; its muzzle velocity was toolow and thus its range was limited, and the problems of loading sin-gle cartridges into a rifle while on the move do not need to bestressed. The Mauser, by contrast, was providing what the Spanishdefenders needed against superior numbers: firepower. A l t h o u g hTeddy Roosevelt’s famous Rough Rider charge against the Spanishposition on San Juan Hill ended in victory, it was at the cost of1,300 U.S. casualties out of an attacking force of 5,000. The Krag-Jorgenson was tested against the Mauser after the war ended, andthe Mauser penetrated 9 inches farther into a wood block than didthe Krag. It was obvious that the Krag rifle was not up to Europeanstandards and would have to be rapidly replaced.

General Flagler died in 1899, not the most popular of men withthose riflemen who had gone to Cuba armed with the Krag. After hisdeath, certain other disturbing facts emerged about the tests in1892, one of which was that the Krag had been tested to 30,000pounds of breech pressure, whereas all other entries were subjectedto tests of 40,000 pounds. This indicated once more that the RifleBoard had not been entirely professional in its deliberations.

A new appointment was needed, and the chosen officer was Gen-eral Adelbert Buffington. This was another passed-over officer forwhom the post at Springfield was simply a bookmark until his retire-ment. He ordered that the Krag be redesigned to take the higher-power powder and cartridge that were needed, and it seems thatperformance was enhanced so that the rifle was capable of safely fir-ing a 200-grain bullet at 2,300 fps. However, General Buffingtonwas soon to retire, and in his place was appointed Captain WilliamCrozier, inventor of the Springfield M1901 rifle.

It seems rather strange that the inventor of a rifle that was to beconsidered for service should be put in charge of the very institutionthat would further his prospects, but that is the system that ap-pointed Crozier. Like many others whose jobs have been the resultof favor or even fraud, Crozier stayed put. However, his term of of-fice would only be four years, so like U.S. presidents, his deedswould be limited to a certain extent.

General Crozier, as he had instantly become, had a very seniorb a c k e r. This was President Teddy Roosevelt, who had succeeded


President William McKinley after the latter’s assassination in Sep-tember 1901. So on 7 April 1902 Crozier authorized the first pro-duction of the new Springfield 1901 rifles. By 16 February 1903 thework was finished and the rifles were ready for testing. In no time atall the rifles were tested and reported to have been successful, andthe rifle became the Springfield Model M1903 rifle.

Once the rifle was issued, a few modifications were needed. Thecartridge clip was faulty, and so a changed version was issued. Therod bayonet of the original was, at the president’s request, changedto a knife bayonet. The cartridge was also altered and the riflerechambered to fire it. The new DuPont powder, a cooler-burningmix, was used as propellant in the cartridge, and, once altered to firethis cartridge, the weapon was regarded as nearly perfect. The .30-06 round was to see service for a long time and eventually causedsingular problems for weapons designers.

There were those at the time, however, who thought that theSpringfield M1903 was very similar to the German Mauser design.On 15 March 1904 the first rumors surfaced that Springfield was inbreach of a Mauser patent on the ammunition clip. Then other sim-ilarities began to surface, and in no time Crozier was forced into of-

108 RIFLES

The Springfield ’03 Rifle. Enhanced illustration from The Engineer, various dates.

fering royalties to Mauser for two patent infringements on the clipand a further five on the rifle. Then came news that the U.S.-madeKrag also infringed Mauser patents. The matter was one of utterembarrassment for the United States, which had no alternative butto pay Mauser what it was owed. This totaled some $200,000 by thetime it was all over.

General Crozier was duly appointed by President Roosevelt to asecond term, and as soon as this was done, another round of patentinfringement talks had to take place. The injured party on this occa-sion was the Deutsche Waffen und Munitionsfabrik (DWM) firm inBerlin. It announced that its patent covered the U.S. .30-06 car-tridge and sought recompense. This matter dragged on until 1920,when DWM brought suit for royalties owed. The U.S. governmentarrogantly told DWM it had no case, as the patent had been seizedin 1917 as enemy alien property during World War I. The govern-ment failed to convince the judge and was ordered to pay DWM$300,000. It appealed but was finally required in December 1928 topay the original sum plus interest, a total of over $412,000.10

It is interesting to note that when the United States enteredWorld War I, in 1917, there was a severe shortage of rifles for theAmerican Expeditionary Force. A history of the 37th Division of theU.S. Army describes the problem in some detail:

The Springfield rifle had superseded in our army the Krag, which wehad used in the Spanish American War. In that conflict, the SpanishArmy had a rifle of German design, the Mauser. Our ordnance offi-cers at that time considered the Krag to be a more accurate weaponthan the Mauser. Still, we were not satisfied with the Krag, and afteryears of development in 1903 we brought out the Springfield, themost accurate and quickest firing rifle that had ever come from an ar-senal. . . . But as war became inevitable for us and we began to have arealisation of the scale on which we must prosecute it, our ordnanceofficers studying the rifle problem became persuaded that our armycould not hope to carry this magnificent weapon to Europe as itschief small-arms reliance. A brief examination of the industrial prob-lem presented by the rifle situation in 1917 should make it clear evento a man unacquainted with machinery and manufacturing why itwould be humanly impossible to equip our troops with the rifle in de-veloping which our ordnance experts had spent so many years.

The Model 1903 rifle had been built in two factories and onlytwo—the Springfield A r m o u r y, Springfield, Mass., and the Rock Is-land Arsenal at Rock Island, Ill. Our Government for several years


prior to 1917 had cut down its expenditures for the manufacture ofsmall arms and ammunition. The result was that the Rock IslandArsenal had ceased its production of Springfields altogether, whilethe output of rifles from the Springfield Armoury had been greatly re-duced.

This meant that the skilled artisans once employed in the manu-facture of Springfield rifles had been scattered to the four winds.When in early 1917 it became necessary to speed up the productionof rifles to the limit in these two establishments those in charge ofthe undertaking found that they could recover only a few of the old,trained employees. Yet even when we had restaffed these two facto-ries with skilled men their combined production at top speed couldnot begin to supply the quantity of rifles which our impending armywould need. Therefore, it was obviously necessary that we procure ri-fles from private factories.

W h y, then, was not the manufacture of Springfields extended tothe private plants? Some ante helium effort, indeed, had been madelooking to the production of Springfields in commercial plants, butlack of funds had prevented more than the outlining of the scheme.

Any high-powered rifle is an intricate production. The 1917 En-field is relatively simple in construction, yet the soldier can dismounthis Enfield into 86 parts, and some of these parts are made up of sev-eral component pieces. Many of these parts must be made with greatprecision, gauged with microscopic nicety, and finished with unusualaccuracy. To produce Springfields on a grand scale in private plantswould imply the use of thousands of gauges, jigs, dies, and othersmall tools necessary for such a manufacture, as well as that of greatquantities of special machines. None of this equipment for Spring-field rifle manufacture had been provided, yet all of it must be sup-plied to the commercial plants before they could turn out rifles.

We should have had to spend preliminary months or even years inbuilding up an adequate manufacturing equipment for Springfields,the while our boys in France were using what odds and ends of rifleequipment the Government might be able to purchase for them, ex-cept for a condition in our small-arms industry in early 1917 thatnow seems to have been well-nigh providential.

Among others, both the British and the Russian Governments inthe emergency of 1914 and 1915 had turned to the United States tosupplement their sources of rifle supply while they, particularly theBritish, were building up their home manufacturing capacity. Therewere five American concerns engaged in the production of rifles onthese large foreign orders when we entered the war. Three of them

110 RIFLES

were the Winchester Repeating Arms Co., of New Haven, Conn.; theRemington Arms–Union Metallic Cartridge Co., of Ilion, N. Y.; andthe Remington Arms Co. of Delaware at its enormous war-contractfactory at Eddystone, Pa., later a part of the Midvale Steel and Ord-nance Co. These concerns had developed their manufacturing facili-ties on a huge scale to turn out rifles for the British Government. Bythe spring of 1917 England had built up her own manufacturing fa-cilities at home, and the last of her American contracts were nearingcompletion.

Here, then, was at hand a huge capacity which, added to our gov-ernment arsenals, could turn out every rifle the American A r m ywould require, regardless of how many troops we were to put in thefield.

As soon as war became a certainty for us, the Ordnance depart-ment sent its best rifle experts to study the British Enfield in detail.They returned to headquarters without enthusiasm for it; in fact, re-garding it as a weapon not good enough for an American soldier. Aglance at the history of the British Enfield will make clear some ofour objections to it. Until the advent of the 1903 Springfield the Ger-man Mauser had occupied the summit of military rifle supremacy.From 1903 until the advent of the great war, these two rifles, theMauser and the Springfield, were easily the two leaders. The BritishArmy had been equipped with the Lee-Enfield for some years prior tothe outbreak of the great war, hut the British ordnance authoritieshad been making vigourous efforts to improve this weapon. The En-field was at a disadvantage principally in its ammunition. It fired a.303 calibre cartridge with a rimmed head. From a ballistic stand-point this cartridge was virtually obsolete.

In 1914, a new, improved Enfield, known as the Pattern 14 wasbrought out in England and the British government was on the pointof adopting it when the great war broke out. This was to be a gun of.276 calibre and was to shoot rimless, or cannelured, cartridges simi-lar to the standard United States ammunition. The war threw thewhole British improved Enfield on the scrap heap. England was nomore equipped to build the improved Enfields than we were to pro-duce Springfields in our private plants. The British arsenals and in-dustrial plants and her ammunition factories were equipped to turnout the old “short Enfield and its antiquated .303 rimmed cartridges.Now England was obliged to turn to outside sources for an additionalrifle supply and in the United States she found the three firms . . .willing to undertake large rifle contracts. Having to build up factoryequipment anew in the United States for this work, England found


that she might as well have the American plants manufacture the im-proved Enfield. . . . A c c o r d i n g l y, the British selected the improvedEnfield for the American manufacturer, but modified it to receive the.303 rimmed cartridges. This was the gun that we found being pro-duced at New Haven, Ilion and Eddystone in the spring of 1917. Therifle had many of the characteristics of the 1903 Springfield but itwas not so good as the Springfield in its proportions and its sightslacked some of the refinements to which Americans were accus-tomed. . . . The ammunition it fired was out of the question for us.Not only was it inferior but since we expected to continue to buildthe Springfields at the Government arsenals we should, if we adoptedthe Enfield as it was, be forced to produce two sizes of rifle ammuni-tion

The rifle had been designed originally for rimless ammunition andlater modified; so it could be modified readily back again to shoot ourstandard .30 calibre Springfield cartridges.

It may be seen that the Ordnance Department had before it threecourses open, any one of which it might take. It could spend the timeto equip private plants to manufacture Springfields, in which case theAmerican rifle program would be hopelessly delayed. It could getguns immediately by contracting for the production of British .303Enfields, in which case the American troops would carry inferior ri-fles with them to France. Or, it could take a relatively brief time, ac-cept the criticism bound to come from any delay, however brief suchdelay might be and however justified by the practical conditions, andmodify the Enfield to take our ammunition, in which case the Ameri-can troops would be adequately equipped with a good weapon.

The decision to modify the Enfield was one of the great decisionsof the executive prosecution of the war—all honour to the men whomade it.

The three concerns which had been manufacturing the Britishweapons conceded that it should be changed to take the A m e r i c a nammunition.

The Eddystone plant finished its British contracts on June 1, Win-chester produced its last British rifle on June 28, and Ilion on July21, 1917. Winchester delivered the first modified Enfields to us onAugust 18, Eddystone on September 10 and Ilion about October 28.

The progress in the manufacture was thereafter steadily upward.During the week ending February 2, 1918, the daily production ofmilitary rifles in the United States was 9,247 of which 7,805 weremodified Enfields produced in the three private plants and 1,442were Springfields built in the two arsenals. The total production for

112 RIFLES

that week was 50,873 guns of both types, or nearly enough for threearmy divisions. . . . All troops leaving the United States were armedwith American weapons at the ports of embarkation.

Ten months after we declared war against Germany we were pro-ducing in a week four times as many rifles as Great Britain hadturned out in a similar period after 10 months of war, and our pro-duction was then twice as large in volume as Great Britain had at-tained in the war up to that time. By the middle of June, 1918, wehad passed the million and one-half mark in the production of riflesof all sorts, this figure including over 250,000 rifles which had beenbuilt upon original contracts placed by the former Russian govern-ment.

The production of Enfields and Springfields during the war up toNovember 9, 1918, amounted to a total of 2,506,307 guns.

The Enfield thus became the dominant rifle of our military effort.With its modified firing mechanism it could use the superior Spring-field cartridges with their great accuracy. The Enfield sights, by hav-ing the peep sight close to the eye of the firer, gave even greaterquickness of aim than the Springfield sights afforded. In this respectthe weapon was far superior to the Mauser, which was the main de-pendence of the German Army. All in all to a weapon that made scantappeal to our ordnance officers in a few weeks we added improve-ments and modifications that made the 1917 Enfield a gun that forthe short-range fighting in Europe compared favourably with theSpringfield and was to the allied cause a distinct contribution whichAmerica substantially could claim to be her own.11

CONCLUSION

Bolt-action rifles were standard during the whole period of Wo r l dWar I, and some served until after World War II, particularly theLee-Enfield; the Springfield 1903, which was first issued as an in-fantry rifle and then later as a sniper rifle; the Mauser, althoughshortened from the Gew 98 to the Kar 98k; and others. Bolt-actionmagazine rifles were an important type of weapon and representedthe high point of manually operated arms, but the effort required touse them over long periods of action was tiring and often meant thatafter every shot, while reloading, the rifleman came out of the aim,resulting in a reduction of firepower for nations using these rifles.The United States led the way in introducing the first general-issue


SLR, the Garand M1, and after World War II all other nations fol-lowed the trend, especially as Germany had also introduced the con-cept of the assault rifle.

ENDNOTES

1. British Patent No. 483 of 1867.2. Quoted in Roger Blair, “Early Firearms,” in Po l l a r d ’s History of

Firearms, ed. Claude Blair. New York: MacMillan, 1983.3. Jaroslav Lugs, Firearms Past and Present. London: Grenville, 1973

(English reprint).4. Blair, op. cit., p. 268.5. See entry for Peter Paul Mauser in John Walter, The Greenhill Dictio-

nary of Guns and Gunmakers. London: Greenhill Books, 2001.6. Charger loading means that the cartridges were loaded into the

weapon in groups of five, and pressed into the magazine with the thumb.As soon as the cartridges were in the magazine the charger could bethrown away. In operation the charger normally falls away from the weaponas soon as it is empty.

7. This cartridge was originally the 88/S, otherwise known as the 88/8 or8mm x 57 J. In 1905 another cartridge was issued, and in World War I thestandard cartridge was the “S.S. [or sS] Patrone,” which fired a heavier,boat-tailed bullet.

8. Mauser Waffenfabrik, as Mauser’s company was known, also mademillions of export versions of the weapon, which saw service in most of theworld’s armies at one time or another.

9. William H. Hallahan, M i s f i r e . New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons,1994.

10. The details of the infringements and the various cases are fully re-counted in Hallahan, Misfire.

11. From “America’s Munitions, 1917–1918,” the report of BenedictCrowell, Assistant Secretary of War, Director of Munitions, pp. 177–184,reported in Ralph D. Cole and W. C. Howells, The Thirty-Seventh Divisionin the World War 1917–1918. Columbus, OH: Thirty-Seventh DivisionVeterans Association, 1926, fn. pp. 371ff.

114 RIFLES

C H A P T E R 7

Self-Loading Rifles

The development of firearms in the nineteenth century led ri-fle designers and inventors to conclude that once they had a reliablecomposite cartridge and a magazine system that worked, the nextlogical step was to harness the recoil of the weapon, or the gasesproduced by the fired cartridge, to enable the weapon to reload it-self. This step was needed for at least two reasons: automatic reload-ing saved the user from the continuous physical effort of manual re-loading, and it enabled infantry to fire more rapidly, which was ofgreat importance at shorter ranges.

Resistance to the unwarranted expenditure of ammunition wasstill felt, particularly in the United States and Great Britain, wheremusket experts and instructors maintained that well-aimed singleshots were needed at longer ranges and at battle ranges. U.S. andEuropean rifles were fitted with sights that went up to (on average)over 1,000 yards, and some went out to as far as 2,400 yards. Theindividual rifleman, it was argued, could be effective up to about600 yards or even 800 yards, and the rifle group (section, platoon,even company) could, under control and with specific fire orders,lay massed fire out to ranges now considered totally wasteful of am-munition.

The arrival of heavy and medium machine guns took over thesupporting and interdictory fire roles previously assumed by the ri-flemen, for machine guns could range out to even 3,000 yards anddeliver concentrated fire with effect. Rifles were now to be used forthe ranges at which sight of the enemy was possible. The situationstill suffered, however, from the desire of all musketry instructors tosave ammunition. The opposite of this argument was, of course,

115

that saving ammunition for its own sake meant that trained riflemenwere loathe to fire at fleeting targets, thus allowing the enemy theopportunity to close, at which point the assault final occurred.

There is little doubt that in the United States ammunition expen-diture was a prime factor in deciding what type of rifle to issue totroops. The powers at Springfield Armory were still strong, and theissue of the Mauser copy, the Model 1903, happened at the sametime as Mexican gun designer Manuel Mondragon was preparinghis self-loading rifle for use by the Mexican Army.

Claims for the first SLR go back a long way before this, and in theBritish official Textbook of Small Arms 19291 there is a note that theprinciple of the automatic weapon “appears to have been a Britishinvention,” a claim that is based on an entry in the records of theBritish Royal Society.2 It was informed that “there had come toPrince Rupert a rare mechanician who pretended . . . to make a pis-tol shooting as fast as could be presented and yet to be stopped atpleasure; and wherein the motion of the fire and bullet within wasmade to charge the piece with powder and bullet, to prime it andbend the cock.” Either the report was true or the most amazing con-fidence trick was being perpetrated.

There are other reports of early self-loading devices,3 and it isclear that the principle, if not the method, of making weapons thatreloaded themselves was known. However, until the invention of thecomposite cartridge and the magazine, little or no progress could bemade to realize this dream. Hiram Maxim made a good try at it withhis mechanical recoil system, and others had patented designstwenty years before him.4 Maxim used the recoil of the wholeweapon to operate the Winchester lever action by means of a buttplate against which the rifle recoiled, attached by a lever system tothe rifle’s actuating lever. The problem with this weapon was thatthe user had to be very careful of where his fingers were at the mo-ment of firing.

Although almost totally ignored in the United States, the devicehad considerable success in Europe, and the Turkish Army issuedsuch modified Winchester rifles. Then, in 1884 Maxim patented hislocked-breech recoil system. This was an application for machineguns, but the concept was quickly taken on board by other weaponsdesigners, and in 1885 the Mannlicher short-recoil SLR appeared.This was nothing more than an experimental piece, but it laid downthe principles upon which such weapons were to be developed.

The period 1885–1900 saw a great deal of work and a number ofrifles that were truly self-loading, even though the majority were too

116 RIFLES

unreliable to be issued to troops or even tested by the military. TheMondragon, however, had a different history. Mannlicher had nosuccess in selling his semiautomatics to the military, but the Mon-dragon came from Mexico, where it had already been tested. PorfirioDíaz (1830–1915), the Mexican dictator (president of Mexico from1876 to 1880 and again from 1884 to 1911), decided that the Mex-ican Army would be entirely armed with automatic rifles. The riflechosen was that designed by Mondragon (1858–1922). Progress indeveloping the weapon was slow, and eventually the rifle was manu-factured in Switzerland by Schweizerische Industrie-Gesellschaft(SIG). Only 400 of the rifles were delivered, too late to save Díaz,who was ousted in the revolution of 1911. The new Mexican gov-ernment reneged on the contract, and SIG stored the 1,000 rifles ithad produced but not delivered.

At the start of World War I, SIG decided to cut its losses by offer-ing the Mondragons to any taker. A few went to the United States,but the majority were sold to the Germans for use in aircraft. Theweapons only went into action in 1917, with most going to the Ger-man Air Force, the rest to the navy. By this time the weapon wasknown as the FSK-15 (Flieger Selbstladerkarabiner: Airmen’s Self-Loading Carbine, Model 1915). The weapon was not a great successeven though the Germans issued it with a 30-round drum magazine.It suffered from stoppages and malfunctions, and most were with-drawn from service before the war ended, due not only to the rifle’sunreliability but also to the fact that fixed machine guns were totallyeffective following the invention of interrupter gears, which stoppedthe machine guns from firing when the propeller blades were liableto be hit by the machine gun bullets.

The Germans did not rely solely on the Mondragon, however;Mauser designed an SLR (Flieger-Ballon-und Zeppelin Tr u p p eModel 16), of which 1,000 were made. They had to be kept scrupu-lously clean, but demand far exceeded supply. Further manufacturewas a problem not addressed by Mauser, and the weapons that sur-vive are extremely rare. The idea had caught on, however, and theGermans never stopped experimenting with SLRs. The first ofM a u s e r ’s postwar SLRs was the G35, designed as a result of thesuccess of the Czech ZH-29 SLR (designed by Vladimir Holek; hun-dreds were sold, including at least 500 to Manchuria). The G35 wasa short-barrel recoil weapon and was out of favor compared with thegas-operated systems appearing elsewhere, which were more con-ventional in barrel length. Walther (the firm of Carl Walther inZella-Mehlis had been making firearms since 1886, and its reputa-

SELF-LOADING RIFLES 117

tion grew enormously in the twentieth century) designed the A115,which was a gas-operated weapon relying for manufacture on sheet-metal stampings, and from that came the later developments inGerman weapons manufacture (particularly the MG42, the MP40,and the MP44/StG range of weapons). Once more technical and op-erational problems arose while the weapon was being tested, andGerman SLR development faltered in 1938, only to be revived a fewyears later.

GERMAN SLR DEVELOPMENT DURING WORLD WAR II

The ammunition question refused to die, however, and the lead inammunition technology the Germans established during World WarII brought the matter to the fore after the end of that war. The Ger-mans began the war with the Mauser Gew 98k in 7.92mm caliber.This was a shortened version of Mauser’s famous Gew 98. However,experiences in Russia during OPERATION BARBAROSSA convinced theGermans that they needed an SLR to combat the masses of Russiansoldiers counterattacking them and that they also needed a control-lable assault rifle capable of automatic or, at least, rapid semiauto-matic fire.

An early attempt to provide such a weapon resulted in failure.The Mauser G41(M) was judged too heavy (it weighed over 11pounds), it was muzzle-heavy and too long, and the action was awk-ward. The weapon was scrapped in favor of the Walther G41, whichsoon became the target of Waffen SS demands to supply “the SSunits standing on the front [with] an automatic carbine.”5 Eventu-ally the SS was allocated 3,000 of these rifles. The Walther rifle op-erated with a free-floating barrel and a piston rod that actuated themechanism. The weapon was adopted for issue in December 1942,and a captured version, tested at Aberdeen Proving Ground, con-cluded that “this German semiautomatic rifle is a gas-operated, clip-fed, air-cooled weapon that performs approximately the same tacti-cal mission as the United States, M1 (Garand).”6

So the Germans had arrived at the same solution as the Ameri-cans and were firing the standard Wehrmacht (German A r m e dForces) rifle cartridge (the 7.92 x 57mm sS round). Needless to say,the problem of accuracy when fired on automatic arose, and itproved impossible to hold the weapon on target when so fired. The

118 RIFLES

rifle underwent some changes, and its G43 version was also used asa sniper rifle, despite the fact that usable telescopic sights were un-available until May 1944. The real developments of importancewere taking place while this rifle was being issued, and in accor-dance with the best principles, the cartridge came before theweapon.

The 7.92mm x 57mm round was a development of the earlierMauser 7.9mm x 57mm I and IS rounds and was a high-power mili-tary cartridge that was suited to the bolt-action rifles of the early waryears. The Germans realized that infantry actions took place, in thevast majority of cases, within the 400-yard range. Further, they hadlearned from experience that automatic fire, even if not killing theenemy aimed at, if concentrated reasonably accurately on his posi-tion, forced him to keep his head down, making the approach andassault much easier for the men involved. When this was added tothe fact that the Russians were opting for cheap, stamped machinepistols (submachine guns), they came to the obvious conclusionthat any new assault rifle would not need a range in excess of 400yards but would need to be controllable when firing on automatic.

German interest in an intermediate cartridge first expressed itselfin the 1930s. Much work on new cartridges was unofficial,7 and ofthese, the 7.75mm x 40mm from Genschow (German firearms andammunition manufacturers) seemed the most promising from themilitary point of view. Eventually discarded, however, it was re-placed by the 7mm x 39mm developed for the Luftwaffe, Germany’snew and powerful air arm (the German Air Force). The importantfactor was that the cartridge had to be powerful enough to deliver akill or wound up to 400 yards and yet allow the user to control hisweapon when firing on full automatic.

A number of not dissimilar cartridges appeared during the prewaryears in Germany, but the Polte firm in Magdeburg came up with ashortened version of the standard 7.9mm x 57mm military cartridge(in much the same way as the AR15 cartridge evolved; see “U.S. Self-Loading Rifles”). This became the 7.9mm x 33mm cartridge (laterthe 7.92mm x 33mm kurz).8 The next problem was what weapon wasto fire the new cartridge, and for this the Waffenamt (the We a p o n sOffice of the German High Command) turned to the Haenel firm ofSuhl, whose director of design was the famous Hugo Schmeisser,who was the son of the gunmaker Louis Schmeisser, also of Suhl.The weapon was to be called a machine carbine, to distinguish itfrom the rifle. The weapon was designed to replace the standard ri-fle, the submachine gun (erroneously named after Schmeisser), and


possibly the light machine gun. It was to be a light weapon, with se-lective fire, to be fired from the shoulder. Its manufacture was to befrom pressings whenever possible, and any machining had to be nomore complex than for the standard rifle.

The Wa f f e n a m t also specified that it had to be an all-weatherweapon, operating well in everything from severe cold to desert con-ditions; it had to be operable in dusty, dirty, and muddy conditions;and it had to have a simple mechanism. It had to weigh no morethan the standard rifle, yet be shorter. Ballistically it had to have atrajectory very similar to the standard rifle out to 600 yards and hadto be accurate when fired as a semiautomatic out to 400 yards. Ithad to be effective firing bursts up to 400 yards with a moderate rateof automatic fire. It had to be controllable when fired fully automat-ically. Naturally, as with all weapon specifications, a rider was addedspecifying that it had to be capable of accommodating a grenadelauncher.

The design was a fact by 1940, but Haenel had little experiencein actual sheet-metal weapons production. It approached the Merzcompany in Frankfurt, which did have experience in metal forming,and the first Maschinenkarabiner (machine carbine, German abbre-viation MKb) appeared in late 1941. At the same time as Haenelwas working on this rifle, the firm of Carl Walther of Zella-Mehliswas also working on the new type of weapon and got an official con-tract for continuing its developmental work in January 1941.

Both firms produced what were very similar designs, the Haenelversion being the MK42(H) and the Walther version the MK42(W).By 1942 the Haenel design drawings were complete (and the addi-tion of a bayonet lug had been made in response to a request fromthe Waffenamt). Manufacture of the rifle (to be provided with a 30-round magazine) was to begin in late 1942, with production sched-uled to be at 10,000 weapons per month by March 1943. This targetwas not achieved because of production problems at Haenel. Trooptrials reflected the users’ attitude to the new ammunition: “As longas there is an adequate supply, the troops are unconcerned,”9 b u tthey also reported that the sight line was very high, and that muzzleflash at night was too great. However, the general conclusion wasthat “the weapons are especially suited for patrol, raiding and a t-tack” (emphasis added).

The groundwork had been done, and the troops seemed satisfiedin the main, although the muzzle-flash problem had two disadvan-tages: excessive muzzle flash blinds the firer at night, and it alsomakes him very visible to the opposition. The weapon was accept-

120 RIFLES

able as the starting point for subsequent development, which in-cluded flash-hiders, and the MP4310 was the result.

The Walther version had not proved to be a success, and whenHaenel was awarded the development contract for the MP43,Walther withdrew from this short cartridge field. Walther had beeninvolved in the field from 1937 when it had submitted its short car-tridge Maschinenkarabiner for approval. Its involvement in the latercompetition with Haenel had resulted in the production of theMK42(W), which had a turning bolt-locking system, one of the fac-tors that told against the design in the eyes of the officials from theGerman Weapons Testing Office (the Waffenprüfungs Amt). A smentioned above, Walther had already been in the SLR field withthe G41 rifle, and production planning for the MK42(W) seeminglysuffered, with only two prototype weapons produced in late 1942,when production was scheduled to be high by March of the nextyear. Added to this were the doubts about the turning bolt system,closed bolt firing, and the internal hammer.

Both weapons were produced by a method hitherto unheard of inweapons manufacture, which had been a highly specialized, preci-sion process. Now, as with the MK42 machine gun, the weaponswere to be made with the absolute minimum of machining and themaximum amount of speedy, almost tolerance-free stampings andp r e s s i n g s .1 1 Nevertheless, with their ability to produce a firearmthat looks like a weapon, the Germans were producing some of themost effective and exciting designs in infantry weapons ever seen.

The MP43 series of weapons was also designed by the brilliantHugo Schmeisser, and some of the characteristics of the Wa l t h e rMK42 appeared in this version of the rifle. The open breech systembecame a closed bolt one, a hammer was fitted internally, and thesafety was improved. At this time the name of the type changed to“machine pistol,” the word “carbine” being dropped. The new abbre-viation MP would cause some confusion, as it had previously ap-plied to 9mm submachine guns rather than to assault rifles, whichis what these weapons were. However, it may be, as Senich argues,that “[Adolf] Hitler was said to have expressed particular disdain atthe prospect of introducing an entirely new weapon and car-tridge.”12 Hitler did, however, authorize a “special series” to be as-sembled from the parts already made in March 1943.

A number of the MP43 (also known more widely as the StG 44)weapons were tested on the Eastern Front, with good reports com-ing from the troops. This was passed to Hitler, who, beginning to re-alize just what manpower levels he was facing from the Russian


A r m y, finally changed his mind and gave official approval to theproject. This meant that Haenel could go ahead with production,and these rifles continued to be made to the end of the war.

The great benefit of the short cartridge was that it had the ballis-tic characteristics of its longer brother out to 400 yards, but eachman could carry more rounds for the same weight of ammunition incomparison with the long cartridge. The rifleman was also able touse the weapon on full automatic and to control his fire. This meantthat in the assault the enemy could be sprayed with bursts of fire tokeep his head down, and in the defense attacking troops could becovered with a much increased weight of fire at short and intermedi-ate ranges.

The weapon itself found approval not just from the German sol-diers; Russian captures of arms naturally included these weapons,and “captured weapons were highly prized and eagerly turnedagainst the Germans, particularly during the long withdrawal.”1 3

The weapon and its cartridge also came to the notice of Russiansmall arms designers and engineers, and there can be little doubtthat both had some influence upon N. M. Elizarov and B. V. Semin,who designed the Russian 7.62mm x 39mm Soviet M43 cartridge,and possibly also on Mikhail Timofeyevich Kalashnikov, the designerof the well-known and fabled AK47.14

The weapon became the MP43/1 and then the StG 44. Namechanges were almost cosmetic, for the basic principle of the weaponwas not altered, although various small modifications and improve-ments were made during the last two years of the war. One of thebest descriptions of the weapon comes in an article by Major (ret.)A. L. Thompson:

The StG 44 rifle was of futuristic and novel design and one that, 50years later,15 still appears contemporary. The weapon was a techno-logical achievement of the highest order, embracing the principle thata reduced-power cartridge would allow a shorter rifle to produce bothsingle shots and automatic bursts. The gas-operated rifle employed arotating bolt. It worked on the blow-back system in which some ofthe gases created when a bullet [sic] ignited were used to push backthe mechanism after each shot. The weapon was reliable, robust, ac-curate and provided selective fire. . . . Despite designer efforts theweapon was rather heavy in relation to the muzzle energy generatedby the 7.92mm cartridge. However it handled well and withstoodcombat use. It was simple, cheap and fast to produce—essentialwartime prerequisites for weapon manufacture. The shorter, lower-

122 RIFLES

power cartridge naturally created savings in cartridge, bullet and pro-pellant material costs. Furthermore, the German ability to use steelpressings also contributed to reductions in costs and productiontime.

With an increasing number of favorable reports coming from thevarious fronts in 1944 and the need to standardize nomenclature,Hitler ordered that the very effective MG42 was to retain the samedesignation, the self-loading G43 was to become the Karabiner 43,and the MP43 was to become the MP44. The MP44, no matterwhat Hitler called it, remained essentially the same weapon. A fur-ther renaming in December 1944 meant that the weapon was nowcalled the StG 44, and many earlier weapons were also referred to inthe same way in documents, even if they began their lives as MP43sor MP44s.

The importance of this weapon series cannot be overlooked. Theystand as the first of the assault rifles, which are today commonplace.From the MK42(H) have developed all the modern SLRs and as-sault rifles, be they standard designs or bullpups. The main princi-ple is simple: the assault rifle must be simple to make and operate; itmust fire a cartridge that allows control when the weapon is firedautomatically; and the rifle must be shorter than previous designs toallow ease of storage and use in armored fighting vehicles.

U.S. SELF-LOADING RIFLES

The U.S. Army was issued its first SLR during World War II. Thiswas the Garand M1 rifle, in caliber .30-06. (This was the full-loadmilitary cartridge that had been issued for use with the bolt-actionM1903 rifle, described above.) Jean C. Garand was actually born inSaint-Rémi in Quebec, Canada, but moved to the United States in1912 to found a small engineering business. On receiving U.S. citi-zenship in 1914 he changed his name to John. When World War Ibroke out he began looking at firearms in detail, and a machine gundesign of his was looked at by the U.S. Army in 1916.

He was offered a job in the Springfield Armory design office in1919, where he stayed (eventually rising to the position of principalordnance designer) until he retired in 1953 (Garand died in 1974).His greatest work was undoubtedly the Garand M1 SLR, but hisfirst inventions had been of interest to the U.S. military. His ma-


chine gun had been considered an excellent weapon but was not dif-ferent enough to be recommended for testing. However, he alsocame up with a development of the primer-actuated mechanism1 6

for self-loading weapons. The inventions themselves were backed upby the ease with which Garand worked with others, and he came tothe Springfield Armory as a valued member of staff.

Another weapons designer at the time was John D. Pedersen, whohad achieved success with his device to allow the Springfield 1903rifle to fire .38-inch pistol cartridges semiautomatically from a 40-round magazine. This device was intended to be issued to the wholeU.S. Army in France in preparation for an attack in 1919 thatwould, because of the firepower generated by these adapted rifles,sweep the German Army from the field and end the war. Orderswere issued for 500,000 Pedersen devices, but by the time 65,000had been made,17 the war had ended. However, the idea of armingthe U.S. Army with an SLR did not go away.

Pedersen then approached the U.S. War Department with an ideafor a .27-inch caliber rifle. He argued that the .30-inch cartridgewas too strong for an SLR and that his .27-inch cartridge would op-erate at a lower temperature and with less recoil.18 The ballistics ofthe bullet were such that it had a flatter trajectory, making aimingmuch simpler; it was cheaper to manufacture; and the individualsoldier could carry more ammunition.

Pedersen presented the U.S. ordnance people with a problem: thecartridge was all that he said it was, but it had less armor-piercingcapability and a shorter range. This was at a time when many in theU.S. military were still convinced of the need for infantry to engagetargets with single aimed shots at ranges up to 600 yards or more.Despite the fact that the Pedersen bullet was proved to be more ef-fective at the terminal of its flight—when it hit a man—the long-range shooters held sway, and the new rifle, almost certain to be anSLR, would use the tried and tested .30-06 cartridge.

Nevertheless, while Garand was making his way up the promo-tion ladder at Springfield Armory, Pedersen was given room in thenew Experimental Department Building at Springfield, not far fromwhere Garand was working. The two men were utterly different incharacter: Garand was a company man, whereas Pedersen was notonly a great weapons designer but a superb salesman.

There was now a race between the two to produce an SLR thatthe U.S. Army would issue as its next service rifle, and initially itseemed that Pedersen had won: his delayed-action blowback togglerifle appeared in the autumn of 1925. It was complete and weighed

124 RIFLES

only 8 pounds, 2 ounces. There were questions about the ammuni-tion,19 but when the weapon was tested it performed admirably.

The question of the cartridge would not, however, disappear, andwhereas Pedersen’s rifle required retooling, not only for his rifle butalso for its ammunition. Garand’s design required tooling only forthe weapon. Then things changed. The .30-06 cartridge was recon-figured and was now to fire a new type of propellant and a newcrimped primer, both of which factors rendered Garand’s primer-actuated mechanism unable to function.

Many men would, at this point, have gone on to other things.Garand, however, was convinced that he could design an SLR thatwould fire the new .30-caliber round. He scrapped the 1924 primer-actuated rifle, which did fire the old .30-06 round. All he had to dowas develop a new rifle, which he promptly did. This was a gas-oper-ated turning bolt20 weapon that was to fire the new .30-caliber car-tridge. Pedersen persisted in his belief that the .27-caliber cartridgewas a better cartridge, but he was not as aware of the political back-ground as was Garand.

The problem Garand did face was that the new round was morepowerful than its predecessor, and he also faced the problem thatPedersen’s rifle was getting rave reviews21 from all quarters. The In-fantry Board reported, in 1928, that “this rifle is suitable and shouldnow be adopted for Infantry use as a complete replacement for theservice rifle and the Browning automatic rifle.”22 The Pedersen wenton to perform admirably in the Pig Board tests,23 and the War De-partment decided to conduct more tests, but this time with rifles incaliber .276.

The Pedersen was an obvious contender, but by this time Garandhad put together his first gas-operated rifles, and in caliber .276.This weapon emerged from the tests as the only other contender,and the race now had two horses: the Pedersen and the Garand. In-decision seems to have been the flavor of the day at the time, andthe Semiautomatic Rifle Board ordered that 20 Garand caliber .30rifles be supplied for the next series of tests. At last Garand wasgaining ground, for the original design for his new rifle was in thatcaliber. Then, out of the blue, the caliber .30 rifles were canceled;the .276 round was back in favor.

The cult of the sharpshooter had long been a hallowed traditionin the United States. The sharpshooter advocates saw the rifle in aninfantryman’s hands as a weapon to attack the enemy at 600 yards,rather than only engage him when he was much closer. The argu-ment ran that a single aimed shot could remove a man from the bat-


tlefield and that the farther away he was, the more men could be re-moved. Further, this method saved ammunition, which endearedthe concept to Springfield Armory and others. The Ordnance Corpsof the U.S. Army was all in favor of slow, deliberate fire versus rapid-fire sharpshooting at close ranges.

All this vacillation had to come to an end. Nothing was being doneto make the final decision, which was simple: which caliber was tobe chosen for the next U.S. service rifle. In November 1929 the In-fantry Board went through the Semiautomatic Rifle Tests at Fo r tBenning, Georgia. The Garand .276 came out way ahead of all theother contestants, which were the Pedersen .276, the Springfield’03, and, very interestingly, the Browning Automatic Rifle. The re-port said that it considered the Garand to be “the best automatic ri-fle we have tested to date” and added that “a rifle of caliber .276 ispreferable to one of caliber .30 for use as the basic infantry weapon.”

A further test was carried out in 1931, and once more the Garand.276 won, even against the caliber .30 version, which had suffered acracked bolt, effectively removing it from contention. The report ofthese tests was issued in 1932, and it concluded that a caliber .30weapon was too big in all senses, especially for automatic fire, andcaused too much fatigue for the soldier. The .276 Garand T3E2 wasthe chosen weapon. The report said, “the Garand was superior inrate of fire, in hits per minute, and hits per pound of ammunitionexpended . . . the light shock of recoil of the caliber .276 rifle doesnot derange [sic] the line of sight as does a caliber .30 rifle and isless fatiguing to the firer.”24

The Garand also benefited from having fewer parts than the otherweapons. (The Pedersen had 99 parts, the Springfield 93, and theBAR 154.) Part of the “Infantry Report on the T3E2 (Garand)” in-cluded the following comment: the Pedersen “requires the use of lu-bricated ammunition which is an extremely undesirable feature,”and the breech action “will possibly interfere with the helmet. Has atendency to strike the hat of the user. Sometimes makes holes in thehat.” It also mentioned as undesirable that interchangeability ofparts would be a problem, and that when the last shot is fired fromthe magazine, “the breech locks in the open position and . . . thejoint and mechanism of the breech block are exposed to . . . sand,dirt or mud.”25

The Garand was highly praised, and although “the gas operatingsystem with muzzle attachment and piston under the barrel will al-ways be something of a disadvantage,” it was not “considered seriousenough to adversely affect the practical operation of the piece.”2 6

126 RIFLES

There were comments about the eight-round Garand clip, mention-ing that reloading involved a complete clip, rather than addingenough rounds to fill the magazine again, but “the services preferthe block clip because of the difficulty experienced in training re-cruits in the use of the present Springfield clip and also in order totake full advantage of the semiautomatic rifle principle and allowthe maximum time for aiming and trigger squeeze.”27

It was at this point, in the early 1930s, that General DouglasMacArthur entered the picture. He was, at the time, chief of staff ofthe U.S. Army and, as such, was responsible for the purse strings.The Army was very short of money and had millions of rounds ofcaliber .30 ammunition in its stores and depots. MacArthur was ofthe opinion that there was little likelihood of the United States be-ing drawn into a European war in the near future, if ever. To add tothis was the soldier’s reasoning that the army wanted a single caliberfor both rifle and machine gun, whereas the decision to opt for cal-iber .276 for rifles and retaining caliber .30 for machine guns wasuneconomic, both in fiscal and military terms. He vetoed the caliber.276 Garand and proved John Garand right. The country would notgo for a change of caliber for the new service rifle.

In 1936 the Garand caliber .30 M1 rifle was officially adopted bythe United States as its new service rifle, and this meant that theUnited States was in the lead in firearms design, for it was the firstcountry in the world to issue an SLR to all infantry troops. Therewere some small problems with the weapon, the main one of whichwas that the ammunition, fed in eight-round clips, had to be firedoff before the weapon could be reloaded. It was possible to reload afull clip by ejecting a partially fired clip, but this meant that the oldclip needed refilling before it could be used again. Further, it wasnoticed that the enemy learned to wait to hear the distinctive soundof an empty clip being thrown out of the rifle before moving, thenhaving a second or two of grace before the rifleman could reload anew clip and recommence firing.

There is little doubt, however, that the M1 proved itself to be afirst-class weapon in the hands of the trained U.S. soldier and ma-rine. It functioned everywhere to the complete satisfaction of itsusers, something that cannot be said of all SLRs. The fact that theweapon needed reloading only every eight shots ensured that sol-diers could concentrate on their job—hitting targets on the battle-field—and meant that the M1 was a great improvement on the boltactions with which so many of the other nations involved went intoWorld War II. It was praised for its hard-hitting effect as well as for


its ability to function in all terrain and climatic conditions. In all, itwas “the infantryman’s perfect weapon.”28

By 1950 in Europe, the first steps toward a change of weaponwere taking place as a result of experiences in World War II, particu-larly due to the success of U.S., Russian, and German SLRs. InBritain the EM rifle was causing a stir, and the new Belgian FA L(Fusil Automatique Leger) had also turned some military heads.Project No. 223129 was an evaluation of the merits of the new light-weight rifle with the purpose “to determine the comparative suitabil-ity of the test rifles and their ammunition for use by the countriesparticipating in the test.” The rifles under consideration were theBritish EM2, for the Belgians the FN (from Fabrique Nationaled’Armes de Guerre, based in Herstal). Interestingly, the controlweapon was the T-25, a tilting-block design with a rather odd buttand a pistol grip. The EM2 fired the new .280-inch cartridge, as didthe FN, but the U.S. rifle continued to fire the standard .30-inchround that had been in service since the turn of the twentiethcentury.

The report states that one aim of the tests was “joint standardiza-tion of small arms and ammunition.” This laudable aim was one thathad been on the minds of many forward-looking military thinkersfor a long time, for experience had shown that the United States andBritain often fought side by side, and commonality would be to thebenefit of all, including the soldier in the field. However, the resultsof the process were to be quite divisive, and the role of ColonelRené Studler (army chief of ordnance) was suspect in the extreme.

The decision to test the weapons was the result of meetings inWashington, D.C., in 1949, when it was proposed that “standardweapons of both countries would be converted to fire the new am-munition and would be fired at Fort Benning to demonstrate thefeasibility of conversion.” The Fort Benning trials began on 3 May1950, and wound ballistics tests were carried out at the U.S. ArmyChemical Center in Maryland.

At the time, a number of specifications and criteria applied to thetests, among them trajectory, penetration, and the ability to use in-cendiary and armor-piercing ammunition. There were also practicaluser tests that included firing the weapons on full automatic, a re-quirement that was imposed on all weapons in the aftermath ofWorld War II and the German and Russian weapon developmentsduring the campaign in Russia.

It soon appeared, in the report on the tests, that the lighter .280-inch round, despite opposition (particularly from the U.S. military),was ballistically “better than . . . the .30 caliber round.” Ominously,

128 RIFLES

however, a rider was added to the report that stated, “the .30 caliberround has flatter trajectory.” The “gravel bellies” (the older, long-range rifle protagonists) were still alive and kicking and willing tospoil any development if it interfered with their case for the caliber.30 ammunition.

As far as power was concerned, the .280-inch round “is wellabove the marginal power required [to wound or kill the target],”and, of course, the smaller caliber ammunition weighed less, allow-ing riflemen to carry more ammunition on operations. Interestingly,although the opposite would have seemed logical, “observing andtracer rounds in .280 caliber are [sic] superior to the T-65 .30 cal-iber. The .280 tracer produces a longer and more visible trace.”

The report then looks at the rifles, and they were submitted to awide range of tests in the following weeks. Initial tests showed that“the basic accuracy of the rifles are [s i c] comparable. . . . In anycase, their accuracy while not meeting military characteristics are[sic] not less than that of the M-1 rifle firing M-2 ball ammunition.”

Because all the rifles were, in fact, almost experimental versions(despite the original requirement that they be standard serviceweapons rechambered to fire the new ammunition), it is not surpris-ing that there were numerous breakages of parts as well as problemswith functioning. “All rifles became too hot to handle at the forearm[the fore end furniture] after about 1280 rounds,” says the report,which also concludes that “the FN is definitely superior to the othertwo rifles.” This comment is further reinforced by the note that“only the FN could be maintained in the field without the use of aspecial tool. . . . The FN’s simplicity of design and ease of strippingand assembling makes it possible to replace parts much quickerthan for either of the other two rifles.” The praise for the FN is con-stant throughout the tests, and the final U.S. decision defies under-standing, except for the role of Springfield Armory and the oldguard.

The final conclusions were that the T-65 round was unsatisfac-tory because of excessive blast, flash, and smoke. Further, althoughthe .280-inch round had an unsatisfactory trajectory, it was the pre-ferred ammunition. The final recommendations were that furtherwork had to be done on the .280 round and, in the case of emer-gency, that the FN rifle and the .280 round be modified to suit U.S.military requirements.

The international pot was about to boil over: to make the .280round acceptable to the U.S. military, the base was “identical withthat of the [U.S.] 1906 .30 cartridge so that it would have been easyfor existing weapons to be converted.”3 0 Talks on standardization


had been going on for a considerable time, especially in view of theestablishment of NATO, for whom standard weapons and equip-ment were an economic as well as a military necessity. Interestingly,Clinton Ezell31 comments that “it seemed at the time that national-ism could and would be overcome in the standardization of all cate-gories of materiel save in the case of infantry weapons. . . . One ofthe earliest and lasting disappointments was the failure to make thedesire for standardization a reality.”32 It seems, says Ezell, that thepartial cause of this was the unwillingness of the rest of NATO tocave in to U.S. mandates.

As with the EM rifles, the British were to reject their homegrownproduct, the EM2, in favor of the FN FAL rifle (modified to Britishrequirements and deprived of its automatic fire option) and cham-bered for the new caliber .30 NATO round, which had been pro-posed forcibly by the United States. The argument in favor of theNATO round was led by (not surprisingly) Colonel Studler, who saidthat the cost of retooling to a .280 was too high, that the .280 car-tridge (despite the results of the Fort Benning tests) was not as pow-erful as the M2 round, and that the need for armor-piercing incen-diary ammunition meant that the .280 was not capable of fulfillingthis task (again, despite results from Fort Benning). The final argu-ment was that Congress would not approve such a change (appar-e n t l y, despite the fact that Congress was virtually unaware of theproposal), and so the U.S. Ordnance Department would not seri-ously consider any changes of such a fundamental nature. TheBritish members of the missions to the United States claimed, notwithout cause, that they had been Studlered again.

In 1951 there seems to have been another attempt to rationalizethis affair, and the FN was tested against the EM2 again, andagainst the old T25 (or T47) and the new T44 (actually no morethan a jazzed-up Garand). The British chose to adopt the BelgianFN FAL, which became the SLR, and the United States elected forStudler’s choice the soon-to-be M14.33 It seems that the choice forthe United States was made by Colonel Studler, who was implacablyagainst a diminution in caliber and against bullpup rifles and foreigndesigns.

The rift between the two countries, caused to an extent byColonel Studler, got so bad that Prime Minister Winston Churchilland U.S. President Harry Truman discussed the matter during asummit in January 1952. They issued a communiqué expressing abelief in future standardization, but things would, in the meantime,revert to the status quo. Finally, in 1953 agreement was reachedamong Britain, France, and the United States that the standard cal-

130 RIFLES

iber cartridge was to be the 7.62mm x 51mm cartridge, actually theU.S. cartridge for which Studler had campaigned so ardently.

This meant that the United States was now stuck with a cartridgethat was extremely powerful but also highly discomforting to boththe firer and others around him, and with the further requirementthat the new military rifle be able to fire fully automatically. The hy-brid weapon chosen to handle the cartridge was the remodeledGarand—the M14.

The M14 Rifle

The story of the M14 is not a happy one. Perhaps the best way of de-tailing its truly checkered history is to look initially at the way manu-facture got under way, or rather did not. John Stennis of the Pre-paredness Investigating Committee of the U.S. Senate wrote apaper34 in which he reported his findings on what was, in any otherwords, a scandal. He quoted Secretary of Defense Robert S. Mc-Namara, who said, “I think it is a disgrace the way the project washandled. . . . This is a relatively simple job, to build a rifle . . . andyet this project has languished for months—years, actually. And Isee no excuse for allowing that to continue.”

The report noted that although approved in 1957, no orders wereplaced for the rifle until 1958 and that production had been meager.This tale of woe was supported by the facts that the first 19 rifleswere produced in September 1959, by the end of June 1960 only9,741 further rifles had been delivered, and by 30 June 1961 pro-duction rose to 133,386. By this time Springfield Armory, Harring-ton-Richardson, and Winchester were all producing the rifle. Thebuildup to full production had taken far too long, and in 1960 U.S.reinforcements to Berlin had still been armed with M1 Garand ri-fles. The report also mentioned that in 1961 there were more M1Garands in stores than there were riflemen in the U.S. A r m y.Springfield Armory standards were still being maintained.

One interesting point made by the report was that “the quantitiespurchased [of the M14] should in no way be a deterrent to the de-velopment and production of a more modern and ultimate replace-ment for the M-14 at some future time.” This portent was eventu-ally to usher in the developments that led to the M16 rifle, in aneven smaller caliber than the British .280 (7mm) cartridge that hadbeen so criticized by Colonel Studler and his cronies.

In service, the M14 soon gained a dubious reputation. It kickedlike a mule, was uncontrollable when fired on automatic, and was


not a lighter weapon at all. The M14 was too long and too heavy tobe carried all day long in hot and wet climates (as shown by the ex-periences of U.S. and South Vietnamese forces in the Vi e t n a mWar). The 7.62mm NATO ammunition was too heavy, limiting theamount of ammunition carried by soldiers on patrols. The selective-fire capability was mostly useless, since the M14 was way too lightfor the very powerful cartridge it fired, and it climbed excessivelywhen fired in bursts. In fact, most of the M14s were issued to troopswith fire selectors locked to semiautomatic mode to avoid uselesswaste of ammunition in automatic fire. In other words, the M14was a failure as a service weapon; what is really surprising is that itsadherents continued to argue forcibly for its retention in the face ofthe appearance of the Armalite rifles.

New Rifle, New Caliber

As had been foretold in the Russell report, the way was open inCongress’s mind to a replacement for the M14. The rifle that was toeventually perform this task had a rough ride, however, before it fi-nally achieved stardom. Production of the M14 continued for onlyfive years after inception, for the simple reason that the M14 was astopgap at best and an expensive failure at worst. The emphasisupon the values of the caliber .30 round had fuddled the issue enor-mously, and the old-timers who adhered to the caliber were harkingback to an age when “men were men . . . and could handle a biground without flinching.” However, two U.S. studies had pointedout (in 1950 and 1952) certain facts that were not pleasant readingto the full-bore enthusiasts.

The first of these was the Hall report,3 5 which proposed that amuch smaller bullet could do far more damage to a man than thecaliber .30 round. Although theoretical (and admitted as such by theauthor), this report had a ring of common sense about it. Soonthereafter appeared the Hitchman report,3 6 which added to theweight of the Hall report by noting that the standard battle rangedid not exceed 300 yards, which was in agreement with S. L. A .Marshall’s comments.37 Marksmanship declined considerably after100 yards’ range. His main point was that to improve accuracy atranges greater than 100 yards, “missiles of smaller calibre than thepresent .30 cal. can be used without loss in wounding effects andwith substantial logistical and overall military gains.”38

The smaller round was achievable, but until the mid-1950s thereseemed to be no such round in existence. However, Eugene Stoner

132 RIFLES

(who was responsible for many small arms designs, the most famousof which is the AR range of weapons) had been experimenting withan extremely small caliber—the .223. The eventual result was theM16.

What is most interesting about the development of the M16 fromthe Armalite range of weapons has to be the volte face of the U.S.military: previously there had been an obstinate defense of the .30-06 round, backed by the constantly restated maxim that military ri-flemen needed to be able to shoot out to 600 yards, despite battlereports confirming that 300 yards was the maximum engagementrange for the average rifle squad and that 100–200 yards was thereal fire zone for standard infantry rifles. This shibboleth had heldfirm against the British EM2 rifle caliber and resulted in the M14, arifle that failed to advance rifle design one iota.

Much has been written of the M16 design and development andthe failure to produce a reliable tool for infantry. There is littledoubt that the issue of the first rifles caused major problems be-cause cleaning was neglected. This was surprisingly due not to sol-d i e r s ’ laziness but to confusing instructions—manuals confirmedthat cleaning was needed only after firing about 1,000 rounds, butthe standard rifle propellant caused such carbon deposit buildupthat this was not the case. Further, the barrel was impossible toclean unless a cleaning rod was issued, which was not. This is simi-lar to the British cleaning rod fiasco whereby the rod for the SA80was not long enough for the barrel it was to clean.

The M16 has now come of age and, despite interference fromagencies who should have been kept away, has proved itself to be ofvalue. However, the question as to caliber still surfaces frequently,and it has to be asked here: the caliber is too small for effective fireout to 300 yards and would be better increased to about 7mm(around .275 inch—Pe d e r s e n ’s caliber and that of the EM2). Tohave a rifle for U.S. Army infantry originally adopted by an Air Forceofficer for airfield guards does imply a certain willingness to takeanything in exchange for the M14, and perhaps one can see a victoryfor the new guard against the Studler fixation.

RUSSIAN SLR DEVELOPMENTS

The earliest attempts to make a Russian SLR were similar to thoseelsewhere: a standard bolt-action rifle was modified to enable gaspressure to operate the bolt. Like other designs, the Roshchepei39 ri-


fle used many parts of the original, and the gas operating system wasgrafted onto the weapon. A somewhat questionable source describedhis rifle as follows:

The rifle of Roshchepei reportedly excelled in its simplicity and com-pactness, and in this sense evoked great interest. But the incompe-tent Tsarist officials, bending low before the West without faith in theability of the Russian people, did not appreciate the talented original-ity of this simple soldier who worked as a regimental blacksmith. TheRussian warriors were not fated to hold the rifle invented byRoshchepei in their hands.40

In actual fact, if the weapon had any commonality with other de-signs of the time, it was heavy, awkward to operate, and probablyprone to breakages, all of which would probably have ruled out ser-vice use in any event, with or without the intervention of the “in-competent Tsarist officials” who were the scapegoats for the Com-munists for many years.

The real originator of the SLR in Russia has to be Vladimir Gri-gorevich Federov (1874–1966), who, unlike many gun designersand gunmakers, had significant military training. He was initiallytrained at the Mikhailovsky Artillery School, then served as a pla-toon commander in the First Guards Artillery Brigade (1895–1897),at the end of which he was selected for training at the MikhailovskyArtillery Academy. Part of the course was concerned with ballistics.Following graduation he went on to join the Weapons Section of theMain Artillery Commission, where new weapons were both designedand examined.

He also had the opportunity of working with S. I. Mosin, directorof the Sestroretsk Weapons Factory in St. Petersburg, and it seemsthat it was then that Simonov converted a Mosin-Nagant rifle tosemiautomatic operation. Publication of his book on SLR theoryand design appeared in 1907.41 Initial work concentrated on activat-ing a bolt, but he then progressed to a design with a recoiling barrelwith two locks that engaged in lugs in the breech block. This wasthe 1907 model, which had some serious faults.4 2 Despite this,there was enough in the design for the authorities to recommendthat Federov and his coworker, Vasily Alekseyevich Degtyarev(1879–1949), later a famous weapon designer in his own right andcreator of the Degtyarev range of machine guns, move permanentlyto Sestroretsk, where much improved working conditions were avail-able.

134 RIFLES

By 1911 Russia was well in advance of the rest of the world in thedevelopment of the SLR, and a competition was arranged in whichthe Federov rifle was to be tested against the To k a r e v4 3 rifle andagainst designs from FN of Liège (the Karl A. Brauning weapon)and from AB Svenska Vapen och Ammunitionsfabriken of Stock-holm (the Carl Axel Theodor Sjogren design). The Federov pre-vailed, based upon the fact that the weapon had fired thousands ofrounds with only minimal problems.

Like many others after him, Federov did not rest on his laurels,and by 1912 he had made up his mind that the 7.62mm x 54mm RModel 1891 cartridge was far too powerful for use in an SLR. Heopted for a less potent load, to reduce recoil (and improve operationfrom the point of view of the user), increase barrel life, improvefeeding, and most importantly improve fire control. Rather than de-sign a cartridge specifically for the purpose, he looked around untilhe chose the Japanese 6.5mm x 51SR round, a reduced chargeround. The new weapon, which was issued from 1916 onward, wasknown as the Model 1916 Avtomat, and it was used for troop trialsby the 189 Izmail’skiy Infantry Regiment.

The weapon weighed 9.7 pounds, was 40.9 inches long, and firedthe Japanese cartridge at 2,664 fps, a package that was remarkablefor its time. The rifle was fed from a 25-round magazine and oper-ated on the short recoil system. The locking system was very similarto the original 1911 design.

After the Russian Revolution of 1917, Federov was still in favor,and the Soviet leadership wanted no fewer than 9,000 of his new Av-tomat rifles. Production was impossible, but he made every effort, asdid Degtyarev, to get the order fulfilled. The two finally decided thatthe only way to get the job done was to partly machine, partly handfinish the weapons; the powers that be authorized this method andreduced the initial demand to 150 weapons. Once a total of 200 hadbeen reached, a further order for 300 more was issued. By almostsuperhuman effort, Federov and Degtyarev managed to get produc-tion flowing, and by the end of 1920, production was running reli-ably at 50 rifles per month. Production was finally stopped on 1 Oc-tober 1925 after 3,200 Federov Avtomats had been produced.

The Federov was well in advance of its time, being easily handled,reliable, and effective as a military weapon. Unfortunately it was alsotoo delicate for military operations in the long term, as dirt sooncaused jams, and fully automatic fire accuracy was poor. Neverthelessthe weapon was reissued in the Russo-Finnish War of 1939–1940, soit proved to be the father of all subsequent military assault rifles.


The real secret lay in the correct choice of cartridge.44 The secretof controlled automatic fire lay in the weight of the weapon: toolight, and there would be no control of where the second and subse-quent rounds went (see “U.S. Self-Loading Rifles” and the M14);too heavy, and the weapon could not be readily carried and used bythe soldier whose weapon it was intended to be. However, very fewpeople really appreciated what role the weapon had in battle. In-fantry officers were accustomed to firing at ranges up to 1,200 yards(a range at which even snipers are inaccurate and at which the boltactions of the time could only deliver vaguely aimed mass fire),which led to the same situation in Russia as happened in the UnitedStates nearly half a century later. The true value of the small-caliberweapon was not really appreciated in Russia until experience inWorld War II taught the Russians that assault rifles were intendedto provide covering fire at medium ranges (up to 300 or 400 yards atmost) and killing fire only at short range. The day of the long-range,individually sighted shot was to pass, but it took a long time incoming.

Federov and Degtyarev combined their efforts in the years 1921and 1926 and produced a number of automatic weapons, none ofwhich were adopted for service, but this effort laid down the princi-ple of a family of weapons that the Russians would embrace whole-heartedly in ensuing years. The man who benefited from this ideawas Mikhail Timofeyevich Kalashnikov (1919–), whose family ofweapons has gone down in history.

Russia has produced a number of exceptional rifle designers, andfollowing Federov came Tokarev,45 who was master armorer of the12 Don Cossack Regiment in the late 1880s. By 1907 he was train-ing at the Officer’s Rifle School in Oranienbaum and then in 1908went to Sestroretsk, where he must have come into contact withFederov and Degtyarev. His first rifle design was tested against theFederov rifle in 1911. By 1921 his rifle design had been modified,and it came to the attention of the Main Artillery Commission,which was “of the opinion that the proposed Tokarev system and itsfurther development for the small calibre cartridge is desirable.”4 6

H o w e v e r, despite the mention of the small-caliber round, To k a r e vwas looking at full-caliber (chambered for the 7.62mm x 54mm Rcartridge) SLR designs at the time.

The Artillery Commission set up a competitive testing of theavailable SLR designs, of which the survivors after the first cut4 7

were Federov’s 7.62mm version of his 1916 rifle, Degtyarev’s modi-fied 1916 design, and the Tokarev recoiling-barrel design. All three

136 RIFLES

weapons could be loaded directly into their magazines by the stan-dard five-round Mosin-Nagant cartridge clip. The result of the testwas that all of the rifles were too complicated and were lacking instrength and reliability for military consideration. Six months was al-lowed to the three designers to improve their offerings and to makeup two identical weapons for testing.

The next series of tests was held in June 1928. Federov led agroup of designers known as the Inventor’s Collective (consisting ofF. V. Fe d e r o v, V. A. Degtyarev, D. V. Uraznov, A. I. Kuznetsov, andI. I. Berukov) to present an improved recoil-operated Federov rifleand two other rifles with the Degtyarev gas-operated system.Tokarev persisted in offering his recoil-operated weapon. The testresults were considered, and all four weapons withstood the mainphase of the tests. However, no order for production could be given,as none of the rifles was in finished form. The collective alsobrought into question Tokarev’s action, suspecting that it might bevulnerable to barrel bending during combat operations.

By the time the third set of tests took place the competitors werereduced to the Degtyarev and Tokarev rifles. Degtyarev offered a de-sign with a fixed five-round magazine. Tokarev’s rifle came with de-tachable five- and 10-round magazines. As both weapons were stilldemonstrating previous faults, they were rejected. Furthermore, itwas then ordered that recoiling-barrel weapons were unsuitable forthe military, and so Tokarev was forced to start work on the design ofa gas-operated rifle that included a new bolt and bolt carrier system.

The collective decided that the Degtyarev model was to be putinto production, and eventually 500 rifles were ordered. This was tobe known as the 7.62mm SLR Model 1930, and troop testing wasdone in 1933 by the Moscow Proletarian Rifle Division. At the sametime Sergei Gavrilovich Simonov (1894–) appears on the scene.

Simonov had presented his first SLR design for the 1926 trialsand was rejected. He had made a significant error in mounting thegas-operating system on the side of his rifle, resulting in a wideweapon that was difficult to strip in operational conditions. He re-designed the weapon and in 1931 offered a gas-operated systemwith a bolt locked by a vertical sliding wedge. In no time thisweapon became the favorite to replace the Model 1891 Mosin-Nagant rifle for the Russian Army.

It was adopted on 22 March 1934 as the 7.62mm Simonov Auto-matic Rifle Model 1936 (or the AVS36). By 1938 the weapon was inmass production, and in 1938 and 1939 a total of 34,681 of theserifles were made.


The ways of bureaucrats are always hard to fathom, and nowheremore so than in the decision of the Soviet Pe o p l e ’s Commissar forDefense to announce another SLR competition. The reasoning be-hind it seems to have been that the Simonov was overly complicated,easily jammed by dirt and powder residue, and prone to mishandlingby soldier users. There may have been some persuasive lobbying byTo k a r e v, because when the latest tests were over, although none ofthe weapons submitted were ready for adoption, the Tokarev mightbe reworked quickly enough to make it a viable proposition. Te s t e dagain (against the Simonov and a weapon designed by one Rukasish-nikov), the Tokarev was declared the winner, and the rifle wasadopted in early 1939 as the Model 1938 Tokarev SLR (SVT38).

There can be little doubt that Stalin was acting behind the scenesin this matter, for he was a devotee of the SLR.4 8 The Simonov-Tokarev conflict has all the hallmarks of political infighting, and theproduction comparison between the two weapons is quite striking.The Tokarev needed much more workplace area for its manufacture,many more machines, more manufacturing time and increasedcosts; was heavier and needed more raw materials for its production;and had 25 more parts than the Simonov. Vannikov wrote that

Simonov had created a lighter model with the nest automatic mecha-nism. But, as a consequence of carelessness by the designer himselfin manufacturing the rifle, it showed somewhat poorer results thanTokarev’s design. Being a member of the commission, I was in chargeof accepting new designs into the arsenal of infantry weapons—an ex-acting and responsible matter. For example, as opposed to other typesof equipment, a rifle is usually accepted for use over many years,since subsequent changes in its design unavoidably require bothcomplicated measures in organising combat training in the army . . .and also long and expensive technological reequipping of industry.This is especially true as it relates to the self loading rifle, and it wastherefore clear to me that the best of the models was Simonov’s. Ithad not failed because of design failures, but for production reasons. . . which could be eliminated completely.49

So despite its obvious manufacturing shortcomings, the SVT38 wasaccepted by the Russians, with the approval of Stalin himself.

In the field there were problems, partly due to dust and sand, es-pecially with new weapons from the factory heavy with protectivegrease. These problems occurred at high and low temperatures,which meant most of the year in central Russia. There were also re-

138 RIFLES

ports of gas regulation, and the magazine was not well locked intothe rifle and could fall out. Although a redesign was planned, thesudden invasion by the Germans meant that the SVT40 was on is-sue for the rest of the war. Nearly 1.4 million SVT40s were pro-duced (of which 51,000 were the sniper rifle version), and it wasonly in 1945 that production was discontinued.

The problems with the rifle and the cartridge led to a number ofstudies of alternatives, one of which looked at a rifle firing the7.62mm x 25mm Tokarev pistol cartridge, and another looked at thepossibilities with the 7.62mm x 39mm M43 cartridge. Theprospects with the latter cartridge looked good, but the question ofits origin has puzzled many historians and weapons experts for years.The first argument is that the Russian cartridge developed from theGerman 7.62mm x 39mm kurz cartridge, which was fired by theStG44 range of weapons. Russian sources, however, argue that theyhad started design work on the new cartridge as early as 1939.Whatever the truth of the matter, they had certainly looked at a5.45mm cartridge in 1939, a project that was shelved for the dura-tion of World War II.

The problem facing all designers of small-caliber cartridges is thatof balancing caliber and propellant charge to produce a cartridgewith better ballistics than a pistol cartridge but with less recoil thana full-blown rifle cartridge. Further, in 1939, and even in 1945, thevalue of the smaller calibers was not yet known, with most armiesbeing fond of the cartridges at about .3 inch in caliber. Further,most armies were still wedded to the concept of aimed shooting outto 600 or even 800 yards, which seemingly demanded a big car-tridge. These full-load cartridges were utterly unsuitable for the as-sault rifle concept, being uncontrollable on automatic.

Once the decision had been made to go ahead with the 7.62mm x39mm cartridge, Sergei Gavrilovich Simonov (1894–1986), whohad designed a weapon to fire the 7.62mm x 25mm cartridge, nowdesigned and produced his SKS45 carbine. Earlier versions hadbeen produced but were not field-tested until about 1944. The newcartridge, however, was perfect for the basic design, which was to beused at ranges of up to 400 yards. Some of the new rifles were sentto the front, and reports were favorable. This resulted in adoption asthe SKS45. The one problem was that the magazine capacity wasonly five or 10 rounds, so the SKS45 was not an assault rifle, merelyan SLR.

At the same time that the SKS was being field-tested, Kalash-nikov appeared on the scene as well. After an apprenticeship during


which he must have been in contact with Degtyarev, Simonov, andS u d a y e v, or at least their weapon designs, he produced a 7.62mmself-loading carbine that was tested in 1944. The SKS45, however,won the contest, and Kalashnikov’s design was rejected. At the timeKalashnikov was only 25 years old, and as is the case with all goodengineers, he went back to his drawing board to rethink his idea.50

The result was the AK47, a weapon that is still in service, albeitsomewhat modified today. It has spawned a family of arms based onthe original design,51 and the success of the basic design is due to anumber of factors. Perhaps the first is the ease of use, which ap-peals to all soldiers who are armed with the weapon. It handles well,is easy to strip and assemble, and is (assuming there is a basicregime of cleaning applied) very reliable. There is criticism of thenoise made by the safety catch/change lever, but this is offset by theheavy bolt, which goes a long way to ensuring that every round isproperly seated in the chamber. Further, the fitted cleaning rod anda strict regime of cleaning that was standard in the Soviet Army en-sure that jams are a rarity.52

Various modifications were made to the original AK47, includinga folding stick version, but the main changes were in the manufac-turing process. The Russians experimented with machined receiversbut went back to the original sheet metal receiver quickly, and thenew design was known as the AKM. In the early 1970s a new car-tridge was developed (the 5.45mm x 39.5mm M74), which mayhave been due to studies made of the U.S. 5.56mm x 45mm round(otherwise the U.S. .223 Remington). So the AKM was redesignedto fire this cartridge, and the new weapon became the AK74. If any-thing, this rifle is more reliable than the AKM, because the cartridgerim of the M74 round is thickened to allow the even heavier bolt ofthe AK74 to extract the round without tearing through the rim, an-other problem with the M16.

The Russians had thus arrived at the same conclusion as the Eu-ropean and U.S. military: the smaller caliber round did more dam-age out to its optimum range of about 300 or 400 yards and allowedassault rifles to be built that could fire the round on full automatic.By the late 1960s all modern armies were equipping, or planning toequip, with small-caliber rifles, and the Russians had taken the leadin producing a rifle that today is still regarded by combat soldiers asthe most reliable weapon available. It is this reliability that causesmany soldiers to comment that they would rather have an AK74 oreven an AK47 or AKM in preference to their issue rifle—be it a vari-ant of the M16, the Israeli Galil, the German G3, or the BritishSA80.

140 RIFLES

THE BRITISH ARMY AND THE SLR

The story of the British Army and the SLR is not an entirely happyone. There have been British SLR designs since the turn of thetwentieth century, with such weapons as the Gabbet-Fairfax of 1896and the Farquhar-Hill of 1909, but the British military mind was notready for such newfangled ideas. It is of interest, however, that cal-iber .276 was under serious study just before World War I, but theoutbreak of hostilities put the work on hold.

So the British soldier fought World Wars I and II with a bolt-action rifle, variations on the Lee-Enfield theme, and it was not un-til after World War II that serious thought turned again to the possi-bilities of an SLR for British troops. In 1945 it was decided thatBritish troops were to have an SLR, and the ideal caliber wasthought to be .276 inch (7mm). Interestingly, this is the same cal-iber as had been chosen in 1913 and also in the early 1930s for theU.S. Pedersen rifle. Two cartridges were designed, one at .270, theother at .276 (known as the .280 in typically perverse British fash-ion). The .270 cartridge soon turned out to be too underpoweredand was abandoned; work concentrated on the minimally larger car-tridge, with an eventual muzzle velocity of 2,530 fps with a 140-grain bullet. This became known as the 7mm Mark 1Z,5 3 and theBelgians used it in their designs for the FN short rifle (a bullpup)and long rifle (eventually the FN FAL).

To go with the cartridge was a new rifle, developed at the RoyalSmall Arms Factory under the control of Noel Kent-Lemon, who de-cided on the bullpup concept as the basis for his work. One designteam was led by Stanley Thorpe and came up with a gas-operated ri-fle with a locking system based on that of the German StG 44, witha number of steel pressings in its manufacture. The steel pressingsproved impossible to obtain reliably, and this design was scrapped.The other team, under Stefan Janson (and Stalowa Wola onweapons design), came up with a successful design that was to bethe center of an international storm.

The EM2, as the new rifle was known, was also a bullpup designand suffered from being somewhat complex in the field. Neverthe-less it was a good design, and the developers had high hopes for theweapon in comparative tests that were due to take place in 1950.Standardization of weapons and ammunition, especially in NAT Oand between the United States and the United Kingdom, had been adream for years, but little had come of it, with the two world warsintervening to delay the process. In 1950, however, the dream mighthave come true if it had not been for the efforts of Colonel René


Studler (director of ordnance for the U.S. Army, based at SpringfieldArmory) and others. Colonel Studler already had a pet project, theT25 (later the M14), and it seems that he was unwilling to allow anyother weapon to stand in the way of his ambition to provide the nextgeneration of service rifles for the U.S. Army. The fact that NATOwas now in existence, and standardization the watchword, matteredlittle in his approach to the problem.

The tests began in February 1950, and Janson and Kent-Lemonled the British designers together with A. W. Dunclift from the .280Ideal Caliber Panel, a group set up to examine the whole concept ofcaliber change in the British A r m y.5 4 The brief for the tests laiddown that

there is a requirement for a rifle having a lighter weight and incorpo-rating several features not found on present standard arms. It is de-sired to develop a rifle and cartridge meeting this requirement andthen to standardise these items for use in Armies of Allied countries.. . . It is desired to obtain a comparison of the features and perfor-mance of these models when subjected to a test agreed on by the rep-resentatives of the countries submitting the test items. It appearslikely that a rifle meeting the above requirements will replace severalpresent shoulder weapons.55

The British EM2 performed well and actually proved more than amatch for the U.S. T25 and the FN .280 caliber rifle, the othercompetitors. However, this was not entirely to the liking of the U.S.observers, and Lucian Cary, the American firearms writer, wrote amost revealing article on the subject.

The new British military rifle is the subject of sharp controversy, verg-ing on the bitter. Our Army Ordnance disapproves. . . . You wouldthink . . . that the British had no business developing a new rifle. Ourpeople take the line that in introducing a new rifle the British are nothelping to standardise the military equipment of the armies of theNorth Atlantic Treaty Organisation. . . . The British might retort thatwe are also planning a new rifle and a new cartridge. Of course fromour point of view that’s different.56

Cary comments that ammunition standardization had gotnowhere, which was true, and that all were agreed that a new,lighter SLR was needed. The Americans, however, would not admitthe value of the EM2, still relying heavily on the old one-shot, one-

142 RIFLES

kill principle, which had actually almost disappeared from view dur-ing World War II. Firepower was what mattered in the face ofmassed enemies, as the United States was soon to learn in Korea.Further anti-British arguments centered on the cartridge, and it washere that the EM2 was to fail. The United States was set on .30 cal-i b e r, and even Prime Minister Winston Churchill recognized thatthis was a stumbling block of insurmountable proportions. TheAmericans argued that the .280-caliber bullet did not work well over600 yards and would not penetrate a steel helmet at 1,000 yards.They had forgotten that the average infantry fight occurred at about50–150 yards, and such long ranges were the stuff of dreams.

So the EM2 died a political death, and the Americans promisedthat if the British would accept their new cartridge, the 7.62mm x51mm (.30-caliber short) round, as the standard to be imposedupon NATO, they in turn would accept the FN FAL in that caliberas their service rifle. The British agreed, the Americans went aheadwith the eventual M14, and there was a deep frost over the Atlantic.

Britain turned to FN for its new SLR, and the British Army, aftera period of weapon development and fine-tuning, was issued with itsnew service rifle, the L1A1 SLR. This rifle was in caliber 7.62mm x51mm, the new NATO caliber, and the caliber of the U.S. M14. Theoriginal test report on the FN .280 rifle mentioned that it was theonly rifle in the test capable of being maintained in the field withoutthe use of a special tool, and when the SLR was issued to Britishtroops in the larger caliber, the same was true. The cleaning kit in-cluded a combination tool that was used to adjust the sights to zero,but field maintenance was about as simple as any SLR could be. Allparts that were field-stripped were of a size that would not easily belost, and the hammer and internal mechanism of the rifle were read-ily accessible once the top cover had been removed and the bolt car-rier and bolt were withdrawn.

The action was extremely simple—a tilting block within a boltcarrier, actuated by a gas trap about halfway along the barrel. Thegas energy was transmitted through a piston that hit the face of thebolt carrier to start the rearward movement of the carrier and thebolt. Extraction and ejection followed, with the bolt feeding anotherround into the chamber as the action returned to the forward posi-tion where, with the rifle cocked, all the user had to do to fire thenext shot was to squeeze the trigger. Sighting was simple, with a leafsight mounted on a range slide from 200 to 400 yards. Loading andunloading the magazine were easy, and the magazine latch was veryfirm. The safety on the British version allowed firing single shots as


well, but the full automatic option was removed to prevent ammuni-tion wastage. The weapon was easy to carry, and although a carryinghandle was fitted, it was rarely used, and some units had it cut offaltogether.

The SLR remained in British service until the mid-1980s, whenthe fateful decision to adopt the SA80 was slowly implemented. Thelegacy of the EM2 was a belief in British decision makers that thebullpup-style weapon was the way to go. Certainly, the shorterlength of the weapon made it easier to handle in confined spaces(such as in vehicles or when house-clearing), and it was easier tohandle in arduous terrain, especially when wading in water. How-e v e r, it was chambered for the new U.S. round, the 5.56mm x45mm NATO round. To improve accuracy it was to be equippedwith the optical Sight Unit Small Arms Trilux (SUSAT) sight, andthe choice of this sight has certainly improved the performance ofBritish marksmanship.

The real problem of the SA80 was that it was not thoughtthrough, and in the haste to adopt the NATO cartridge the rifle was“made to fit.” A report57 chronicles the initially disastrous history ofthis rifle from first design stage to its adoption and issue. The riflewent into service with the British Army in 1986 and almost immedi-ately came under criticism that was justified. Pieces fell off the rifle,the trigger would not return to the fire position, firing pins broke,the safety catch could break, the cleaning kit was inadequate, andmagazines were badly made. The British soldier began to have seri-ous doubts about the weapon.58

Things came to a head when British troops were engaged in the1990–1991 Gulf War during OPERATION GRANBY. Following a greatdeal of criticism in the newspapers, the House of Commons assem-bled the Defence Committee to look into the problems and find outif any solutions were, or would be, implemented. It issued a reportin 1993, and despite efforts from the British Army to cover the manyfailings of the weapon, the report contains much that is admonitory.The committee notes that it was “astonished that the Ministry [ofDefence] should accept into service, and pay for, equipment such asthe cleaning kit that appears to us to verge on the shoddy.”

There were no fewer than 32 faults with the two weapons, onlyfive of which were unique to the LSW (Light Support Weapon—ca-pable of firing fully automatically from a bipod, and issued to eachinfantry section as a light machinegun). The remainder were firmlyof the SA80. Serious faults (breaking firing pin, magazine catch fail-ure, wrong-sized bolt carriers) and minor irritations (brittle butt

144 RIFLES

plates and safety plungers) are all described in the report, and it isinteresting to note that it took no less than eight years to start solv-ing the trigger retention problem, ten years to sort out the faulty fir-ing pins, and eight years to replace the deficient cleaning kit. Thestory of the faults and their repair is a sorry one and is a serious gov-ernmental and military failure: soldiers were being sent out to fightwith weapons that were unreliable and that the soldiers knew wereuntrustworthy.

In common with the M16 and its variants, the SA80 also had adislike of dust and sand. The SA80 is described as being a “preci-sion weapon.” The SLR, the report says, “in a sandy environmentdid not require a great quantity of oil and the reason for that quitesimply was that it was a weapon of much greater tolerances.” Thereis little doubt that if it had been a toss-up for the soldiers betweengreater tolerances and less technology or the SA80, the choicewould have been simple. Indeed, the sand and dust problem con-tinues to bedevil the SA80, and in recent operations in the Pe r s i a nGulf (O P E R AT I O N T E L I C) many British units still suffered prob-l e m s .

A recent article59 claims that the faults are a thing of the past, butone begins to wonder why the rifle needs such a boost if it is as reli-able as it is claimed to be. Certainly some troops returning from theIraq War have said that the weapon would fire the first round andthen jam. Others, however, reported that if the SA80 was kept ab-solutely dry until actually going into action and then oiled liberally,it worked well. The doubts still remain, however, and rumors are be-ing heard of a change of caliber to the .276 inch (7mm) of the Ped-ersen and the EM2.

It seems that the main criticism of the small-caliber round is thatit does not always deliver its energy, especially at short ranges, whereit tends to go straight through the target without dumping the en-ergy needed to wound or kill. Complaints have been made that eventhree rounds at 10 or 15 yards are insufficient to knock the targetdown, which is, after all, the primary aim of any infantry cartridge.Certainly the return to a slightly larger bullet would satisfy thelonger range aficionados (although their argument is tenuous, inthat most infantrymen are unable to hit targets beyond 300 yards,and the ranges beyond 300 yards probably belong to the mediummachine gun); most important, even with less penetrative ability thebullet would cause wounds at the close ranges now used for battle.House- and trench-clearing operations would certainly benefit, es-pecially as the troops involved would have more confidence that


their rifle was delivering a substantial amount of energy where itwas needed.

CONCLUSION

The rifle as an infantry weapon is over 200 years old. It has gonethrough various important stages in development, reaching maturityin the late nineteenth century as a bolt-action, integral magazine-fed weapon of high accuracy, reasonable rate of fire, and adequatekilling power. It reached its apogee in this form in the Mauser Gew98, the Lee-Enfield No. I, and the Springfield M1903 (although thelast was really a copy of the first). Soldiers, to whom performanceand reliability were paramount, liked these rifles and found little inthem of which to complain. The semi-automatic or self-loading ri-fles of the twentieth century are no more than technological devel-opments, often prone to faults that never affected the simple bolt-action weapons.

Before these rifles appeared many efforts had been made to bringthe rifle onto a par with its forerunner, the long bow. The long bowhad been rightly famous for its range, firepower, and effect; thesefactors were not exceeded by rifles until the very last years of thenineteenth century, and it is reasonable to suppose that had one ofthe armies at Waterloo or even Sebastopol fought with the long bowthe effect upon the enemy would have been equal if not greater. Thelong bow, in the hands of massed trained archers, could deliver dev-astating firepower at 300 yards, sufficient to deal with massed cav-alry or infantry. Perhaps the equivalent effect was seen in the Re-treat from Mons in 1914, when trained British infantry quiteconvinced the Germans that they were being fired on by massed ma-chine guns.

The machinegun overshadowed the rifle in effect. From the mo-ment that Hiram Maxim and his co-inventors showed that the com-posite metallic cartridge could be fed continuously to a repeatingweapon, it was this weapon that caused far more death than the rifleever would. From World War I there are statistics to show that themachinegun was far more a killing machine than the rifle, and thatartillery far outperformed the machinegun in dealing death out onthe battlefield.

H o w e v e r, the individual infantryman cannot be expected to gointo battle without a personal weapon, so the rifle has survived as a

146 RIFLES

local warfare weapon, even though it is not particularly effective incomparison with the machinegun and the artillery piece. But in-fantrymen have, time and time again, been issued weapons thatwere suspect in their reliability and/or performance even before theygot into their hands. The M14, M16, and SA80 rifles are perhapsthe best known of these weapons because of the speed with whichnews travels around the world these days. But the Martini-Henrywas prone to jam, and the Prussian needle rifle and the Fr e n c hChassepôt had their faults too; the story is ever the same.

It is of fundamental importance to all nations that will send theirmen into battle to send their men armed with a weapon that willfunction in all conditions, does not require excessive maintenancein the field, and will stop the enemy when the user wants it to. Fur-ther it must be capable of delivering accurate fire, and the user mustbe trained to aim his weapon at the target he wishes to hit. Far toooften television shows infantry firing their weapons blindly over oraround cover in the belief that noise alone will deter the enemyfrom approaching. This fallacy is not restricted to the armed militiasand insurgents of Third World countries.

H o w e v e r, the emphasis must lie in providing reliable battlefieldrifles that will inflict sufficient damage on the target so that it is re-moved from the possibility of causing harm to the user of theweapon. To have the “very latest” in technology does not ensure thatthe individual will be able to use it, or that it will always work; it isfar better to use rifles (and other weapons) that have had some test-ing to prove that they are reliable, and that testing be in the hands ofthose who will depend upon them for their lives. The technologiesmay change, but there is no substitute for giving new weapons totroops away from the battlefield initially and letting them try to de-stroy them. Testers must think along the lines of those who will usethe weapon for real: will it go on firing, can it be fired without toomuch distress, can it hit the target, and if so, does the target staydown or come back for more?

ENDNOTES

1. Published by His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1929.2. 2 March 1863. Sir Robert Moray FRS was reporting this matter to

the Society; see Proceedings of the Royal Society, 1863.3. Including a reference in Pepys’s Diary for 4 March 1664, which prob-

ably refers to the same weapon as noted immediately above.


4. Of Mr. Regulus Pilon, a patent for recocking the hammer by barrelrecoil (U.S. Patent 2998 of 1863), Mr. W Curtis’s gas operated system(U.S. Patent 1810 of 1866), and many European designs of the 1870s.

5. Letter written by Heinrich Gärtner of 23 December 1943 shown infacsimile on p. 36 in W. Darrin We a v e r, H i t l e r ’s Garands. C o b o u r g ,Canada: Collector Grade Publications, 2001.

6. Ibid., p. 46.7. By such firms as Gustave Genschow of Durlach and Rhenish-

Westphalische Sprengstoff of Nurnberg, as well as the 8mm x 42.5mm car-tridge developed for the Heinemann SLR, designed at Rheinmetall.

8. The cartridge was known officially in 1941 as the 7.9 infanterie kurzPatrone, in 1942 as the Maschinenkarabiner Patrone S, in 1943 and 1944as the Pistolen Patrone 43 m.E, and in 1945 as the kurz Patrone 43 m.E;see Peter S. Senich, The German Assault Rifle 1935–1945. Boulder, CO:Paladin Press, 1987.

9. Quoted in Senich, The German Assault Rifle, p. 23.10. A slight change of emphasis in the German to reflect that the

weapon was now thought of as a Maschinenpistole or submachine gunrather than as a carbine.

11. The Germans found that this method lent itself easily to new de-signs, but older weapons could not be adapted so well, as interchange-ability was not always possible between machined and stamped parts. SeeEdward Clinton Ezell, The AK47 Story. Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole, 1986.

12. Senich, The German Assault Rifle, p. 52. One might add that Gen-eral Douglas MacArthur was of a similar mind, and so were many seniormen at Springfield Armory. The argument is nevertheless valid that to sup-ply two ammunition calibers to infantry overcomplicates matters. TheBritish Army has, however, gone this way without serious problems, usingthe 5.56 SA80 and the 7.62 GPMG (General Purpose Machine Gun) to-gether, even at section (squad) level.

13. Senich, The German Assault Rifle, p. 62.14. Duncan Long, AK47: The Complete Kalashnikov Family of A s s a u l t

Rifles. Boulder, CO: Paladin Press, 1988.15. The article was published in the September 1992 Military Review,

pp. 84–86, under the title “The Sturmgewehr 44 Assault Rifle.”16. In which the primer at the base of the cartridge was fired by a con-

cave striker. The gas pressure inside the cartridge, when fired, forced theprimer to bulge against the striker, giving sufficient energy to push thestriker back some .02/.03 inch, which was enough movement to operatethe lock. As the breech opened there was still enough gas pressure in thebarrel to force the working parts back for the full operating stroke to takeplace, ejecting the spent cartridge case and then reloading and recockingthe weapon ready for the next shot.

17. Together with 101,000 modified ’03 rifles and 69 million rounds ofammunition. Almost all were sent for scrap. See Hallahan, op. cit., pp.369ff.

148 RIFLES

18. This argument was repeated in the post–World War II period whenthe British were arguing in favor of a similar caliber round for the EM2SLR, while Colonel Studler and the U.S. Ordnance Board prevailed intheir choice of the 7.62mm x 52mm cartridge, which became the NATOstandard.

19. The ammunition had to be lightly coated with a hard wax to mini-mize friction, had to be loaded from 10-round clips, and was in .276-inchcaliber. This last was a stumbling block to approval by Congress, which, asGarand rightly concluded, would be more likely to approve funds for achange of rifle or a change of ammunition, but not both.

20. A turning bolt is one that locks into barrel recesses at the moment offiring, ensuring a complete seal around the cartridge until the gas pressurehas dropped to a safe level. At this point the turning bolt is already rotatingto the free position so that extraction and reloading can take place.

21. As, for instance, when tested by the Cavalry Board in 1928. Halla-han notes, “in a four minute non-stop firing session, the manual bolt-ac-tion Springfield rifle M1903 had exhausted four riflemen. Conversely, in afour minute session with the Pedersen, they experienced no ‘appreciablefatigue or ill effects.’ Furthermore, while the Springfield rifle barrels be-came so hot they scorched their wooden stocks [sic], none of the Pedersensoverheated.” Hallahan, op. cit., p. 377.

22. Ibid.23. Firings of the weapon at anesthetized pigs, to examine the effect of

the bullet on living flesh. Totally politically incorrect nowadays, in the late1920s no such squeamishness affected the Ordnance Board and the U.S.Army.

24. “Infantry Report on the T3E2 (Garand),” quoted in Julian S.H a t c h e r, The Book of the Garand. Highland Park, NJ: Gun Room Press,1948, pp. 99ff.

25. Hatcher, The Book of the Garand, p. 104.26. Ibid., p. 105.27. Ibid., p. 106.28. Quoted in Hallahan, p. 391.29. Report of the Army Field Forces Board No. 3, dated 4 October 1950,

and issued from Fort Benning.30. A. W. Duneclift of the British Armaments Design Establishment,

quoted in Clinton Ezell, The Great Rifle Controversy. Mechanicsburg, PA:Stackpole, 1984, p. 89.

31. See note 11 above.32. Ezell, The Great Rifle Controversy, p. 91.33. In the interim the M1 would continue to be made to ensure that

there were enough rifles for United Nations troops then engaged in the Ko-rean War. Ezell, The Great Rifle Controversy, p. 103.

34. “Development, Procurement, and Distribution of the M-14 Rifle,” 2October 1961, when it was presented to the Hon. Richard B. Russell,Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services.


35. Donald L. Hall, in Effectiveness Study of the infantry Rifle, “Ballis-tic Experience in Korea,” contained in the wound ballistic survey by theU.S. Medical Research and Development Board, published 1951.

36. Operations Research Office Report of June 1952 (see Bibliography).37. Particularly S. L. A. Marshall, Men against Fire (reprint), Gloucester,

MA: Peter Smith, 1978, and his later report “Commentary on Infantry Op-erations and Weapons Usage in Korea, Winter of 1950–1951,” U.S. Gov-ernment, 1952.

38. Quoted in R. Blake Stevens and Edward C. Ezell, The Black Rifle.Cobourg, Ontario: Collector Grade Publications, 1994, p. 9.

39. Yakov Ustinovich Roshchepei (1879–1958) modified the Model1891 rifles.

40. D. N. Bolotin, “Development of Soviet Automatic Weapons,” Kras-naya Zvezda, 21 May 1950, quoted in Edward Clinton Ezell, The A K 4 7Story. Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole, 1986, p. 69.

41. His writing did not finish there, for in 1939 he published the suc-cessor to his original work, The Evolution of Small Arms, reportedly used bySimonov and Kalashnikov as a primer in SLR theory and technology. Otherbooks include a treatise on the influence of infantry fire on artillery prepa-ration (1903), ordnance of the Russian Army in the Crimean War (1904),problems of rifle and machine gun design (1925), the principles of auto-matic weapon mechanisms (1931), and many books on the history and de-velopment of small arms.

42. The rifle failed to extract spent cases when hot, and if fired whenthe muzzle was elevated, the recoil springs were not powerful enough topush the breech block forward enough for it to lock.

43. Fedor Vasil’evich Tokarev (1871–1968). He also designed machineguns and his famous pistol.

44. The cartridge was chosen at least in part because of Russian experi-ences in the Russo-Japanese War of 1905. Further, many Japanese Arisakarifles and millions of 6.5mm x 51SR cartridges had been bought by Russiafor use in World War I.

45. See note 43 above.46. Quoted in Ezell, The AK47 Story, p. 82.47. The Kolesnikov and Konalov weapons were rejected on the ground

that they were incomplete as supplied for testing.48. Boris L’vovich Vannikov wrote that “I. V. Stalin . . . loved to repeat

that the firepower of a self loading rifle was the equivalent of ten ordinaryrifles.” Quoted in Ezell, The AK47 Story, p. 89.

49. Ibid.50. In fact, a number of people worked on the new design, including

Colonel V. S. Demin, who designed the trigger mechanism, plus V. A .Khar’kov, V. V. Krupin, and A. D. Kryakushkin. Testing was done by V. N.Pushin and N. N. Afanas’yev. Nevertheless the complete project was con-ceived and supervised by Kalashnikov.

150 RIFLES

51. The Dragunov SVD, which is based on the Kalashnikov design, theAKM, the PKM machine gun, the AK74, the PK, PKS and PKT machineguns, the RPKS74, and the AKSU. For details of these weapons see Ezell,The AK47 Story, pp. 212ff.

52. This is in direct comparison with early versions of the M16. TheU.S. Army insisted upon a bolt-closing device, and no cleaning equipmentwas issued with the rifle. The bolt-closing device was a throwback to theGarand M1, which sometimes needed the cocking lever rammed homewhen firing blank, because the cartridge, being shorter than the ball round,did not always seat properly. The lack of cleaning equipment for earlyM16s is a criminal error, as was the lack of a ramrod.

53. The Belgians called it the British Intermediate Cartridge, but it wasknown generally as the .280 cartridge.

54. It seems that the Springfield Armory personnel were totally sur-prised to find that the British had turned up for the tests complete with fir-ing versions of their weapons and a section of trained infantry to use them.See Thomas B. Dugelby, EM-2 Concept and Design. Cobourg, Ontario:Collector Grade Publications, 1980, pp. 141ff.

55. The new weapon was to replace the pistol, the submachine gun, thecurrent service rifles, and light machine guns.

56. Lucian Cary, “That New British Rifle,” True (December 1951).57. Defense Committee, Third Report, “The SA80 and Light Support

Weapon.” HMSO, 1993.58. And, as a friend of the author said, “even the Brigade of Guards

could not do good drill with it.”59. A. W. Thornburn, MBE, SO1(W)/Commandant ITDU, Warminster,

England, “SA80—The Weapon of Choice as the General Service Weaponfor Use by UK Armed Forces.” Army Doctrine and Training News, 18 (Win-ter 2002/2003): 2ff.


Significant Rifles and Rifle Systems

153

A rudimentary but effective method offiring muskets, the matchlock allowedthe firer to control the match and aimat the same time. In previous musket-firing systems the firer had to aim andthen apply the match that he held in hishand, thus causing delay and increasingi n a c c u r a c y. This simple mechanismproduced the first mechanical means offiring in weapons and subsequently cre-

ated the trigger. The illustration showsthe pan, in which the primary chargewas inserted, with its weather coverthat allows movement when theweapon is loaded. By pressing the trig-ger the link pulls on the lever at therear, bringing the lit match into contactwith the primary powder in the pan,thus firing the weapon.

154 MATCHLOCK SYSTEM

MATCHLOCK SYSTEMRoyal Armouries

This is an example of the standard ofengineering and metalworking thatemerged during the days of plate ar-mour. The standards were exceptionallyhigh, as shown by this fine example of awheel lock from the Royal A r m o u r i e s

collection. (See the text for a detailedexplanation of the working of the wheellock.) As noted in Chapter 1, wheellocks were extremely expensive, andwere never in general military issue.

WHEEL LOCK SYSTEM 155

WHEEL LOCK SYSTEMRoyal Armouries

The flintlock was the invention that al-lowed the issuing of firearms to massarmies. Although flints might only lastfor 20 or 30 rounds, their capacity forvolley firing was equivalent to that ofthe long bow, and their performance onthe battlefield showed that firepowercould effectively penetrate body and

horse armour. The only problem wasrange, which was limited to an effective30 to 50 yards. Indeed, it is quite possi-ble that until rifling and bolt actionswere invented, armies would have hadbetter firepower and range had theykept the long bow in service.

156 FLINTLOCK SYSTEM

FLINTLOCK SYSTEMRoyal Armouries

This multishot musket from the RoyalArmouries shows that attempts weremade to increase the rate of fire evenwith the flintlock system. This weaponhas no fewer than six charges, whichare loaded sequentially into the barrel.The lock is then positioned at chargesix, and the first round fired. Positions

five to one are then engaged and thecharge fired. It is doubtful if this wasever a battlefield weapon, however, be-cause it would take a long time to re-load and a brave man to fire what couldbe six rounds at once if the loading hadbeen at all careless.

MULTI-SHOT MUSKET SYSTEM 157

MULTI-SHOT MUSKET SYSTEMRoyal Armouries

158 LORENZONI SYSTEM

LORENZONI SYSTEMRoyal Armouries

Another method of reloading was theLorenzoni system.

A. This pistol, shown with the roundhole at the top for loading the ball mag-azine, and the rectangular hole belowfor charging the powder magazine, il-lustrates the much safer method of theLorenzoni system than the reloadingsystem of the multishot musket.

B. The actuating lever on the side ofthe pistol is used to rotate the centralloading mechanism that is shown hereready to load the ball, which goes into

the chamber first. Further rotation ofthe lever leads to position B where thepowder is loaded. The bar across thechamber stops a second ball from beingloaded, which would be highly danger-ous. The lever is then returned to thestart position at the side of the pistol,the pan charged, and the weapon isready to fire the next round. This sys-tem was a great step forward in tech-nology, but was very expensive and con-sequently not used in battle.

LORENZONI SYSTEM 159

The Ferguson system is dealt with atsome length in the text, and this is theweapon that should have revolutionizedBritish firearms and given the BritishArmy a lead that it would have kept dur-ing the Napoleonic Wars. The result of

using this weapon would have changedthe speed at which Napoleon was de-f e a t e d .

The top view shows the rifle with thechamber open for loading, and thecombination trigger guard and actuat-

160 FERGUSON SYSTEM

FERGUSON SYSTEMWith Permission of the Infantry and SASC Weapons Collection, UK

ing lever is shown pointing nearly for-ward. The center picture shows the ac-tion fully closed and the cock at halfcock. The lower picture shows the actu-ating lever, which also acted as the trig-ger guard.

This particular weapon is on show atthe Weapons Collection of the SmallArms School Corps Depot at the

School of Land Warfare in Warminsterin Wiltshire, England, and is still inworking condition. It was made forColonel Ferguson by the renownedsporting-gunmaker Durs Egg in Lon-don. The engineering skills used tomatch the male and female parts stillelicit admiration for the skill withwhich they were made.

FERGUSON SYSTEM 161

Further details of the Ferguson rifle,showing (in the top picture) the triggerguard/actuating lever and the importantmale plug of the mechanism. The lowerpicture shows the female counterpartinside the rifle itself, and the breechcan also be seen. Loading was simple:the rifle was held muzzle down and a

ball was dropped in, falling by gravityinto the breech. Powder was thenloaded into the chamber, the screwclosing was then operated, and surpluspowder on top of the breech wasbrushed into the pan for firing. (Detailsof Colonel Fe r g u s o n ’s performancewith his rifle are given in the text.)

162 FERGUSON SYSTEM, DETAIL

FERGUSON SYSTEM, DETAILWith Permission of the Infantry and SASC Weapons Collection, UK

This photograph shows early rifling atthe muzzle of a rifled musket. The cru-dity of the rifling method is clear, andthe improvement in accuracy was not

truly apparent until breech-loading ri-fles and cylindro-conoidal bullets wereinvented.

RIFLING AT MUZZLE 163

RIFLING AT MUZZLEWith Permission of the Infantry and SASC Weapons Collection, UK

The Baker belted ball and a standardcylindro-conoidal ball. The Baker rifle,adopted by the British Army in 1800,fired a ball designed to fit into groovescut into the barrel. It was a muzzle-loader (despite the earlier and more ad-vanced example of Fe r g u s o n ’s system)

and after only a few rounds was virtu-ally unloadable due to fouling. TheSnider ball is simply a lump of lead butwith a better ballistic shape, and twocompression grooves that allowed theball to be squeezed into the rifling bar-rel under pressure from the propellant.

164 BAKER AND SNIDER BALLS

BAKER AND SNIDER BALLSWith Permission of the Infantry and SASC Weapons Collection, UK

The percussion system brought a sim-pler method of firing as well as an endto the worry that powder in the panwould get wet or blow away. Percussioncaps were made by stamping the capout from sheet copper, pouring in a liq-uid explosive primer, and then applyinglacquer to waterproof the whole object.

The Minié ball was the invention ofCaptain Claude-Etienne Minié, whichappeared in 1840. It was essentially a

base-expanding bullet that contained aplug in its base to assist in the expan-sion. It suited muzzle-loading weaponsin that it was loaded as a subcalibreround, which only expanded to the fullcalibre under the pressure of the pro-pellant gases when the weapon wasfired. This ball caused many of the hor-rible wounds inflicted on both sidesduring the U.S. Civil War.

PERCUSSION CAPS AND MINIÉ BALL 165

PERCUSSION CAPS AND MINIÉ BALLWith Permission of the Infantry and SASC Weapons Collection, UK

The Maynard tape primer, first in-vented and patented in 1854. This sys-tem is employed in many children’s“six-shooters” that use a roll of tapecontaining a sealed capsule of detonat-

ing compound. The mechanism elimi-nated the need to recap after every shotwith a percussion cap by providing amagazine of priming compound thatadvanced with every shot. It was a sim-

166 MAYNARD TAPE PRIMER

MAYNARD TAPE PRIMERWith Permission of the Infantry and SASC Weapons Collection, UK

ple idea, worked well, and was above allcheap and easy to make. This photo-graph shows the mechanism with the

magazine door open. The hammer ofthe weapon simply pushed a newprimer into place.

MAYNARD TAPE PRIMER 167

This photograph shows the Maynardtape primer fitted to a Sharps lever-action carbine. The Sharps had to bemanually loaded for every shot, butusers no longer had to carry loose

primers that were easily lost; instead,they carried a paper roll of Maynard’scapsules with which to fire their rifles.It was a great step forward on the roadto automatic fire.

168 SHARPS-FITTED MAYNARD TAPE PRIMER

SHARPS-FITTED MAYNARD TAPE PRIMERWith Permission of the Infantry and SASC Weapons Collection, UK

Perhaps the most momentous step inweaponry during the American CivilWar was the Spencer system, as re-ferred to in the text. This weapon was atube magazine lever action repeater, fir-ing a composite cartridge with an inte-gral primer. It had taken some fiftyyears to get from the flintlock to this ri-fle, and it was an advancement of greatsignificance. The tube magazine held

seven rounds of rimfire ammunition,which was loaded into the chamber bymeans of the lever action (shown in thephotograph). The hammer needed to becocked manually for every shot, but theincrease in the rate of fire was phenom-enal. Reloading was simple, and thetube magazine is very easy to extractand replace.

SPENCER SYSTEM 169

SPENCER SYSTEMWith Permission of the Infantry and SASC Weapons Collection, UK

The Jennings Volcanic Rifle fired acomposite cartridge, but unfortunatelythe mechanism was complex and ex-pensive to produce. The original car-tridge was invented by Walter Hunt as

the Volition Ball, and the rifles weremade by the Volcanic RepeatingFirearms Company of New Haven,Connecticut.

170 JENNINGS VOLCANIC RIFLE SYSTEM

JENNINGS VOLCANIC RIFLE SYSTEMRoyal Armouries

The Martini-Henry system adopted bythe British Army. Despite trials of manybreech-loading systems, the BritishArmy was still looking for a reliable sys-tem when the Martini-Henry was intro-duced. The system has a falling blocksecured by a pivot pin, and is operatedby the lever shown at the rear of the

trigger guard in the lower picture.Pressing down on this lever droppedthe breech, cocked the action, and alsoactivated the extractors at either side ofthe breech. The extractors, in turn,pulled the spent case from the chamberwith enough force to eject it. A new car-tridge was then loaded and pushed into

MARTINI-HENRY SYSTEM 171

MARTINI-HENRY SYSTEMRoyal Armouries

the breech. The lever was then re-turned to the closed position, closingthe breech, and the rifle was ready tofire.

The system was vulnerable to sandand other foreign bodies and was not acomplete success. It was adopted at atime when the French and Prussian

Armies were already issued with rudi-mentary bolt action single-shot rifles.Innovations to attach magazines tobolt-action rifles were available at thetime, but the British Army of the nine-teenth century was not renowned for itsforward-looking attitude with respect tofirearms for the troops.

172 MARTINI-HENRY SYSTEM

American Benjamin Tyler Henry in-vented the lever action system, whichwas incorporated into the first Wi n c h e s-ter system in 1866. The photographshere show the original lever action pro-totype. The rifle shown is a single-shot

breech loader. The top photo shows theaction closed, and in the bottom photoit is open to receive a new cartridge. Thecartridge was a composite, and the fir-ing pin is seen just behind the hammerin the upper photograph.

HENRY EXPERIMENTAL SYSTEM 173

HENRY EXPERIMENTAL SYSTEMRoyal Armouries

In America the Winchester rifle gaineda fervent and approving following be-cause it was reasonably accurate andlightweight, and it could fire more thanone shot, unlike the rifle muskets andSharps rifles used during the U.S. CivilWar. The Spencer had led the way, buthad fallen by the wayside. The Wi n-chester manufacturers took up thechallenge and made their famous seriesof rifles, which continue to be pro-duced to this day.

The upper photograph shows the ac-tion with the lever down, the hammercocked, and the charging/loading plateat 45 degrees. The plate carries a car-tridge from the tube magazine belowthe barrel to the loading position; whenthe lever is returned to the up positiona cartridge is pushed into the chamber.

The toggles, which link the lever tothe mechanism, are shown; comparethe position in the two photographs.

174 WINCHESTER SYSTEM

WINCHESTER SYSTEMRoyal Armouries

They are linked to the external leverthrough the lever extension.

The tube magazine is exactly thesame as the Spencer but is integral.

Cartridges are loaded through a gate onthe right side of the body and are underpressure from a spring located at themuzzle end of the magazine tube.

WINCHESTER SYSTEM 175

Bethel Burton of Brooklyn, New Yo r k ,patented two rifle systems, which areshown here. The first was a simple leveraction single-shot with a falling blockand percussion firing (Rifle No. 1). Hisbolt action was more in keeping withEuropean designs (Rifle No. 2). It wasvery similar to the Chassepôt and

Dreyse bolt actions from France andG e r m a n y. A single-shot, manuallyloaded rifle, it fired a composite car-tridge and the firing pin was containedwithin the bolt. Rifle No. 2 is a verycrude weapon, but the principle of thebolt action is shown clearly.

176 BETHEL BURTON SYSTEMS

BETHEL BURTON SYSTEMSRoyal Armouries

The Dreyse needle rifle is referred toi n the text. The photographs show theweapon with the action closed and open.The angle of the bolt arm is 45 degreesfrom vertical when the action is closed.

The bolt was a simple device, withtwo main components: the bolt housingand the firing pin assembly. The actualneedle (shown in the bottom photo-graph) was the problem with this sys-

DREYSE SYSTEM 177

DREYSE SYSTEMRoyal Armouries

tem: it was prone to distortion or break-ing as well as corrosion, because it waswithin the chamber when the rifle wasfired, surrounded by the burning pro-pellant.

The bolt action arrived in Europe(see the photo of the Bethel BurtonSystem for the American version), andit continues to be produced there today.

178 DREYSE SYSTEM

The Westley Richards breech system.The nineteenth century saw a multi-tude of breech-loading systems appear,most of them vying for valuable militarycontracts. This system shows how sim-ple a hand-operated breech-closing sys-tem could be. A lever allows the rifle

user to open the breech with a singlehand movement, and to reload directlyinto the breech. By returning the leverto the rear position the weapon is readyto fire. Note that this is a percussionsystem.

WESTLEY RICHARDS SYSTEM 179

WESTLEY RICHARDS SYSTEMRoyal Armouries

Henry breech system. The lever on theright of the rolling breech block opensand closes the action, and the weaponis a percussion arm. The action is verysimilar to the Snider conversion (q.v. ) .The problem facing all patentees in the

United Kingdom at this time (c. 1850–1870) was that every patent was regis-tered, and so new weapons had to avoidother patents, which became a signifi-cant obstacle.

180 HENRY SYSTEM

HENRY SYSTEMRoyal Armouries

The Bartley and Sillom system ofbreech closing. When the OrdnanceCommittee advertised its proposed testsof new rifle-loading and breech-closingsystems in the United Kingdom in the

early 1860s, many designers put for-ward their own ideas, and this is an ex-ample. The action is controlled by thelever shown in the center photograph,and the converted weapon is the rifle

BARTLEY AND SILLOM SYSTEM 181

BARTLEY AND SILLOM SYSTEMRoyal Armouries

musket that was standard issue to theBritish Army at the time. One of theconditions of the early trials was that

the thousands of rifle muskets then inexistence had to be convertible, so newdesigns were pit to one side.

182 BARTLEY AND SILLOM SYSTEM

The Bayliss breech-loading system. An-other of the many designs appearing inthe United Kingdom intended to re-place the rifle musket with a breech-loading system. This example is morecomplex than some. The lever below

the trigger guard releases the breechblock, but there is little room for re-loading or for extracting the remnantsof the paper case after firing. This de-sign was quickly rejected by examiners.

BAYLISS SYSTEM 183

BAYLISS SYSTEMRoyal Armouries

The Benson and Pappenburg systemdemonstrates a slightly different ap-proach to the problem by having a slid-ing breech block, locked by inertia. Thefiring pin is integral to the block, and

the weapon fired a composite cartridge.As in the Bayliss system, however, thespace available for extraction and re-loading is extremely limited, and the ri-fle did not appeal to military users.

184 BENSON AND PAPPENBURG SYSTEM

BENSON AND PAPPENBURG SYSTEMRoyal Armouries

Hiram Berdan was well known in thenineteenth century, and he held manyU.S. patents. This example is his designfor the conversion of British rifle mus-

kets, and the lifting breech block is sim-ilar to the Sharps system and others.

Berdan is also remembered for hisprimer system for composite cartridges.

BERDAN SYSTEM 185

BERDAN SYSTEMRoyal Armouries

This lifting block system is almost iden-tical to the Berdan system except that ithas a centrally located firing pin as op-posed to the eccentric firing pin of theprevious design. The hammer has an ex-tension fitted to allow central striking.

The design is included to illustrate

the extractors, which are very clearlyshown around the breech in the lowerphotograph. They were activated by themovement of the breech block whenthe breech was opened and threw thecartridge case back into the receiver,from where it was simply shaken out.

186 BRAENDLIN AND ALBINI SYSTEM

BRAENDLIN AND ALBINI SYSTEMRoyal Armouries

This breech loader is a step backwardin development apart from one feature.It is a tilting chamber weapon, which isloaded with powder and ball, but therammer is attached to the front of the

chamber rather than being a whole bar-rel rammer carried under the barrel.The design would have been a good oneseventy-five years before the patent wasissued in 1856.

CAPTAIN G. A. HARRISON SYSTEM 187

CAPTAIN G. A. HARRISON SYSTEMRoyal Armouries

188 COOPER SYSTEM, SNIDER TYPE

COOPER SYSTEM, SNIDER TYPERoyal Armouries

Another Snider-type locking rollingbreech system, this was notable be-cause the operating lever is secured offiring by the rifle hammer that closed

over the lever as it descended the strikeon the percussion cap. Otherwise it is astandard rolling block system.

COOPER SYSTEM, SNIDER TYPE 189

D i n e ’s patent breech system was achange from the rolling and liftingblocks in that it was a straight pull sys-tem locked at the rear. It fired a com-posite cartridge. The small knob on the

right of the action was the locking pinthat held the breech block in place andhad to be pulled out to allow backwardmovement of the breech block.

190 DINE SYSTEM

DINE SYSTEMRoyal Armouries

Another straight pull system, this wasdesigned by the Green Brothers of En-gland between 1859 and 1860. Thelever at the rear (awkwardly positionedfor a left-handed user) acted as the boltlever. The percussion cap was protected

by the chained cap, allowing the rifle-man to be sure that the often ill-fittingcap stayed put while he moved. Thebreech seal (obturator) is clearly seen atthe rear of the receiver in the lowerphotograph.

GREEN BROTHERS SYSTEM 191

GREEN BROTHERS SYSTEMRoyal Armouries

192 GREENE RIFLE DESIGN

GREENE RIFLE DESIGNRoyal Armouries

This is an example of a rifle design ofJames Durrell Greene of Cambridge,Massachusetts, patented in the UnitedStates in 1854. It is a percussion riflewith a rotating barrel. The center pho-tograph (A) shows the rifle ready forloading and (B) shows the fire hole andthe recesses in the rifle body into which

the barrel locked. To close the weaponafter loading, the barrel was raised tothe vertical and pulled back. The lugsengaged behind the recesses, and thebarrel was then rotated again to lock it.It was not successful either in theUnited States or in Europe.

GREENE RIFLE DESIGN 193

A tilting breech system with an integralrammer (see the system of CaptainG. A. Harrison). Here the breech blockrotates forward and the cartridge has itsown cap. The rammer merely seats the

cartridge, but extraction probablyproved difficult. The thumb piece at therear acts as a breech lock and also con-tains the firing pin.

194 COOPER SYSTEM

COOPER SYSTEMRoyal Armouries

Another example of the straightthrough lever action, this one actingfrom front to rear (compare to theWestley Richards system). The photo-graph illustrates the components well,showing the high level of skill involvedin making this rifle. The 1856 daterefers to the year of the weapon’s man-ufacture. On many rifle musket conver-sions, the date is the year the original

version was manufactured, rather thanthe year the conversion was produced.The important aspect of the design isthe copper disc (seen in the lower pho-tograph at the head of the action in thereceiver) that was compressed on firingto provide the necessary obturation.This design was by James H. Merrill ofBaltimore, Ohio.

JAMES H. MERRILL SYSTEM 195

JAMES H. MERRILL SYSTEMRoyal Armouries

A turning bolt, single-shot rifle fromJames and John Kerr, gunmakers inLondon, England, in the 1850s. This isan Enfield rifle musket conversion thatfired a composite cartridge. The bolt

locks forward at the same angle as theDreyse (and the Dreyse System), an in-dication that safety might have been aproblem upon firing.

196 KERR SYSTEM

KERR SYSTEMRoyal Armouries

A rather complex system, it waspatented in Great Britain in 1866. Ithas a rotating section behind thebreech containing the firing mecha-

nism. Loading involved inserting singlecartridges by hand, an aspect that didnot appeal to the military for combat.

KRUTSCH SYSTEM 197

KRUTSCH SYSTEMRoyal Armouries

The Leetch system is very similar tothat of the Snider; the lever is a simpleone that releases the rolling breechblock and opens it for reloading.

The weapon is a civilian pattern, andnot for use in the military. When sub-

mitted to the Ordnance Committee inEngland in 1864, the Committee notedthat it was “inferior . . . the arrange-ment for closing the breech is very de-fective, and no arrangement is made forextracting the old metallic cartridge.”

198 LEETCH SYSTEM

LEETCH SYSTEMRoyal Armouries

The Sears bolt action seems to havebeen a direct copy of the Dreyse systemright down to the needle firing pin, withonly the rather crude operating sleevemechanism. It is part of the collection

at Royal Armouries, Leeds, England,but little information is available aboutit. The Sears name does not appear as agunmaker in the records.

SEARS SYSTEM 199

SEARS SYSTEMRoyal Armouries

At first glance this rifle looks like theBenson and Pappenburg (see the Ben-son and Pappenburg System) until onenotices the purpose of the handle onthe right side of the receiver. This is arelease lever that, when pulled to ther e a r, allows the lifting breech block tobe moved out of the receiver to allowreloading. It also activates the extractoronce the breech block is out of the way.

The design was by Major (later Colo-

nel) G. V. Fosbery of the Indian StaffCorps, who intended it to operate wellin conditions where there was littleroom (i.e., in closed ranks). He, atleast, gave some thought to the rifle-man who was to use his weapon; manyof the other 109 who submitted designsat this time (prior to the competition in1867) seemed more interested inmoney than men.

200 FOSBERY SYSTEM

FOSBERY SYSTEMRoyal Armouries

At first glance this looks like a bolt-action rifle. However, when the actionis opened, it transforms into anotherlifting breech block. The importantpoint about this weapon is that it is a

center-fire rifle, with a concealed firingpin and spring. However, it has no ef-fective extractor, and the 1864 commit-tee reported that the mechanism wasinsecure.

NEEDHAM SYSTEM 201

NEEDHAM SYSTEMRoyal Armouries

202 PRINCE SYSTEM

PRINCE SYSTEMRoyal Armouries

The Prince system is another in whichthe barrel is moved forward to reload.The lever in front of the trigger guardoperates the system, which fires a “skin”

or paper cartridge by percussion. Fr e d-erick Prince worked in London, En-gland, and the weapon was tested by theBritish A r m y, but never adopted for use.

PRINCE SYSTEM 203

V. H. Burton’s patent of 1866. This riflewas tested as part of the 1867 BreechLoading Rifle Competition held inGreat Britain. Although it performedwell, it, like all others submitted (in-

cluding the Henry), was rejected in theend and the Martini-Henry wasadopted by the British Army to succeedthe Snider conversion.

204 V. H. BURTON SYSTEM

V. H. BURTON SYSTEMRoyal Armouries

This rifle is included for the sole reasonof its design. It is a horizontal slidingbreech block produced by Walter Scottof Birmingham, England, and showsanother type of breech block with an

integral firing pin. It is operated bypulling the block to the side, an actionthat was difficult in cold weather andthat increased susceptibility to dust andrust.

SCOTT SYSTEM 205

SCOTT SYSTEMRoyal Armouries

The Carter and Edwards bolt action isof interest because it has a concealedbolt with internal firing pin and spring.The weapon was patented in England

in 1866 by Henry Carter and GeorgeW. Edwards of London. It was tested bythe British Army in 1868 but was even-tually rejected.

206 CARTER AND EDWARDS SYSTEM

CARTER AND EDWARDS SYSTEMRoyal Armouries

This rifle design combines the earlypromise of the Ferguson rifle during the1860s, although the Royal A r m o u r i e shave no paperwork on the weapon. Ithas a Ferguson-type loading recess (butwithout the screw threads and lever of

that weapon), and is operated by meansof the straight-pull lever shown in thelower photograph. It was not consid-ered for use by the British Army orother militaries.

UNKNOWN FERGUSON-TYPE SYSTEM 207

UNKNOWN FERGUSON-TYPE SYSTEMRoyal Armouries

Another unknown design included toshow the unusual lengths gun designersgo to when trying to avoid infringementof patent law in the British courts.

The action has a cover plate that has

to be unlocked and moved to the leftbefore the breech block can be ac-cessed. This is then rotated forward togive access to the breech. There is noextraction system.

208 UNKNOWN SYSTEM

UNKNOWN SYSTEMRoyal Armouries

BURTON SYSTEM 209

BURTON SYSTEMRoyal Armouries

The Burton lever-action rifle. An exam-ple of the genre with a vertical, lever-actuated breech block. The weapon is afine example of this system. Safetyupon firing is guaranteed by the breech

block, which is very firmly set withinthe action. Note that the percussion fir-ing system is independent of the breechaction.

210 BURTON SYSTEM

This Mauser Gew 98k fitted with a tele-scopic sight also has a so-called wintertrigger attached around the triggerguard. The weather conditions in Rus-sia were so extreme that operating aweapon became dangerous; metal couldbecome so cold that it would strip the

flesh from a finger in seconds. The Ger-mans designed the expedient shownhere, which permitted firing even withmittens on. Needless to say, the accu-racy of the weapon would have fallenfar below expectations even with thetelescopic sight.

MAUSER GEW 98K WITH WINTER TRIGGER 211

MAUSER GEW 98K WITH WINTER TRIGGERRoyal Armouries

The Russian Mosin-Nagant with a tele-scopic sight. The sight mounting israther rudimentary and the firer wouldbe likely to flinch because the sight isso close to the eye. However, Russiansnipers were extremely successful dur-

ing World War II, and Ivan Sidorenkoaccumulated over 500 kills to his creditby the end of the war. Interestingly, therecord holder is Finland’s Simo Hayhawith 542 kills, but it is not knownwhich weapon he was using.

212 MOSIN-NAGANT RIFLE

MOSIN-NAGANT RIFLERoyal Armouries

The Springfield ’03 bolt-action rifle.This weapon was the mainstay of theU.S. Army from its first issue to about1942, when it was replaced finally bythe M1 Garand. It was a direct copy of

the Mauser Gew 98, for which the U.S.government paid belated royalties afterWorld War I. It could also be fitted witha telescopic sight for sniper work, andwas well regarded in that role.

SPRINGFIELD ’03 RIFLE 213

SPRINGFIELD ’03 RIFLERoyal Armouries

Long regarded as one of the most pleas-ing rifles in appearance in military ser-vice, it was fitted with a telescopic sight

for sniping, and was highly regarded asa killing weapon up to 600 yards on thebattlefield.

214 LEE-ENFIELD RIFLE NO. 4 (T)

LEE-ENFIELD RIFLE NO. 4 (T)With Permission of the Infantry and SASC Weapons Collection, UK

WWI SNIPER SCOPE 215

WWI SNIPER SCOPERoyal Armouries

The British Army had to enter the arenaof the sniper during World War I, but,in true British fashion, was not willingto make any radical changes to stan-dard service rifles. The British Lee-Enfield No. 1 rifle was chosen as thea r m y ’s standard issue, onto which thetelescopic sight was to be grafted. How-e v e r, to preserve the loading methodadopted by the British—the clip orcharger of five rounds was insertedfrom the top of the breechway—thesight had to be set away from the natu-ral line of sight to the left, as is shownhere.

This actually affected the zeroing ofthe sight quite significantly and meantthat the rifle was not as accurate as itshould have been.

The reasoning behind this decisionwas probably based on two considera-tions: (1) the rifle needed to be oper-ated as a normal rifle in some circum-stances; and (2) snipers were not totallyacceptable types, in that they tended tooperate alone and sneak around, ratherthan standing up in regimental fashionand presenting themselves as easy tar-gets.

All sniper scopes are designed tomagnify the view of the target, which isan effective method for shortening theapparent range of view. Snipers cantherefore engage targets from muchgreater distances than the average in-fantryman, who is only equipped withiron sights. Snipers operate mainly inteams of two: one sniper observes whilethe other operates the weapon. Eachperforms his specific task for about twohours (at most) before changing tasks,as staring through a telescopic sight be-comes difficult after a long period.

All snipers are trained to a high stan-dard in fieldcraft and other techniquesso they can approach a firing position,take a shot or series of shots, and thenexit the firing position without beingobserved by the enemy. They are re-garded by other infantrymen as ratherstrange individuals who have far morefreedom on the battlefield than the or-dinary soldier; in reality, they are first-rate shooters who contribute greatly todamaging enemy morale by killing offi-cers and other pivotal personnel at longrange.

216 RIFLE SYSTEM216 WWI SNIPER SCOPE

In the same class as the Mondragonand similar early-twentieth-century ex-perimental self-loading rifles (SLRs)stands the Fa r q u h a r-Hill, which firedthe standard British service cartridge ofthat period.

A lot of trial work was carried out bythe British Army with self-loading rifles.A large number of designs were testedbetween 1900 and the outbreak ofWorld War I. Very few were of Britishdesign, but this is one of the few. It wasfirst tested in May 1908 but had manyfailures. Designed by Major H. J. Fa r-

q u h a r-Hill, who produced several de-signs, the rifle was tried in the UnitedStates late in World War I using adrum-type magazine, but was never ac-cepted, probably in part because of thesuccess of the Pedersen device, whichseemed to offer so much in terms offirepower and ease of use.

Note the forward handgrip, designedto improve stability when firing; it isstill used on many contemporary self-loading weapons.Cartridge: .303 British

FARQUHAR-HILL SELF-LOADING RIFLE 217

FARQUHAR-HILL SELF-LOADING RIFLEWith Permission of the Infantry and SASC Weapons Collection, UK

The Federov Avtomat rifle was a short-recoil selective fire rifle. The 1916 ver-sion (of which only about 3,500 weremade) featured the rather awkward for-ward handgrip. It is an importantweapon in the development of thesemiautomatic rifle.

C a rt r i d g e : 6.5 x 51SR Arisaka ( J a p a-nese cartridge)

Length: 38.38 inWeight: 9 lb 13 ozBarrel: 20.47 in (6 right-hand grooves)Magazine: 25-round box (detachable)MV: 2313 fps

218 FEDEROV AVF AVTOMAT

FEDEROV AVF AVTOMATRoyal Armouries

This rifle was made at Springfield A r-moury and was also known as the T2E1rifle. It was a delayed blow-back, togglesystem semiautomatic weapon. It wasalso made in the United Kingdom byVickers as the Vickers Automatic Rifle.The toggle action is clearly seen in theillustration. The weapon was compli-cated and not acceptable for militarypurposes because the toggle actioncaused the user to severely flinch.Cartridge: .276 in Pedersen. The cali-

bre of this cartridge was enough to

bar the weapon from serious U.S.consideration because of the strengthof the .30-06 cartridge lobby at thetime. In fact it was a very good car-tridge and would have been of greatvalue in itself.

Length: 45 inWeight: 9 lb 0 ozBarrel: 24 in (6 right-hand grooves)Magazine: 10-round boxMV: 2,500 fps

PEDERSEN RIFLE 219

PEDERSEN RIFLERoyal Armouries

The Pedersen device was intended toprovide advancing U.S. infantry withvery high firepower during assault. Itwas designed during World War I as amodification of the Springfield 1903 ri-fle. A special bolt fed .30-calibre pistolcartridges from the magazine into thebarrel. The magazine projected up andto the right of the breech. The devicewas designed in 1915 and was tested in1917. Over 130,000 were ordered bythe U.S. Army to be used in the springoffensive of 1919. Later in the war, theorders totalled 500,000 when Pedersenwas also asked to modify the M1917Enfield rifle.

The device was interchangeable withthe standard rifle bolt, and when in po-sition it gave each rifleman a 40-roundsemiautomatic weapon.

The end of World War I arrived tooearly for it to go into action, but about65,000 devices had already been made.I n t e r e s t i n g l y, Springfield Armoury con-tinued modifying Springfield rifles untilMarch 1920, producing some 145,000M1903 modifications. One wonderswhy they were not informed of thechange in plans, but perhaps news ofthe end of the war had little effect onGeneral Crozier (then chief of ord-nance).

220 PEDERSEN DEVICE

PEDERSEN DEVICERoyal Armouries

Fedor Vasiliyevich Tokarev (1871–1968) and his son, Nikolai Fe d o r o v i c h(1899–1972), were both weapons de-signers in Russia. Tokarev the elder wasresponsible for the creation of therange of rifles that bear his name, andwhich were issued to the Soviet A r m yduring World War II.

There were three of these rifles: theSVT 38, the SVT 40, and the SKT 40carbine. The illustration shows the SVT40, perhaps the most commonly usedversion. The SVT 40 was a strength-ened version of the SVT 38, but still

suffered from a heavy recoil and fre-quent stoppages. It was issued in smallnumbers in an attempt to increase sec-tion (squad) firepower, but was not apopular weapon.C a rt r i d g e : 7.62 x 54 mm R (Russian

design)Length: 48.1 inWeight: 9 lb 8 ozBarrel: 25 inMagazine: 10-round detachable boxMV: 2,520 fpsRate of fire: 30 rpm

TOKAREV RIFLES 221

TOKAREV RIFLESRoyal Armouries

As mentioned in the text, the Garandwas an effective service rifle. It wassemiautomatic, relatively easy to operateand maintain, and served throughoutWorld War II and in the Korean War.

Loading was an easy procedure inthat a clip of only eight rounds was in-serted into the weapon. However, clipscould not easily be reloaded, and aweapon with only one or two rounds re-maining had to be fired out before re-loading could take place. Some rifle-men also complained that the sound ofthe clip ejecting (an automatic proce-

dure) enabled the enemy to know whenrifles were empty.

The weapon first appeared in 1932,but U.S. Army units had to wait a longtime before issue, with some receivingthe rifle only after the start of Wo r l dWar II.

A number of improvements werelater incorporated into the design, someof which were unsuccessful, such asthe M1E5, which was too short and de-livered excessive muzzle blast. As n i p e r ’s version was also designed, butmost snipers preferred the Springfield

222 GARAND M1 RIFLE

GARAND M1 RIFLEWith Permission of the Infantry and SASC Weapons Collection, UK

bolt-action 1903 rifle over the M1sniper rifle, which experienced prob-lems with reloading.

The photograph shows the completeweapon as well as a view of the openbreech, into which the cartridge clip(also shown) was inserted. The car-tridge follower, which sequentiallyforced cartridges up into the loadingposition, can be seen inside the breech.

Cartridge: .30-06 SpringfieldLength: 43.5 inWeight: 9 lb 8 ozBarrel: 24 in (with 4 right-hand

grooves)Magazine: 8-round integralMV: 2,740 fps

GARAND M1 RIFLE 223

The need for a weapon that was shorterand lighter than the M1 Garandevolved from the use of the motor vehi-cle in battle. Drivers and radio opera-tors (for example) as well as junior offi-cers needed a weapon that was easilykept in a vehicle and also easily de-ployed from the vehicle. The carbinewas for personal protection at shortrange, rather than for general battle-field use.

The semiautomatic principle waspopular with the U.S. military by thestart of World War II, and it was en-

tirely logical that this weapon was de-signed and issued. That it was made byWinchester is a happy coincidence, be-cause it continued the long associationof the Winchester company with theU.S. Army and perpetuated the com-pany’s association with rifles for war.Cartridge: .30 U.S. Carbine (this car-

tridge was low power)Length: 35.58 inWeight: 5 lb 3 ozBarrel: 18 inMagazine: 15- or 30-round boxMV: 1,970 fps

224 WINCHESTER .30 CALIBRE CARBINE

WINCHESTER .30 CALIBRE CARBINEWith Permission of the Infantry and SASC Weapons Collection, UK

The value of the Winchester .30-calibrecarbine was immediately appreciated,especially by airborne troops, upon itsmanufacture. There was a need toshorten the weapon even further whenit was not in use, and so a wire foldingstock was used. The photograph showsthis development. The carbine in this

form was used by U.S. rangers and air-borne troops, and was also dropped intoFrance for use by the Resistance.

Characteristics of the M1A1 areidentical to those of the M1 carbine,except that the weight was increased by6 ounces.

WINCHESTER M1A1 CARBINE 225

WINCHESTER M1A1 CARBINEWith Permission of the Infantry and SASC Weapons Collection, UK

During World War II, German weaponsdesigners were told by the GermanArmy that more firepower was neededon the battlefield to face the hordes ofRussian troops in the east. The MG42provided some relief, due to its phe-nomenal firepower and relative free-dom from stoppages, but the number oftroops was decreasing, which meantfewer riflemen, so the army hoped toincrease their effectiveness with semi-automatic rifles.

One of the earliest and most success-ful designs was the G41 rifle, designed

by the arms manufacturers Mauser andWa l t h e r. The Mauser version provedunpopular, because the action was awk-ward. The Walther version was muchmore successful, because the weaponwas easy to operate. These rifles firedthe standard rifle cartridge instead ofthe short version.Cartridge: 7.92 x 57 mm MauserLength: 44.5 inWeight: 11 lbBarrel: 21.45 in (4 right-hand grooves)Magazine:10-round detachable boxMV: 2,365 fps

226 GERMAN G41 SLR

GERMAN G41 SLRRoyal Armouries

Sergei Gavrilovich Simonov designedthis conventional self-loading rifle justafter World War II. It fires the standardshort 7.62 mm round and is gas oper-ated. Because of the popularity of theAK47, the SKS was not issued generallyas a service rifle. Instead it appearedmore often as a ceremonial weapon be-

cause it was easier to use in a drill thanthe AK47 with its overly long magazine.Cartridge: 7.62 x 39 mmLength: 40.2 inWeight: 8 lb 8 ozBarrel: 4 right-hand groovesMV: 2,410 fpsRate of fire: 20 rpm

SOVIET SKS RIFLE 227

SOVIET SKS RIFLERoyal Armouries

The standard German sniper rifle wasthe Kar 98k fitted with a telescopicsight. When SLR weapons were issuedfor combat it was inevitable that somewould be considered for sniper use, andthis G41 has been fitted with a tele-

scope. However, snipers do not rely onrapid fire but rather on the single,aimed killing shot, and semiautomaticrifles have little significance in this areaof work on the battlefield.

228 GERMAN G41 FITTED FOR SNIPER WORK

GERMAN G41 FITTED FOR SNIPER WORKRoyal Armouries

The German airborne forces were anelite arm called the Luftwaffe, or Ger-man Air Force. Their weapons require-ment for a selective fire weapon had theimmediate backing of ReichsmarschallHermann Goering, who commissionedthe firm of Rheinmetall to design andbuild this rifle in a very short time.

The weapon has an integral bipodand bayonet. It fires from a closed boltin semiautomatic fire but from an openbolt on automatic. The design is similarto the M16 in that it is a straight line ri-fle, built with the intent to reduce muz-zle movement through better recoilcontrol. The bipod is a flimsy one, andis set to provide a high profile whenused with the weapon.

The main defect of the weapon isthat it fires the originally loaded in-fantry rifle cartridge, which is too pow-erful in the fully automatic mode. Itwould have been a far better weapon ifit had fired the 7.92 kurz cartridge de-veloped for the assault rifle range (seealso the MP44).Cartridge: 7.92 x 57 mm MauserLength: 37 inWeight: 9 lb 15 ozBarrel: 20 in (4 right-hand grooves)M a g a z i n e : 20-round box (mounted on

the left side, another design fault, asthis unbalances the weapon)

MV: 2,500 fpsRate of fire: 750 rpm (at the top end

of the effective rate)

FALSCHIRMJAEGERGEWEHR 42 229

THE FALSCHIRMJAEGERGEWEHR 42Royal Armouries

Development work on rifles to fire thenew 7.92 mm (kurz) cartridge was doneby Haenel and Wa l t h e r, two top-levelweapons designers in Germany duringthe Third Reich. The Haenel designwas tested on the Russian front and be-came the MP43, and later the MP44and STG44. This Walther weapon(some 8,000 were made) did not enjoythe same success.

Cartridge: 7.92 x 39 mm kurzLength: 36.65 inWeight: 9 lb 11 ozBarrel: 16 in (4 right-hand grooves)Magazine: 30-round detachable boxMV: 2,120 fpsRate of fire: 600 rpm

230 WALTHER PROTOTYPE SLR RIFLE

WALTHER PROTOTYPE SLR RIFLERoyal Armouries

Although many assault and semiauto-matic rifles had been designed prior to1944, they all had one drawback, whichwas that the magazines fitted to themcontained only ten rounds. This wassufficient for bolt action weapons, butnot for the higher rate of fire neededfrom an assault rifle. This feature wasalso inefficient in that it required theuser to reload during the critical assaultphase of an attack.

The MP44 solved this problem withthe 30-round box magazine. This (likethe magazine on the AK47) caused

problems in firing in the prone position,but these weapons were designed to befired while standing up and on themove.

The data below apply to the MP43,MP44, and StG44.Cartridge: 7.92 x 33 mm (kurz)Length: 37 inWeight: 11.51 lbBarrel: 16.5 inMagazine: 30-round detachable boxMV: 3,132 fpsRate of fire: 500 rpm

MP44 ASSAULT RIFLE 231

MP44 ASSAULT RIFLERoyal Armouries

The StG44 (Sturmgewehr44 —A s s a u l tRifle Model 1944) was the first of manyeffective assault rifles. Some experts ar-gue that the Kalashnikov AK47 was acopy of this weapon, but this was notso. The Russians conducted indepen-dent, parallel experiments with the Ger-

mans using lower power rounds, work-ing on the principle that (1) infantryneeded more battle range firepower,and (2) the firepower had to be issuedfrom a controllable weapon.

The Russian 7.62 x 39mm round wasdesigned in the late 1930s; the German

232 GERMAN STG44 RIFLE

GERMAN STG44 RIFLERoyal Armouries

7.92 x 33mm kurz appeared in 1941(originally designed for the MKB42).The German round was modified tosome extent before it became the issueround for the StG44.

The drawings in this illustration areall taken from the original instructionmanual on the weapon, and show:

A. The weapon from the left-handside

B. The weapon from the right-handside

C. Parts of the weapon:C1. The detachable butt stockC2. The pistonC3. The breech block (including firing

pin and extractor)C4. The return springC5. The gun body, showing the body-

locking pin

C6. The 30-round distinctive box mag-azine. It is probably the similaritybetween this magazine and that ofthe AK47 that leads to some confu-sion as to whether the two weaponsare related in concept.

D. 5-round clip of 7.62 x 33mmrounds. These were loaded individ-ually into the magazine.

The rifle was a success, but manu-facturing capacity in Germany was sodiversified, and also restricted by theAllied bombing campaign, that very fewrifles (comparatively) were produced,and the majority of the weapons wereconsigned to Waffen SS units ratherthan regular army units.

GERMAN STG44 RIFLE 233

This is the last-ditch expedient de-signed by the Germans at the end ofWorld War II, and is intended for useby men drafted into action for theVolkssturm of the final defense strategyof Hitler’s Third Reich. It is a crude

weapon, firing the 7.92 x 33mm kurzcartridges. It was a semiautomatic, de-layed blow-back weapon of crude con-struction, and very few were actuallyproduced.

234 GERMAN VOLSGEWEHR RIFLE

GERMAN VOLSGEWEHR RIFLE (THE PEOPLE’S RIFLE OR VG1-5)

Royal Armouries

Probably the most recognized and cer-tainly the most common assault rifle ofthe twentieth century. It first appearedin 1949, originally with wood for thefurniture, but later it was made of plas-tic. The simplicity and durability of theweapon have made it the favorite ofarmies and militias across the world,and many Western soldiers have oftenexpressed the wish that all of theirweapons be as simple and reliable as anAK47.

Since its first issue, the rifle has beenmade in many countries (not always un-der license) and in many forms. It hasbeen lightened, shortened, fitted withtelescopic sights, and generally hasserved as the standard for the infantryof many countries.

The most distinctive feature of theweapon is its curved magazine, origi-nally designed for 30 7.62 x 39 mmM1943 rounds, the Russian short car-tridge designed during World War II.

The photograph shows the A K 4 7field stripped. Its simplicity is clear, butan additional design feature is that thebody has a great deal of clearance,meaning that the working parts and thespring have gaps around them so thatdust, sand, and mud can fall away fromthe working parts as they move, and canalso fall away from the body throughthe gaps in the bottom. This weapon isrightfully one of the most reliable rifles:true stories exist of soldiers burying theweapon in sand or mud and digging itup months later, still capable of firing.

AVTOMAT KALASHNIKOV AK47 RIFLE 235

AVTOMAT KALASHNIKOV AK47 RIFLERoyal Armouries

Cartridge: 7.62 x 39 mm M1943 (and5.45 x 39.5 mm and 5.56 x 45 mmNATO)

Length: 34.2 inWeight: 9 lb 7 oz

Barrel: 16.3 inMagazine: 30-round boxMV: 2,329 fpsRate of fire: 775 rpm

236 AVTOMAT KALASHNIKOV AK47 RIFLE

Before Czechoslovakia was forcefullyintegrated into the satellite buffer zoneof the former USSR, weapons designersdeveloped the Vz 52, which fired aunique cartridge. The weapon wasquite heavy, which made it pleasant touse in that the effect of recoil was less-ened, but the cartridge design was inef-ficient.

The illustration shows the rifle com-pared to the Russian SKS (q.v.)Cartridge: 7.62 x 45 mm (Czech M52)Length: 39.5 inWe i g h t : 9.8 lb (with a loaded maga-

zine)Barrel: 20.6 in (4 right-hand grooves)Magazine: 10-round detachable boxMV: 2,440 fps

CZECH VZ 52 RIFLE 237

CZECH VZ 52 RIFLERoyal Armouries

This assault rifle, with its slightly differ-ent bullpup design, was issued to theFrench Army in 1980 (and its succes-sor, the G-2, was produced for export in1994). The large carrying handle is itsmost distinctive feature, as well as itsbullpup design. It has a bipod standardfitting, suggesting that once more theautomatic fire lobby has succeeded inproducing another hybrid weapon: lightmachinegun/assault rifle.

The rifle exhibits characteristics that

seem to suggest that the French design-ers were determined to produce aweapon that bore no resemblance toany other.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45 mm FrenchLength: 29.8 inWeight: 8 lb 3 ozBarrel: 19.2 in (4 right-hand grooves)Magazine: 25-round boxMV: 3,150 fpsRate of fire: 950 rpm

238 FRENCH FAMAS F-1 ASSAULT RIFLE

FRENCH FAMAS F-1 ASSAULT RIFLERoyal Armouries

The illustration shows the similaritiesbetween the Garand M1 and the M14rifles. With the exception of the maga-zine and the selective fire lever, there islittle to distinguish the two. The M14was nothing more than a last attempt bythe Springfield lobby to perpetuate theoverly powerful Springfield .30-06/7.62x 51 mm NATO tradition, which wasbeing challenged by the smaller 5.56mm cartridge used in the contemporaryArmalite AR15 and U.S. M16 rifles.

The old guard insisted that riflemenin battle needed to be able to shoot outto 600 and more yards with a tellingshot for every trigger pull. The newguard showed conclusively that:

1. Infantrymen in general could notfire accurately at a range over 300yards.

2. Battle ranges over 300 to 400yards were rarely engaged withhandheld weapons.

3. The ballistics of the 5.56 mmround compared very favorablywith the 7.62 mm NATO round.

4. Riflemen could carry more 5.56mm ammunition than 7.62 mm,justifying the issue of a weaponcapable of firing bursts or evenfully automatic fire.

COMPARISON OF THE GARAND AND M14 BREECHES 239

COMPARISON OF THE GARAND AND M14 BREECHESWith Permission of the Infantry and SASC Weapons Collection, UK

The M14 was a hybrid; it was neitherthe effective Garand M1 nor the assaultrifle needed by the U.S. Army. The de-sign and manufacture of the riflecaused the demise of Springfield A r-m o u r y, and the service career of theweapon lasted only four years. The realproblem arose from the cartridge, the7.62 mm NATO, which was too power-ful for use in fully automatic fire. The

solution lay in the smaller 5.56 mmround, used in the Armalite AR15 andthe M16.Cartridge: 7.62 x 51 mm NATOLength: 44.14 inWeight: 8 lb 9 ozBarrel: 22 in (4 right-hand grooves)Magazine: 20-round detachable boxMV: 2,800 fpsRate of fire: 750 rpm

240 U.S. M14 RIFLE

U.S. M14 RIFLEWith Permission of the Infantry and SASC Weapons Collection, UK

This was one of the earliest Armalite ri-fles to have the now familiar layout andlook of the present M16 rifle, althoughthe calibre was the original NATO 7.62x 51 mm round. It was gas-operated,with selective fire. The drawing (froman original manual) shows the weaponwith its bipod, necessary for imposingsome control on the weapon when fir-ing bursts. The NATO 7.62 cartridgewas, like the .30-06 round, too powerfulwhen combined with the light weight ofthe rifle so that it ultimately producedan uncontrollable weapon. Needless tos a y, this begs the question of why theinfantry rifle needs to also be a light

machine gun, especially when the M60belt-fed 7.62mm-calibre machine gunwas on issue at the same time.

The furniture was plastic; note thevery high sight line, necessitated by thestraight-line design. The weapon in thisform was only produced in limitednumbers because the 5.56 cartridgewas produced shortly after its release.Cartridge: 7.62 x 51 mm NATOLength: 40.51 inWeight: 9 lb 1 ozBarrel: 20 inMagazine: 20-round boxMV: 2,772 fpsRate of fire: 700 rpm

ARMALITE AR10 RIFLE 241

ARMALITE AR10 RIFLEArmalite Corporation

This extremely rare version of one ofthe first bullpup designs to emerge inBritain was known as the Rifle No. 9,Mark 1. It was originally known as theEM2, but this name was later trans-ferred (see the relevant plate).

It appeared in 1949, and by 1951was no longer in production. It was anexperimental design that led eventuallyto the SA80, but it managed to spawnanother experimental cartridge: the En-

field .280, which, like the Enfield .276,fell afoul of the politics of the early1950s and the U.S. Ordnance Board.Cartridge: 280 UK (Enfield)Length: 35 inWeight: 7 lb 13 ozBarrel: 24.48 inMagazine: 20-round detachable boxMV: 2,530 fpsRate of fire: 650 rpm

242 ENFIELD 7MM SLR RIFLE

ENFIELD 7MM SLR RIFLEWith Permission of the Infantry and SASC Weapons Collection, UK

When it came to standardization of ri-fles and cartridges after World War II,arguments between the British andU.S. Ordnance authorities were com-monplace. In the early 1950s the com-mon argument centered on the bull-pup rifle and the .276 calibre cartridge.The result was the adoption by theBritish and Americans of 7.62 x 51 mmNATO ammunition and the appearancein America of the dreadful M14 and inBritain of the much more respectedSLR (L1A1) modification of the Bel-gian FAL with 7.62 x 51 mm NAT Oammunition.

In the 1970s the question of calibrearose once more, but by this time theU.S. forces were already adopting the5.56 round for their new M16 rifles.Britain put forward a bullpup design tocompete against the M16 and the5.56mm round. The winning designwas made by the U.S. weapons indus-t r y. The 4.85 mm round fired by thisrifle was not adopted, but the 5.56 mmN ATO was and the SA80 weapon sys-tem was developed from the XL 64 E5in the latter calibre.

BRITISH INDIVIDUAL WEAPON 243

BRITISH INDIVIDUAL WEAPONWith Permission of the Infantry and SASC Weapons Collection, UK

In the search for a practical new servicerifle to fire the new style cartridge, nu-merous experimental designs were pre-sented. The EM2 was one of these, de-signed by the Enfield team and led byStefan Janson, who had originallyworked in Poland. The bullpup designwas quite complex, but trials at the endof 1948 showed it was a practicalweapon. However, when the same de-sign was presented for the trials in theUnited States in 1950, it was rejectedby the U.S. Ordnance Board. Despiteits reputation as more accurate and lessprone to stoppages than the GarandM1, the cartridge (at .276 inch) was

considered to be lacking in power andhaving too low a muzzle velocity. TheBritish made valiant efforts for approvalof the weapon and its cartridge, butthey were never adopted. When the7.62 x 51 mm NATO cartridge wasadopted in 1957, the EM2 becameo b s o l e t e .Cartridge: 7 x 60 mm EnfieldLength: 35 inWeight: 9 lb 8 ozBarrel: 24.5 in (5 left-hand grooves)Magazine: 30-round box (detachable)MV: 2,530 fpsRate of fire: 600–650 rpm

244 BRITISH EM2 .280 CALIBRE RIFLE

BRITISH EM2 .280 CALIBRE RIFLEWith Permission of the Infantry and SASC Weapons Collection, UK

This rifle has had a dubious career andmany British military users were con-vinced that it had, like the camel, beendesigned by a committee. Certainly theUnited States’ failure to keep a promiseto buy the Belgian FAL, the 5.56mmcartridge, and the M16 rifle had giventhe United States a bad reputation inthe international arena, and the rejec-tion of the EM2 weapons system by theU.S. Ordnance Board added to thissentiment. There seems to have been aresidual and deep desire among theBritish designers and military thatBritain should have a bullpup rifle, nomatter what the calibre.

The L1A1 SLR was considered toopowerful for the new battlefield, whereinfantry-aimed fire was only needed outto 400 meters (after which point sniperand machine gun fire would take over,combined with mortars and artillery).The arrival of the 5.56 x 45 mm NATOas the sole cartridge did not tie theBritish to a modified SLR or any Euro-pean weapon, so the design teams wentto work.

The resulting weapon was consid-ered by many to be a design of compro-mise, but it was indeed a bullpup de-sign, so Britain was satisfied at last. Formany years, however, problems arose:parts fell off, it would not operate in ad-verse conditions (particularly rain,sand, mud, and dust), and many felt thecartridge in itself was too light to be ef-fective at all battle ranges (even onlyout to 400 yards).

Heckler and Koch, the famous Ger-man armament manufacturers, werebought by British Aerospace and thensold back to the Germans. As soon asthey were sold they took over the modi-fications to this relatively unsatisfactoryrifle, and they have now produced theA2 version, which, from accounts bythose who have used it in combat, per-forms well—something it should havedone almost twenty years previously.U n f o r t u n a t e l y, multinational compa-nies do not always produce items equalto their self-proclaimed standards ofexcellence.

The original weapon went into ser-

ENFIELD RIFLE L85A1 245

ENFIELD RIFLE L85A1 (THE SA80)With Permission of the Infantry and SASC Weapons Collection, UK

vice in the mid-1980s, and although itworks well at present, there are manyrequests for a re-examination of the cal-ibre and cartridge, as well as calls advo-cating 7 mm as the future ideal battle-field calibre.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45 mm NATO

Length: 30.9 inWeight: 8 lb 6 ozBarrel: 20.4 in (6 right-hand grooves)Magazine: 30-round boxMV: 3,084 fpsRate of fire: 650–800 rpm

246 ENFIELD RIFLE L85A1

SLR ACTION 247

SLR ACTIONWith Permission of the Infantry and SASC Weapons Collection, UK

This photo shows how a gas-and-pistonself-loading rifle operates.

A. The action after firing. The gasesfrom the barrel are tapped off and haveforced the piston back, in turn pushingthe bolt carrier backward. This unlocksthe action and extracts the empty casefrom the breech. The breech mecha-nism of bolt carrier and breech block(contained within the bolt carrier) con-tinue to the rear. As the extracted car-tridge case clears the breech, it isejected in contact with the ejector stud,which is fixed on the left side of the ri-fle body.

B. The bolt carrier assembly contin-ues to the base of the live cartridge heldin the magazine. At the same time, thehammer is cocked by this backwardmovement.

C. Under the pressure of the returnspring (in the butt), the bolt carrier nowstarts moving forward, and the new car-tridge, pushed into position by the mag-azine spring, is picked up by the bottomof the bolt and pushed firmly into thechamber. The rifle is now reloaded andready to fire.

248 SLR ACTION

The instantly recognizable M16 (almostas well known as the AK47) is the stan-dard-issue service rifle of the U.S. Armyand many other forces. In its originalform the weapon was the lightest as-sault rifle on general issue, and provedits worth so long as the following in-structions were followed:

“The M16 is the finest military rifleever made. It’s lightweight, easy to han-dle, and will put out a lot of lead. If youknow it, respect it, and treat it right, itwill be ready when you need it. The fol-lowing tips are from combat veteranswho wanted to pass on to you theirideas on weapon care. Learn ’em, use’em, and you’ll not be caught short!

a. Keep your ammo and magazine asclean and dry as possible. Lightlylube the magazine spring only. Oilit up, and you’re headed for trou-ble.

b. Inspect your ammo when you loadthe magazines. Don’t load dented

or dirty ammo. Remember, loadonly 18 or 19 rounds.

c. Clean your rifle every chance youget. 3–5 times a day will not be toooften in some cases. Cleanliness isnext to godliness, boy, and it maysave your life.

d. Be sure to clean carbon and dirtfrom those barrel-locking lugs.Pipe cleaners help here and in thegas port.

e. Don’t be bashful about asking forcleaning materials when you need’em. They’re available; get ’em anduse ’em.

f. Check your extractor and springoften; if they are worn or burred,get new ones ASAP.

g. Lube your rifle using only LSA.That’s the best. A light coat put onwith a rag after cleaning is good.Functional parts need generousapplications often. Put a very lightcoat of LSA in the bore and cham-ber after cleaning.”

M16 RIFLE 249

M16 RIFLERoyal Armouries

(U.S. Army M16 handling cardissued to troops in Vietnam, 1968)

Present-day reports on the rifle indi-cate its length is cumbersome for use invehicles, and it may be replaced by theshorter carbine or Commando version,as battle ranges in urban areas rarelyexceed 100 yards, and vehicles are usedto move troops around urban areas.

The illustration shows (top) the origi-nal M16, and (below) the M16A2 de-

sign, modified to fire NATO ammuni-tion, with a three-round burst capacityand a heavier barrel.C a rt r i d g e : 5.56 x 45 mm M193 or

NATOLength: 39 inWeight: 6 lb 5 ozBarrel: 20 in (6 right-hand grooves)Magazine: 20- or 30-round box (but see

notes above)MV: 3,110 fpsRate of fire: 800 rpm

250 M16 RIFLE

Perhaps best known as a photogenicand futuristic rifle (often seen in films),the Steyr AUG (Armee UniversalGewehr—army multipurpose rifle) wasfirst issued in 1977. It is part of a seriesof weapons designed to have inter-changeable parts (rather like the Ameri-can Stoner system). The Austrian Armynamed the weapon the StuG77. It is abullpup with a synthetic casing, withinterchangeable barrels, receivers, andfiring mechanisms, enabling it to ap-

pear as an assault rifle, a carbine, aheavy-barreled light machine gun, or,very rarely, a submachinegun.C a rt r i d g e : 5.56 x 45 mm M193 or

NATOLength: 31.1 inWeight: 7 lb 15 ozBarrel: 16.02 in (6 right-hand grooves)Magazine: 30-round detachable boxMV: 3,182 fpsRate of fire: 650 rpm

AUSTRIAN STEYR ASSAULT RIFLE 251

AUSTRIAN STEYR ASSAULT RIFLEWith Permission of the Infantry and SASC Weapons Collection, UK

The M16 rifle was the military versionof the Armalite AR15, and has becomefamous throughout the world, althoughit is often criticized as vociferously asits Russian counterpart, the AK47, ispraised.

The most important aspect of theoriginal Armalite design was its light-ness. This development, with the M203grenade launcher strapped below thebarrel, illustrates that military designerswill always add weight to a weapon tomake it more effective. Putting thegrenade launcher onto the original

weapon did not increase its weight be-yond a sensible limit (altogether it was11 lb), but did improve the accuracy ofdelivering a 40 mm grenade at an effec-tive battle range (150 m for point tar-gets, 350 m for area targets).

The details of the weapon are identi-cal to those of the standard M16 rifle.The M203 fires a range of 40 mmgrenades, including HE, HE Dual Pur-pose, HE Air Burst, and Training Prac-tice rounds. Special sighting equipmentfor the launcher is bolted to the leftside of the rifle.

252 COLT M16 WITH ATTACHED M203 GRENADE LAUNCHER

COLT M16 WITH ATTACHED M203 GRENADE LAUNCHERWith Permission of the Infantry and SASC Weapons Collection, UK

This weapon was designed to be moreportable in vehicles, although it alsowas used by Special Forces.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45 mm NATOL e n g t h : 33 in/29.8 in (butt extended

and retracted)

Weight: 5 lb 13 ozB a r r e l : 14.57 in (with 6 right-hand

twist grooves)Magazine: 20- or 30-round boxMV: 3,022 fpsRate of fire: 700 rpm

M16A4 CARBINE/COLT COMMANDO 5.56MM RIFLE 253

M16A4 CARBINE/COLT COMMANDO 5.56MM RIFLEWith Permission of the Infantry and SASC Weapons Collection, UK

This illustration is copied from officialdocumentation on the H&K G3A3 rifleto show the myriad of parts that go intomaking the modern assault rifle. A sshown, there are no fewer than ninety-nine parts in the rifle, all of which haveto be manufactured under strict engi-neering tolerances. Each part mustfunction in all weather conditions, bestrong enough to withstand handlingand battle use, yet be easily replaced ifa breakage occurs.

The rifle itself has to be functionalwhen fouled with residue from firing,be easily maintained and cleaned in thefield, and maintain zero (or stay accu-rate) as long as it is handled reasonablycarefully by the rifleman using it.

The modern assault rifle is ages away

from the weapons of World War II, andlight years from the rifles of the nine-teenth century in concept, but designstandards have remained the same,with designers and the firearm makersstriving to deliver a weapon to troopsthat will not let them down in the field.Not all weapons have passed this test,h o w e v e r, and the SA80 and M16 (forexample) have demonstrated faults thatshould not have occurred. The crudelymanufactured AK47, however, hasdemonstrated that a good design willovercome these problems, partly be-cause of the simplicity of the designand the “self-cleaning” mechanism ofinterior clearances that let dirt fall awayfrom the working parts.

254 HECKLER AND KOCH G3A3 ASSAULT RIFLE

HECKLER AND KOCH G3A3 ASSAULT RIFLEHeckler and Koch Pamphlet

Ammunition designers have alwaysfaced two major problems with theirproduct: how to get rid of the emptycartridge when fired and how to expelheat, generated by firing the cartridge,from the interior of the weapon. TheHeckler and Koch G11 was designed tosolve the first problem, but failed toremedy the second.

The cartridge fired by this compactweapon is caseless: the bullet is sur-rounded by the propellant powder (withprimer integrally inserted), but there isno brass case to be ejected. Magazinesfor the rifle contain forty-five caselessrounds that are fed by a rotary mecha-nism into the breech. This means thatonce the cartridge is fired, the weaponmerely replaces another round ready forfiring and no extraction of the emptycase is required. However, when the ri-fle was tested, it was found that sus-

tained use on the battlefield wouldprobably lead to problems, one ofwhich was that the rifle became too hotto handle after firing a few rounds.

Nevertheless, the caseless roundcontinues to be used in present-daycombat, and as soon as a heat sink canbe developed, or some other heat dis-persion method designed, the roundwill almost certainly become the roundof choice for all armies.C a rt r i d g e : 4.73 x 33 DMI (special

round)Length: 29.53 inWeight: 8 lb 1 ozBarrel: 21.26 in (4 right-hand increas-

ing grooves)Magazine: 45-round box (preloaded)MV: 3,051 fpsRate of fi r e : 600 rpm (3-round burst

2,100 rpm)

HECKLER AND KOCH G11 RIFLE 255

HECKLER AND KOCH G11 RIFLE: THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME?Royal Armouries

As a reflection of contemporary society,this modified M16A4 was seen, carriedby policemen, on Wall Street near theNew York Stock Exchange in autumn2003. The rifle is used by many policedepartments in the United States andhas a forward pistol grip with an exten-sion, a fitted Maglite flashlight belowthe barrel, and the typical telescopingbutt.

The picture shows that police forcesthroughout the world (including the

British) are now far more willing to pa-trol the streets armed with high velocityrifles, which can fire bursts. One mightquestion the use of military assault ri-fles in a civilian environment. Indeed,this raises the issue of whether societyis safer because weapons provide pro-tection, or whether society sufferswhen the line becomes blurred between“keeping the peace” and institutingmartial law.

256 M16 RIFLE IN POLICE SERVICE

M16 RIFLE IN POLICE SERVICECourtesy of David Westwood

As weapons increased in sophistication,so too did the method of sighting. Ri-fles were seen as an increasing sourceof long-range fire, especially against anenemy assembly area or a mass of ad-vancing troops. The sights shown hereare typical of the way in which long-range rifle fire was initially seen asvaluable, but which declined in impor-tance with the arrival of the machinegun (particularly the tripod-mountedmedium) and the mortar.

The Martini-Henry sight is a ratherinaccurate vertical leaf sight, with theranges marked on the sight frame. Itcould be aimed up to 1,000 yards withonly marginal accuracy beyond 300yards, but a company firing at a fixedarea at 800 yards could deliver a heavy

barrage of fire in and around the aimingpoint, causing an enemy to disperse.This principle was continued in theBritish Army as well as the GermanArmy into World War I. The Lee-Enfield No. 1 and the Mauser Gew 98sights shown were both calibrated up to2,000 yards and, with the improved am-munition supplied, were slightly moreeffective than the Martini-Henry.

H o w e v e r, as noted, machine gunswere soon substituted for rifles aslonger ranges and the concept of effec-tive battlefield ranges were presented.It was obvious to most military person-nel and weapon designers that the riflewas better used at ranges up to 400yards when it could be expected to de-liver one-shot hits, rather than spraying

IRON SIGHTS 257

IRON SIGHTSRoyal Armouries

indiscriminately at 2,000 yards. Theproblem of ammunition fired at targetsbeyond the visual range of the firer wasbetter left to the machine guns, to-gether with the problem that roundswasted at 2,000 yards were then notavailable when the attack came in from300 yards and at shorter ranges.

The British No. 4 rifle was stillsighted up to 1,300 yards originally, butit was soon discarded as rifles becameequipped with battle sights zeroed at200 yards.

The latest innovations in iron sightswere applied to weapons such as theBritish SLR and the U.S. M16. Maxi-mum ranges for battlefield firing wereset at around 400 yards, although manyU.S. rifle-using conservatives thoughtthat 600 yards was the absolute mini-mum battle range for the average in-fantry soldier. In fact, the average sol-dier is very lucky to be able to hit atarget at over 200 yards with consis-t e n c y, and hits at 600 yards are betterleft to snipers.

258 IRON SIGHTS

SINGLE POINT SIGHT 259

SINGLE POINT SIGHTWith Permission of the Infantry and SASC Weapons Collection, UK

The British Army carried out a numberof trials after World War II to evaluateiron sights compared to optical sights.The army concluded, as did other ser-vices, that a simple optical sight care-fully zeroed and with a single aimingpoint would aid infantry in increasingthe accuracy and therefore the effec-tiveness of their firepower on the bat-tlefield.

One of the earliest single-point sightswas fitted to the EM range of semiauto-matic weapons. This was a metal sleeveinto which the optics were fitted. Align-

ing the sighting eye to the tube gave anarrow field of vision on the target area,and the aiming point was a pointedpost. The user merely needed to alignthe tip of the aiming post with his tar-get and fire. No longer did he have tocoordinate front and rear sights, nor didhe have to adjust the range. This simpleprinciple has, with more modern sights,increased the effectiveness of Britishinfantry fire greatly, and marksmen arenow the rule rather than the exceptionin the British infantry regiments.

260 SINGLE POINT SIGHT

A P P E N D I X A :

T H E S C H Ö N R E P O R T

A u t h o r ’s Note: The Mordecai report was a survey of European weaponsand factories that had been involved in the Crimean War. Alfred Mordecaigraduated from West Point in 1823, first in his class. He was appointedcommander of Frankford Arsenal (Philadelphia) in 1836, and then, as amember of the U.S. Ordnance Board, visited Europe to examine theweaponry of the Crimean War. His report was of great significance, evenmore so because it had bound with it an important extra: a paper written byCaptain J. Schön of the Royal Saxon Infantry. In this report Schön exam-ined the European situation with reference to rifled weapons. This reportis of such importance that it is partially reproduced below, with linkingcomments to aid continuity. The report begins with an appraisal of theproblems associated with smoothbore and rifled weapons:

The improvements and discoveries recently made in infantry arms aremainly the result of endeavours to diminish or entirely eradicate the chiefdefects of the arm hitherto used, which, in the smooth bore, are the limitedrange, and in the rifle, both that and additional difficulty in the loading.

Before entering on a minute examination of these improvements anddiscoveries, it is proper to advert to the causes of the defects just referredto. The smooth bore has a considerable windage [i.e., the bore diameter isgreater than the ball diameter] to facilitate the loading, which prevents theball, when in its place, from filling the bore, and admits currents of thegenerated gas at its side. This occasions a pressure of the ball against theside of the bore opposite, and not only causes it to assume an irregular ro-tary motion, but makes it describe a path not coincident with the verticalplane through the axis of the bore, to the great detriment of its accuracy.

In the rifles, it is true, the windage was destroyed [which means elimi-nated here] by the use of a tight ball; but this retarded the loading [muzzleloading is described here], and made it so laborious as to make the firingmuch slower than with the smooth bore. Besides, in prolonged use the

261

strength of the men was too much tasked to admit of a steady aim. Theshape of the ball was also injured, which has a vital influence on the accu-racy and range of the missile.

These defects of both species of arms became the more obvious as theeffort was made to increase their range and accuracy without, at the sametime, greatly increasing the charge or elevation.

The question propounded at this day is to find a system that shall combinethe advantages of the smooth bore and rifle without having their manifestdefects, to which end the following chief requisites are to be kept in view:

1. Increased facility of loading.2. Increased accuracy and range.3. The charge.4. The inclination of the grooves.5. The diameter and form of the ball.

As the first two conditions depend on the last three, it will be proper, be-fore presenting the solutions which each of the systems offers, to examinemore closely what depends upon the grooves.

The use of [rifling] grooves has so much advanced the accuracy andforce of small arms, that for the last half century they have been used in in-creased proportion for purposes of warfare; and a weapon which had for-merly but an isolated existence, has attained, through improved construc-tion, and the adoption of the pointed ball, universal favor. It is worth while,therefore, to trace more minutely their origin, and to examine their pecu-liar adaptation to service arms.

The grooves in use in Germany in the latter half of the fifteenth centurywere the result of endeavours to augment the accuracy of the arms then inuse, in which, on account of the great windage of the ball, they must havebeen extremely defective. Cartridges not having yet come into use, the bul-let was not then, as now, enveloped in the paper of it, which would have as-sisted in destroying the windage, but was attached by its sinking head; nordid the wooden drift or rammer avail much in this respect. The bore was,therefore, furnished with a certain number of furrows or grooves runningstraight along the bore—that is, parallel to its axis; the ball being at thesame time adapted more nearly to the diameter of the caliber.

The accuracy was, however, so little increased by these means, the im-provement being only sensible at short distances, as to have but little ad-vantage over that of the smooth bore, whilst the loading became so difficultfrom the increased caliber of the ball as to be nearly impracticable after afew rounds. By the introduction of the straight grooves the discovery wasmade, however, that the ball obeyed the grooves, and followed in its flightthe direction of the axis of the bore. These observations may afterwardshave caused a certain inclination to be given to them, the twist of whichthe ball must equally follow in the bore and retain after quitting it. The ball

262 APPENDIX A

which in the straight grooved barrels received but one motion, that of pro-gression, had thus a second motion impressed on it, the rotary or screw-like movement, by which it overcame with greater ease the resistance ofthe air. The ball was again reduced in its diameter; but in order to retainthe advantage of the small windage, resort was had to greased patches, inwhich the ball was enveloped before loading.

With the greatly increased accuracy attained through the grooves, vari-ous weapons of the kind made their appearance, bearing such names as“target” and “deer rifles,” &c., and adapted rather to the pleasures of thechase and the pastimes of target shooting than to actual service, for whichthey were also unsuited by their costliness. Not until the end of the six-teenth century do we find these arms (Z i e l b ü c h s e n) in small numbers inthe arsenals of fortresses, and used only for defense.

It was not until a later day, and first of all in Germany, that this weaponwas much esteemed among the gentry; and not until the close of the eigh-teenth century that its merits caused it to be placed in the hands of a fewtroops. The great popularity it has attained in later times is to be ascribedchiefly to the use of the pointed ball. Let us now examine the different kindof grooves, and what is required of them in a service arm.

We have seen that the inclination of the grooves impresses on the ball,whether round or elongated, a motion other than the forward one pro-duced by the action of the generated gases, which is one of rotation, in adegree greater or less, according to the inclination of the grooves. Fr o mthis it would seem to follow that as the inclination or twist of the grooves isincreased, or, which is the same thing, the angle diminished, the rotationof the ball would increase in the same ratio, and the accuracy of the armimprove in like measure.

Theory would undoubtedly lead to this conclusion; but here another cir-cumstance interposes unfavorably, which is the force of the gases them-selves which act upon the ball. With too great a twist to the grooves, theball which, in consequence of every impulse, endeavours to advance, can-not overcome the opposite and increased force of friction with sufficientc e l e r i t y. We must also add that the lead which has been driven into thegrooves in loading, in the shape of little ridges that serve as guides to theball, is not strong enough to oppose the resistance to the impulsive force ofthe gases, necessary to keep the ball in the grooves. As a consequence thelead is torn off, leaving the ball without the direction required to producerotation. A too great twist in the grooves diminishes also the initial velocityby the friction engendered, and consequently the range.

Hence it is evident that the degree of inclination has its limits, beyondwhich the advantages of twisted grooves are lost. The inquiry next arises asto what inclination is most suitable. Here, however, estimates founded ontheory are indeterminate, there being too many causes, such as charge,length of barrel, depth, breadth, and even the kind of groove, which exert agreater or less effect; and hence it is that rifles of such various threads give

APPENDIX A 263

results almost identical. This question can only be determined by actual ex-periments, in which the length of barrel and weight of charge must beprominent considerations, the latter being so regulated with reference tothe former, that its inflammation may be complete when the bullet reachesthe muzzle. So much is, however, certain, that too great an inclination ofthe grooves is prejudicial to the range and the penetration. We must en-deavour rather to give the ball a lower and hence a more extended trajec-tory, and on this the shape of the ball has the greatest possible influence.

Let us next examine the accessory circumstances which exert an influ-ence; and first, the charge. In the determination of the charge we must re-flect, in the first place, that the combustion of the powder, and consequentdevelopment of its strength, should be complete when the ball has reachedthe vicinity of the muzzle; a consummation influenced by the length of thebarrel, quality and kind of powder, inclination, number, and depth of thegrooves, not forgetting that too heavy a charge may force the ball over thelands. In the second place, the accuracy and penetration must be the great-est possible. On this point it has been pretty well established, by experi-ments independent of each other for the purpose—in France underColonel Pontchara, in 1835, and in Belgium under Colonel Timmerhans,in 1839—that a medium charge, comprehended between four and sixgrammes, (sixty-two to ninety-three grains,) insured an adequate range andaccuracy with a good barrel.

A smaller charge than this is not desirable, as it makes the elevations toogreat and incommodes the aim. And, thirdly and lastly, the recoil is to beconsidered, which, while it cannot be entirely avoided, exercises a certaininfluence on the accuracy, and must not be made excessive by a largecharge. This again requires a medium charge. A suitable angle for the butt,and a proper weight for the weapon, assist in diminishing the recoil.

The charge best suited to attain great range and accuracy being ascer-tained with some certainty, regard must next be had to the length of thebarrel, which must fulfill the conditions for a military weapon; that is, mustbe of a length and strength to admit of the fire of two ranks without dangerto the front rank, and to form with the bayonet an offensive weapon whichmay be used without over fatigue.

The grooves differ in respect to the kind of twist, and in their departure,in a greater or less degree, from an uniform depth. They are classed intothree kinds: the common, the parabolic, and the progressive grooves.

The common grooves proceed (supposing the bore to be developed) inright lines at a given angle from beginning to end. These are in general use,and recommend themselves especially for service arms by the ease withwhich they are constructed. The parabolic grooves, under the same suppo-sition in reference to the barrel, exhibit, on the other hand, a line of in-creasing curvature; that is, they begin at the chamber with a slight inclina-tion, which increases to a given angle at the muzzle. The end proposed bythis is to impress an increased rotation on the ball by degrees, and thus

264 APPENDIX A

avoid forcing it over the lands. They are only used in fancy arms, and sel-dom even then, the fabrication being attended with considerable difficulty.According to experiments instituted, the parabolic curve, even with a lighttwist, in which the first part departs but little from a right line, graduallyassuming a greater twist, is inferior to the common groove. The explana-tion of this is, that the lead of the ball which has been pressed into thegrooves must change its shape at each moment of the advance of the ball,if it keeps in the grooves; it is hence easily forced over the lands to thedetriment of the range.

The progressive grooves are those which are deeper at the breech than atthe muzzle, where they almost disappear; but they preserve an uniform twistthroughout their length. They have lately been adopted into the Minié sys-tem with advantage. Their object is, by the advance of the ball, to make ittake a stronger hold on the grooves, an object undoubtedly attained.

Grooves, besides, vary essentially in their cross-section, being eithersquare, triangular, rounded, or saw-teeth.

The square grooves form on either side, where they meet the lands,straight sides and sharp edges; and their defect is that the ball is forcedinto them with difficulty, and experiences great friction. Besides, they per-mit the dirt to accumulate in the angles, whence it is removed with diffi-culty. The triangular grooves have the cross section of an isosceles triangle,and are used only in sporting arms. The rounded grooves have the shape ofa quadrant, the land being where two adjacent grooves are separated by anarrow strip, which serves as a sufficient guide to the ball. These are bestadapted to service, because, in the first place, the bullet in ramming moreeasily enters the grooves; secondly, because the sides do not create frictionin the same proportion as the sharp ones; and, thirdly, because the dirtdoes not readily lodge in them, and is more readily removed.

The saw teeth (crémaillère) grooves present on the one side an abruptface, and on the other die away on the land; that is, they offer a squareedge to the rotation of the ball, whilst the opposite side meets the land at avery obtuse angle. They have found favor in scarcely any service. The hairgrooves need no explanation, as they are not at all adapted to military uses.

As various as the form is the number of the grooves. Formerly it was thebelief that an accumulation of grooves gave greater accuracy. This is, how-ever, not found to prove true, as they produce friction, which, by diminish-ing the initial velocity, shortens the range; and, by being narrower, they alsobecome more difficult to clean. The number formerly ranged from six totwelve, but is now reduced to from four to six, a limit recognized as mostsuitable for military purposes, since it admits of loading easily, without in-terfering with the desired accuracy. An odd number is affirmed by some tobe most conducive to accuracy, for the reason that in this case there will bea land opposite to each groove, thus avoiding long and short transverse axesalternately, which will not be the case with an even number. For the samereason such a barrel will be more easily loaded, and the center of gravity of

APPENDIX A 265

the ball less readily deranged. But their construction is more difficult andtedious, for which reason they are seldom used.

The proper depth of the grooves is quite as important a consideration tothe effectiveness of a rifle as any of the foregoing. With grooves too shallowthe ball is no longer secure in its direction, and the slightest excess ofcharge will force it over the lands. Equally prejudicial is too great a depth,which prevents the lead from being driven to the bottom of the grooveswithout crushing the powder and disfiguring the ball. The grooves not be-ing well filled, it follows that a portion of the gases will seek to escape, thusexerting, in the first place, an unequal pressure on the ball; and, in the sec-ond place, losing the effect of a portion of the gas; both of which will havean injurious influence on the trajectory of the ball after it leaves the piece,since the ball at the instant of quitting the muzzle is unequally acted on,and the gas escaping at any point throws the ball to the opposite side.These causes impair both the accuracy and the range.

A depth varying from 0.011 inch to 0.019 inch may be assumed as mostsuitable for the pointed ball, loaded without patching. This, on the onehand, will not require the ball to be too heavily rammed, and, on the other,secures adequate control over it, so that it does not strip.

The diminution in the number of the grooves introduces the considera-tion of the relation between breadth of grooves and lands. In earlier times,when the ball was driven home by the aid of a mallet, a land narrower thanthe grooves was introduced, it being thought that the ball thereby took abetter hold on the grooves. This consideration was applicable then when agreater inclination of the grooves was used, which would be likely to causethe ball, under the effect of a heavy charge, to strip. Now, however, that thetwist of the grooves, as well as their number, is diminished, it is the betteropinion that a groove narrower than the lands is in many respects prefer-able, for the diminished number has, in the first place, widened the former,and, in the second place, the repairs incidental to an arm in service, suchas rerifling, &c., might soon make them too wide. . . .

II. THE SYSTEM OF DELVIGNE

As early as 1828, a French officer, Captain Delvigne, not satisfied with theprinciples prevalent throughout Germany relative to the rifle loaded withthe tight fitting ball and patch, proposed a new system, and thereby gave thefirst impulse to the essential progress recently made in the armament of in-f a n t r y. His system was as follows: the bore had twelve shallow grooves ofpretty rapid twist, the breadth of which nearly equaled the lands, and thebreech . . . was chambered in such a manner, as to leave a rim projectingab[ove] the bottom of the bore. This chamber, the diameter of which wasthus smaller than the bore, served to receive the powder without, however,

266 APPENDIX A

being filled by it, whilst the rim prevented the ball from being rammed downon the powder. The windage allowed the ball to enter the bore freely. A fur-ther advantage of this rim, combined with the limited windage, was, that thecenter of the ball had a position in the axis of the bore. With three blows ofthe rammer the windage disappeared, and the lead was driven into theg r o o v e s .

This method of loading required no exertion of strength, nor any aidsuch as hammer and drift, but it entailed other injurious consequences.The upper part of the ball was flattened under the blow of the rammer,whilst the lower was driven into the chamber, thus greatly changing itsshape, and by the forcible projection into the chamber crushing the pow-der. The latter circumstance, too, took away the required empty space be-tween the powder and the ball.

These injuries to the powder and ball, must necessarily have impaired theaccuracy of the weapon, and the entire closing of the chamber increased therecoil. Delvigne maintained in a publication made in 1843, “Sur l’emploi etles effets des projectiles cylindro-conique évidées,” [The use and effect ofthe cylindro-conoidal bullet] &c., that the flattening of the ball increasedthe centrifugal force, and thereby its accuracy. How far this opinion is wellfounded, we will not now enquire, merely remarking that the flattening ofthe ball causes it to take up an unsteady tremulous motion.

III. THE SYSTEM OF PONTCHARA

To obviate the flattening of the top of the ball, Captain Delvigne counter-sunk or cupped the head of the rammer spherically . . . and to prevent theball from being driven into the chamber, Colonel Pontchara added awooden cylindrical sabot, which was hollowed out at one end to receive theball, and enveloped at the other by a greased patch coming half way up itssides.

This was to facilitate the loading by removing the dirt. These con-trivances only partly fulfilled their object however; for, the bore not beingwell cleaned by the patch, the sabot either stuck fast or was broken in theramming, causing still a change of figure in the ball. New shapes of ballswere thereupon proposed by Colonel Thierry and Captain Delvigne, exper-iments with which gave still less favorable results. The ball of the formerwas cylindro-spherical. It was at first approved, but experiments institutedat St. Omer being highly unfavorable to it, the common infantry cartridge,with a charge of seven grammes, (108 grains, troy,) was substituted, to bein its turn abandoned. Delvigne’s ball was cylindro-conical.

Both these new balls had a cavity extending from the center of the baseupwards, partly, to prevent the intrusion of the ball into the chamber, partlyto diminish its weight.

APPENDIX A 267

In September, 1841, experiments were made at Liège, by a board ofRussian and Belgian officers, with a Delvigne rifle with the cylindro-coni-cal ball, a French arm with the Thierry ball, finally an English two-groovedrifle with the belted ball, the results of which were highly favorable to thesystem of Delvigne. Soon after, experiments were also made in France withthe Delvigne rifle and its cylindro-conical ball, as well as with thePontchara ball and sabot, before described, which, however, did not resultto the advantage of the former, and made way for the adoption of the latter.

The causes which prevented these balls from giving results more satis-factory were in the first place the erroneous position of the center of grav-ity, which lay too far back, causing the ball constantly to deviate throughthe action of the grooves, and oftentimes to fail in reaching the mark pointforemost; and second, the little resistance opposed by the cylindrical partto the air. Resort was then again had to the Delvigne-Pontchara system, de-spite its known defects, and it was adopted in France, Belgium, and Aus-tria, and, with some modifications, has been retained in the service lastnamed.

IV. THE DELVIGNE-PONTCHARA SYSTEM

This arm, known as the “chambered rifle,” with which ten battalions ofFrench troops were armed in 1840, was of the following construction:

The barrel was 30.44 inches long, had four grooves, 0.23 inch broad and0.019 deep, with one eighth of a turn in the length of the barrel, or an in-clination of 89° 44' 15". The caliber was 0.669 inch, the breech-pin had achamber with a depth of 2.05 inches, and a diameter of 0.55 inch, whichheld 61 grammes, (96.43 grains,) and, the rim of the chamber projected0.027 inch beyond the lands. The ball had a diameter of 0.64 inch, andweighed 395 grains, and its windage 0.029 inch. The length of this arm,without sword-bayonet, was 47.58 inches, and the weight without bayonet9.918 pounds. The breech sight consisted of a fixed or standing sight and aleaf with several notches for different distances.

In 1842, this model, having stood the test of service but indifferently,was changed for the following: Length of barrel 33.92 inches, caliber0.688 inch. The chamber in the breech-pin was the same as the foregoing,and there were the same number of grooves, with the same breadth, depth,and turn, or an inclination of 89° 44' 39". The diameter of the ball was0.669 inch, and its weight 452 grains; the charge was 96 grains.

About the same time, when the experiments with these rifles had re-sulted successfully, the Belgian light infantry were provided with a rifle ofthis sort, the barrel of which was 36.03 inches long, its caliber 0.669 inch,and it had six shallow grooves. The chamber was 0.57 inch diameter, thewindage was the same as that of the French model of 1842, the charge 66

268 APPENDIX A

grains. The cartridges for the French and Belgian rifles were pasted theirwhole length, and also over the ball and sabot; the latter has a patch, theformer lies in contact with the powder.

The Delvigne-Pontchara System, as altered by Baron Auguslin

In Austria this system was received with equal attention; but it was so mod-ified by Baron Auguslin as to dispense with the wooden sabot. The breech-pin, instead of having the rim heretofore used, was so reamed out as to givethe ball a firm bed, without impinging on the powder, from which it wasseparated by a considerable space.

The preservation of this space is essential, as it conduces to the com-plete ignition of the powder instantaneously with the movement of the ball,every point of which is thereby equally pressed. As a consequence of thisequal and central effort of the gases, the ball follows the grooves moresmoothly, and is not so easily driven over the lands.

The barrel of this Austrian chambered rifle is twenty-six inches long,and is terminated by a breech-pin bored out to a diameter of 0.487 inch,and a depth of 1.557 inch. The bed of the ball is reamed out to a depth of0.11 inch. The empty space between powder and ball is 0.229 inch. Thebore has a caliber of 0.713 inch, with twelve grooves, which have half aturn in the length of the barrel, or an inclination of 88° 43' 19", and adepth of 0.014 inch. The breadth of the groove is nearly equal to the lands.The ball has a diameter of 0.701 inch, and a windage of 0.014 inch, (Fig.6, a, b.) The charge is sixty-two grains. The ball shown at Fig. 6, c, weighs309 grains, and is loaded without patch, being, however, first greased in aleathern bag.

It may here be observed that, in 1841, the Austrian infantry received theConsol or percussion primer lock, as altered by General Auguslin, in placeof the flint lock, from which it differed, as well as from the subsequent per-cussion lock. In this arrangement, the barrel has no touch-hole; but in placeof it, a horizontal projecting cylinder, which contains the vent, and whichrests on a pan similar to that of the flint lock, fastened to the lock plate.This pan is closed over the cylinder by a spring lid, having a hole in the top,and a plug passing through it; the plug having something like a screw head,and tapering to a square end. As soon as the primer is inserted, and the lidclosed down on the pan, the plug rests lightly on the match by its ownweight. The hammer being heavy, descends with great force on the head ofthe plug, driving it into the priming, which is thereby exploded. The primer(Z ü n d e r) is itself made of thin sheet brass, simply rolled together, whichcontains the priming of fulminate of mercury. This little tube is 0.81 inchlong, and 0.08 inch diameter. One end of it is pinched, and receives a finebrass wire, by which it is handled and fastened to the cartridge.

APPENDIX A 269

V. THE OVAL RIFLE

Meantime similar endeavors in Germany to improve the arms of the in-fantry became known. In 1831, Major Berner presented a new system inBrunswick, which was to unite the advantages of the smooth-bore andrifle—the ease of loading of the first with the accuracy of the second.

To this end, he gave the barrel a length of 39.64 inches, and a caliber of0.62 inch, with two opposite shallow grooves 0.02 inch in depth, having atwist of three fourths, or an inclination of 88° 56' 6". The breadth of thesewas so arranged as to be 0.54 inch wide at the chamber, and for a distanceof 5.153 inches. From this out they were only 0.287 inch wide, and were aflat oval, (Fig. 7, a b c.) The windage was 0.01. The barrel, furnished with astanding sight and three leaves, was closed with a patent breech.

The balls for this arm were, first, patched balls; and, second, rollingballs. Both at first received an oval form. They were formed in the samemanner, of two parts, not quite hemispheres, the largest diameter being forthe patched ball, 0.66 inch, and for the last, 0.59 inch; and the smaller di-ameter for the first 0.61 inch, and for the last 0.56 inch. In spite of thesomewhat favorable results of experiments, these forms were soon aban-doned for the simple sphere. Then the patched ball had a diameter of 0.61inch, and the rolling ball, 0.59 inch. The charge for the first was sixty-seven grains, and for the last eighty-four grains. The weight of the arm,without bayonet, was 10.31 pounds.

The experiments were also pretty favorable with these balls, though in-f e r i o r, especially with the rolling ball, to those of the oval ball. The car-tridge of the patched ball (the paper of which was red, while that of therolling ball was blue) had a wad between the powder and the ball. Thepatches were carried separately in a pouch.

This arm known by the name of the “two-grooved Brunswick infantry”or “oval rifle” has the advantage that it can be used as rifle or musket, andexcels the common and the Delvigne rifle in range and accuracy; but hasitself been surpassed by the still greater accuracy and symmetry of actionintroduced in the construction of later systems.

In England, where, in 1837, the light brigade was armed with a weaponof this kind, known as the “two-grooved rifle,” the barrel is 30.04 incheslong, with a caliber of 0.704 inch. The two rounded grooves are 0.314 inchwide, and 0.039 inch deep, and have a twist of eleven hundredths, or an in-clination of 89° 42' 26". The breech sight, a simple steel plate, is 0.117inch high, and 3.53 inches from the breech, while the bead is 0.786 inchfrom the muzzle. The charge is 2.82 drams; the weight of the ball, 557grains; and that of the rifle, without bayonet, with a length of 46.67 inches,is 9.7 pounds.

Instead of the pitched ball, they use the belted ball, which measuresover the sides 0.696 inch; but over the belt, (which is 0.306 inch broad,)0.752 inch, making the projection of the belt 0.028 inch. The windage of

270 APPENDIX A

the ball in the lands is 0.031 inch, and that of the belt in the groove is 0.04inch. A greased patch of good brown Holland is used with the ball. In con-sequence of the small windage, which is further diminished by the patch,the loading is as difficult as it was with the rifles heretofore used in Ger-many with ball and patch. This circumstance probably gave rise to the reg-ulation that each rifleman should carry only twelve of the belted balls, andbeyond that the common infantry cartridge with the spherical ball.

After a variety of experiments in Hanover with the oval arm, in 1834,others were instituted in 1842, on a larger scale, with 200 of this species ofarm, the barrels of which were 39.71 inches long, and the caliber 0.646inch. The two grooves, with nearly a full turn in the length of the bore, (fif-teen sixteenths,) or an inclination of 88° 59' 48", had a depth of 0.028inch, and a breadth of 0.258 inch. The charge was seventy grains, and theweight of the arm, without the bayonet, was 9.94 pounds.

VI. THE BREECH-LOADING SYSTEM

A. The Needle Gun

Prussia had, in the meantime, applied herself with great secrecy to the im-provement of her infantry arms; and, though not unmindful of the systemsheretofore, and which remain to be noticed, and actuated by the same mo-tives which led to those, she instituted and perfected a system totally differ-ent from any—the system of breech-loading. This arm is known as the“Prussian needle gun.” As the mechanism of this arm is not so well known,it will not be out of place to enter into a somewhat detailed description of it.

The principle of the needle gun, viz: to insert the charge at the breech,with a view to ease and facility of loading, is by no means novel, it havingbeen employed in the amusette of Marshal Saxe, the arms of Montalem-bert, of Robert, and of Lefaucheux, as well as in the wall pieces of theFrench, and in the chamber-loading gun of the Norwegians.

The inventor of the present Prussian needle gun is Mr. Dreyse, manu-facturer of arms at Sommerda. As early as 1835 he sought to attain the ad-vantage of ease and facility of loading by closing the breech with twoscrews behind each other, having a space between them. In this spacethere was a spiral spring, which carried a needle, working through the mid-dle of the inner screw. A simple mechanism enabled this spring to be drawnback; and when let loose, the penetration of the needle into the fulminatecaused the ignition of the charge.

The cartridges with spherical balls used with this arm were at first in-serted at the muzzle, and had a priming of fulminate at the bottom, whichfrequently exploded prematurely when rammed too hard, or when the nee-dle projected beyond the inner screw. The windage, too, had to be in-

APPENDIX A 271

creased to secure sufficient ease of loading, which prevented the ball fromtaking a sufficient hold on the sides of the bore.

These objections induced the projector to insert the cartridge at thebreech, as was done in Norway, and hence arose the new Prussian needlegun. In reference to the Norwegian breech-loading gun it may be briefly re-marked, now, that the barrel is open at the rear, and there is a separatechamber for the charge, with a caliber somewhat larger than that of thebarrel. The ball is cylindro-conical.

In the Prussian needle gun the cartridge is inserted at the rear; the igni-tion is produced by the intrusion of a needle into the fulminate attached tothe cartridge, and the closing of the open barrel is effected by the fitting ofthe front end of the chamber to the rear of the barrel.

The barrel, the rifled part of which is 36.06 inches long, has a caliber of0.606 inches, with four grooves, having a twist of five elevenths in thelength of the barrel, or an inclination of 88° 6' 17". The breadth of these is0.243 inches, and their depth 0.03 inches. The unrifled portion at the rearmakes a kind of chamber, or bed of the cartridge, the diameter of which is0.69 inches, or several hundredths greater than the bore, and the lengthnearly the same as that of the cartridge. The bed of the cartridge enlargesslightly to the rear so as to admit the cartridge easily after repeated dis-charges; the enlargement must, however, be limited, otherwise it would in-terfere with the central position of the cartridge. Where the bed of the car-tridge unites with the grooves and lands, which latter project on account ofthe smaller caliber of the bore, there is a gradual slope to prevent too sud-den a compression of the ball into the bore, and to facilitate its passage. Tothe same end there is a slight enlargement of the lower part of the bore forthe distance of 6.17 inches. The rear of the barrel terminates externallyconically, and is called the mouth-piece of the barrel.

The advantages of this arm are:

First. The simplicity of the mechanism, which can be taken apart with-out screwdriver, spring vice, &c.

Second. It can be safely and easily cleaned.Third. The convenience and rapidity of loading in every position, espe-

cially in the contracted space of loop-holed walls and on horseback.Fourth. The certain and uniform filling of the grooves since the ball has

a diameter greater than the caliber.Fifth. The reduced charge consequent on the entire consumption of the

powder.Sixth. The disuse of the rammer as such.

On the other hand the needle gun has its defects, among which the fol-lowing are prominent:

First. A waste of ammunition from the ease and rapidity of loading,which can only be guarded against by putting it in the hands of good

272 APPENDIX A

and experienced marksmen, who know the value of a good and well-timed shot.

Second. Weakening of the spiral spring from constant use.Third. A possibility that the needle may not penetrate to the priming,

when the powder is packed too closely, or the spiral spring too weak.

B. The Norwegian Breech-Loading Rifle

This arm, several times before referred to, was the forerunner of the Prus-sian needle gun. It is not, like that, fired by means of a needle, but with acap, and the mechanism is quite different. The two have only the principleof breech loading in common.

The ball, which is a cylinder, terminated by an ogee, has but one shallowgroove, and is 1.137 inch long, and 0.696 inch diameter. Its weight is 787grains. The cartridge is commonly of writing paper, and wound twice. Oneend laps over the groove of the ball, and is tied with a thick greased woolenthread, and the other end is turned down over the charge, which is 70 grains.

The arm just described must not be confounded with the breech-loadingrifle constructed by First Lieutenant Von Frilitzen, and given to the Swedishmarine in 1851. That differs from the Norwegian in having a sphero-conicalc h a m b e r, which prevents the cone from going through, the metal beingt h i c k e r, and obviates the deepening of the chamber, and the consequent ac-cumulation of dirt. There is also on the inner face of the cone a small cop-per plate to prevent the direct action of the gases, and a cross-piece to theheel plate to guard the rear end of the chamber against sand, &c. Instead ofthe screw to the eccentric there is a bolt which admits of an easier removalof the cylinder and eccentric. A projection on the side of the frame protectsits side as well as the lever from external injury. Finally the mainspring,which, in the Norwegian, is almost wholly exposed, lies within.

The dimensions of the bore are likewise different, the length of theSwedish being only 35.71 inches, and its caliber 0.514 inch. The sixgrooves are 0.015 inch deep, and have a half turn in time length of thebore, or an inclination of 89° 15' 10". The diameter of the chamber is0.566 inch. The ball weighs 538 grains, and the charge 77 grains. Thehausse [rear sight] is a leaf bent at right angles, and movable about an axisat the angle—the short arm serving for a distance of 300 Swedish ells, (195yards,) the other for 500 ells, (325 yards.)

VII. THE SYSTEM OF WILD

In 1841, an engineer in the service of Zurich, named Wild, started, likeDelvigne, with the proposition that it must be an error to drive the ball intothe grooves, as was the custom with rifles, with such force as to injure its

APPENDIX A 273

sphericity and to crush the powder under it. He aimed, likewise, at in-creased range and accuracy, combined with ease of loading.

With this view, he gave the bore six to eight shallow grooves, with aslight twist, and the ball a windage of 0.018 inch to 0.027 inch. The charg-ing was done with loose powder or with cartridges. The cartridge had itsball and patch attached to its end in such a way that, when the cartridgeand ball were placed in the muzzle, the patch, which was gathered over theball by a string through the edges, could be opened again.

In loading with the powder loose, a piece of paper must be placed on thepowder to prevent its adhering to the patch and burning it. When the patchis not greased, the bore is moistened with water to soften the dirt adheringfrom the previous discharge, and facilitate its removal by the next one. Forthis purpose a flask, holding perhaps three ounces of water, is carried. Acontrivance at its mouth, when the flask is placed on the muzzle, supplies,with a slight pressure, the water required.

To apportion to each caliber and length of barrel the proper modicum ofwater, the following rules are observed: If the bore is wet at the muzzle af-ter the discharge, there has been too much water; and if it be dry and cov-ered with deposit from the powder, there has been too little. It should benearly dry and quite clean after each discharge.

The ball is only moderately rammed. The rammer has a shoulder nearthe top, which prevents the ball from being rammed beyond a certainpoint; the powder cannot, therefore, be crushed.

Although the experiments instituted with this rifle in Switzerland in1842, and later in Baden, gave favorable results, since, at 600 paces, (515yards,) the balls were still effective, and more than 100 rounds could befired out of the same piece without cleaning, it has been adopted in butfew services. In Baden, Hesse-Darmstadt, and Wurtemburg, ten men ineach company are armed with them.

VIII. THE SYSTEM OF THOUVENIN

The Delvigne-Fontchara system did not at all answer the expectationsformed concerning it in France, notwithstanding the manifold and carefullyconducted experiments made. The causes of these unfavorable results weresought for in the change of figure from round to flat, which the ball under-goes in loading. A return was therefore made by Captain Minié to the cylin-dro-conical form of Captain Delvigne, before described. It had now, insteadof the cone, an ogee at the top. It terminated below in a truncated cone. Be-tween these there was a groove, filled with a woolen thread steeped in tal-l o w. The cavity from the base upwards was retained. These balls, however,were not approved for the rifles in use, notwithstanding the favorable resultsof experiments.

274 APPENDIX A

Meantime, Colonel Thouvenin, of the artillery, had endeavoured to rem-edy the ascertained defects of the Delvigne-Pontchara system—which werepartly the difficult fabrication of the cartridge and partly the breaking ofthe wooden sabot—by removing the sabot entirely, and by simplifying theconstruction of the cartridge, without abandoning the facility of loadingwith a given windage, or the correct position of the ball in the bore.

For this purpose he adopted, instead of the chambered breech-pin, theusual one, with a steel pin or stem projecting from the middle of it of halfthe diameter of the bore, and placed exactly in its axis. This permitted theball to be rammed without disturbing the powder poured around it—thepin being long enough to project a certain distance above the powder. Thestem or t i g e , at the same time, forced the ball when rammed into thegrooves, and caused them to be filled.

Still the system did not obviate the disfiguration of the ball by the ram-mer, nor the consequent evils of diminished range and accuracy. The resis-tance of the air would still cause irregularity in the trajectory.

These considerations determined Colonel Thouvenin to adopt the cylin-dro-conical ball as invented by Delvigne, and altered by Captain Minié,and with far better results. In subsequent experiments the ball was altered,on the suggestion of Captain Tamisier, by abandoning the conical termina-tion of the ball, and making the cylinder complete; and by using, instead ofthe one circular groove about it, a number of smaller angular grooves or“cannelures”; and above all, by placing the center of gravity nearer to thepoint of the ball.

Captain Tamisier had observed in some experiments with Delvigne’s ballwith but one groove, that it deviated much less from the true trajectorythan the ball with smooth cylinders, and concluded that this must be dueto the effect of the air on the lower sharp edge of the groove.

The adoption of this cylindro-conical ball made it necessary to cup orcountersink the rammer head.

The successive alterations of the cylindro-conical ball need not be amatter of surprise. With the adoption of this form of missile arose manyconsiderations relative to the resistance of the air, the weight of the ball, itsrange, and accuracy; all of which had a much smaller degree of influenceon the round ball, where, when the caliber of the bore and the ball and itsweight were given, nothing remained to be fixed but the charge and theelevation.

The chief consideration which weighed against the spherical and in fa-vor of the elongated ball, and which experiments have verified, may bestated generally as follows: every ball assumes two motions, viz: a forwardmotion due to the impulse of the gases, and a rotary motion impressed onit by the grooves. The forward motion is prevented from exerting its full ef-fect by the flattening of the ball, and the resulting increased atmosphericresistance; that is, the greatest range due to the impulse is not attained.The elongated ball was then hit upon.

APPENDIX A 275

Advantages of Thouvenin’s System.

1. It is more easily and therefore more quickly loaded than the old riflewith patched balls.

2. The powder cannot be easily crushed in ramming.3. Greater accuracy, ascribable in part to the ball not being flattened,

nor the powder crushed, and in part to the pointed form of the ball.

Defects of this System.

1. The cleaning of the bore about the tige is very difficult.2. The ball will not always fill the grooves, which will cause irregular

shooting.3. The necessarily heavy ramming of the ball unavoidably forms a pro-

jecting ring on its conical part, which cannot but be prejudicial to theflight of the ball.

4. The occasional bending of the tige by use, which throws it out of cen-ter.

5. The accuracy is too dependent on the proper ramming of the ball.

It being now incontestable that the t i g e rifles, of the system of Thou-venin, with the ball of three circular grooves, satisfied the conditions of in-creased accuracy and range in a greater degree than any of the prior sys-tems, some of the arms which had been altered to the Delvigne-Pontcharasystem were changed, by substituting for the chambered breech-pin, asolid one with a steel tige 1.49 inch long, and 0.35 inch in diameter,screwed into it. The bore 34.16 inches long had a caliber of 0.70 inch,greater by 0.011 inch, than the model of 1842. It had four grooves 0.275inch wide, and decreasing in depth toward the muzzle, being 0.0196 inchat the bottom, and 0.0118 inch at the top. The twist was changed so as tohave four tenths of a turn, or an inclination of 89° 14' 19". The breech-sight, consisting of a leaf and slide, was graduated to a distance of 1,300meters, (1,422 yards.) The weight of the arm was 8.8 pounds, weight ofball 725 grains, and its greatest diameter 0.676 inch. The charge was sixty-nine grains.

IX. THE SYSTEM OF MINIÉ

Of late years endeavours have been made particularly in France, to dis-pense entirely with the chamber and the tige, still retaining the advantagesalready attained in the facility of loading, the preservation of the shape ofthe ball and of the grain of the powder, as well as those of increased accu-racy and range.

276 APPENDIX A

The grooves in this system are progressive—that is, they diminish indepth from breech to muzzle. The breech-pin has neither tige nor chamber.The grooves are 0.019 inch deep at the breech, and 0.011 at the muzzle.

The ball is cylindro-ogival in shape, has three angular grooves (can-nelures) on the cylindrical part, and a cavity conical from the base upwards,which is closed with a sheet-iron culot shaped like a cup. Its diameter, whichis less than that of the bore, permits it to drop down easily on the powder—the more easily, after repeated firing, from having the “cannelures” filledwith tallow. The rammer is countersunk to suit the shape of the ball. The fol-lowing are the theoretical advantages which experience has fully confirmed:

That the gas evolved in the inflammation of the powder forces the culotto the extremity of the cavity, by which the sides of the ball are pressed outand driven into the grooves. As these may not, however, always be com-pletely filled, they are, as already stated, made shallow towards the muzzle,thereby securing absolute contact between the lead and the surface of thebore, and producing the required rotation of the ball about its longer axis.Besides, the force of the powder, by its more direct action on the center ofgravity of the ball, forces it to retain its original tangential position to thetrajectory.

The system has, moreover, the considerable advantage that the ball re-tains its shape unaltered, as it is not rammed, but only pressed down,which is not the case with the other systems, (if we except the Prussian andthe recent Swiss;) in all of which the effect of the rammer on the upperpart of the ball is first to change the taper very appreciably; and, secondly,to form a shoulder theoretically injurious in its influence on the trajectory;since the air, instead of moving smoothly along the surface, meets with re-sistance there. . . .

General Paixhans presents, in his “Constitution Militaire de la France,”page 40, the following results of experiment with the new rifled carbine,with a charge of only four grammes (sixty-two grains) to a ball almost dou-ble the weight of the old round ball.

At a distance of 200 meters, (218 yards,) a target two yards square washit 100 times in succession with this new musket, while the ordinarysmooth-bore only made forty-four hits in the same number.

At 600 meters (656 yards) there were twenty-five hits at the same target,while the smooth-bore did not reach it at all, and a field piece only hit it sixtimes in the same number of rounds.

At 1,000 meters, (1,093 yards), at which distance a field piece generallydeviates five to six yards from the target, there were six hits in 100 shotswith the new musket, and at this excessive distance it was found that askillful marksman put three out of four shots in a moderate sized target.

The advantages of this system are—

1. The ball retains its shape entire after loading.2. Quick and convenient loading.

APPENDIX A 277

3. Less accumulation of dirt, and more easy cleaning, than in the armsof the system of Thouvenin.

4. Any smooth-bore arm may be changed to it without materially weak-ening the strength.

Its disadvantages are—

1. Great inequality in the effect of the iron culot.2. The separation of this latter from the ball in loading, which exposes

men in the vicinity to injury, and produces uncertainty of execution.3. It requires a charge somewhat heavier than the system of Thouvenin.4. The elevations are greater, and, consequently,5. The dangerous space is less.6. Should the sides of the ball be too thin, it happens not unfrequently

that the force of the gases separates the hollow from the solid part,and leaves it in the gun.

For the purpose of instituting extended experiments with this system,four regiments in the French service were supplied with the arms. Theadoption of the system was, however, deferred to a later day.

Like experiments were instituted in Baden, in 1852, but with a smallerc a l i b e r. The ball was 0.883 inch long, and the cylindrical part had threegrooves and a diameter of 0.506 inch. The interior conical cavity was 0.558inch deep, with an inferior diameter of 0.36 inch, and a superior diameterof 0.307 inch. This cavity was closed with a close-fitting sheet-iron culot.Two battalions of fusileers, fifth and tenth, were armed with these weaponsfor purposes of experiment. Since then a part of the smooth-bore arms ofthe infantry, as well as the carbines of the artillery and the holster pistols ofthe cavalry, have been altered to this system.

In Nassau, also, where the rapid fouling of the barrel was found to bevery troublesome, since it admitted but ten to twelve successive dischargesin warm weather, attention was turned to the system of Minié, and experi-ments, with a view to its adoption, were set on foot in 1853, with his balls.The stem or tige was removed, but the grooves remained unchanged. Thetrials resulted favorably to the system, and showed that the arms, withM i n i é ’s balls, became much less dirty, and could be fired thirty to fortytimes in succession. The charge however, had to be increased 7.71 grains.

The tige was hereupon removed from the breech-pin, the grooves havingalready the required diminution of depth towards the muzzle.

The ball which was the subject of these experiments has a cylindro-ogival form, is 0.663 inch in diameter, and 1.2 inch long. The conical cav-ity closed with a sheet-iron culot, is 0.608 inch deep, and at the base 0.442inch broad. The weight is 703 grains.

In England, also, in 1851, many experiments were instituted with thissystem at Woolwich. They were begun at a distance of 200 yards, and pros-

278 APPENDIX A

ecuted to a distance of 400 yards, with good results, the majority of theballs being in the bull’s eye or the vicinity of it. Even at 600 yards, it is said,a great number of the balls hit the target, the dimensions of which are,however, not given.

The arm with which these experiments were made (of which 23,000were ordered in consequence) was of the following dimensions:

The length of the bore was three feet three inches, and its caliber 0.702,(subsequently reduced.) The four grooves, 0.25 inch wide, had somethingover half a turn in the bore, or an inclination of 89° 10' 37", and had adepth of 0.02 inch at the breech and 0.01 inch at the muzzle. The chargewas two and a half drams, (68.35 grains.) The breech-sight, like that of theFrench, was 4.7 inches from the rear end of the barrel, and graduated fordistances from 200 to 900 yards.

The ball, originally like the French, was, after some experiments, alteredto a sphero-conical shape, with the omission of the grooves. It is 1.03 inchlong, and has a diameter at the base, where it is greatest, of 0.69 inch. Theconical cavity is 0.54 inch long, and 0.4 inch in diameter at the base. Likethe Minié ball, it is closed by a culot, and weighs 22.66 drams, or about tento the pound. The weight of this arm, with bayonet, is ten pounds eight andthree quarter ounces. The height of the trajectory above the line of sightwas three and a half feet in the middle, for a range of 200 yards, and for900 yards, 110 feet.

There are ten men in each company armed with these arms.During the year 1852 endeavours were made to substitute a smaller cal-

iber for the large ones which had hitherto been preserved with the adop-tion of the Minié ball. This would enable the soldier to carry a large supplyof ammunition without overloading himself. The shape of the ball was alsoto be modified, the conical part having hitherto been too great and givingthe ball too little hold on the barrel, causing it more readily to assume anoblique position.

With this view a commission was in that year assembled at Enfield, whowere to submit to ample experiment models furnished by the most notedgunmakers.

The arms thus presented were:

1. The two-grooved rifle.2. The Minié arm, adopted in 1851.3. Purdy’s rifle, with a length of bore of 39 inches, and a caliber of 0.65

inch. The four grooves had not a uniform inclination; but started atthe breech with a twist of 0.5427 of a circle in the length of the bar-rel, which, at the muzzle, was increased to 0.6842. This arm had twoballs, one of which was 1.05 inch long, and 0.543 inch in diameterover the rim at the base. The cavity was closed with a metal plug, inlieu of the culot of Minié, and was in the same way to effect thespreading of the ball. This ball weighed 610 grains. The other ball

APPENDIX A 279

weighed only 487 grains; was 0.91 inch long, and 0.634 inch in diam-eter. Both were, in other respects, essentially like the English Miniéball, and the cavity in the second was closed by an iron culot. Thecharge was over two and a half drams of fine powder, and the weightof rifle and bayonet, nine pounds one and a half ounces.

4. Lovell’s rifle: its length of barrel was 39 inches, and its caliber, 0.635inch. There were two balls, the length of one being 1,145 inch, its di-ameter 0.63 inch, and weight 686 grains. The length of the other,0.95 inch, its diameter .628, and its weight 562 grains.

5. G r e e n e r ’s rifle, with seven sorts of balls, the results obtained withwhich being not favorable, are not given. The barrel had a caliber of0.621 inch, and one of the several kinds of balls weighed nineteen tothe pound.

6. Richard’s rifle was equally unsuccessful. The caliber was 0.577 inch,and the ball weighed twenty-four to the pound.

7. L a n c a s t e r ’s rifle, which differed from all the others in the peculiarconstruction of the bore. It was 39 inches long, and had no grooves;but was smoothly and elliptically bored out. This elliptical bore hadan increasing twist and a diminished cross section as it approachedthe muzzle; the smaller axis, which is to be regarded as the caliber,being 0.543 inch at the breech, and 0.540 inch at the muzzle; whilethe greater axis, which takes the place of the grooves, was 0.557 inchat the breech, and 0.543 inch at the muzzle. The twist was half a turnin the length of the bore. The ball was cylindro-spherical in shape,1.125 inch long, and 0.532 inch in diameter. The conical cavity atthe base was closed by a plug somewhat larger, which spread out thelead the further, it was driven up. The cylindrical part had three sharpgrooves. Its weight was 542 grains, and the charge two and a halfdrams. The weight of the rifle and bayonet was nine pounds nineounces.

8. Wilkinson’s rifle, the barrel of which was also 39 inches long, and ithad a decreased caliber toward the muzzle, where it was 0.530 inch,against 0.531 at the breech. It had five grooves, with half a turn inthe length of the barrel. It weighed nine pounds five ounces. Its ball,of cylindro-conical form, was solid, 1.075 inch long, and 0.537 inchin diameter. The lower cylindrical part had two deep sharp grooves,filled with tallow. It weighed 500 grains.

9 . A rifle made in the Royal A r m o r y, at Enfield. The barrel was 39 incheslong, with a bore entirely cylindrical, of the caliber of 0.577 inch andhaving but three grooves, the twist of which was one half in the lengthof the barrel, or an inclination of 9° 19' 17". The depth of the grooveswas 0.014 inch, and their breadth 0.262 inch. The weight of the rifleand bayonet was nine pounds three ounces. The ball adopted for it af-terwards was not solid, but like Minié, provided with a cavity, of lim-ited depth, however. The length of the ball was 0.96 inch, its diameter0.568 inch, and its weight 520 grains.

280 APPENDIX A

As before observed, the chief object of these trials was to determine onan arm with smaller caliber, which would enable the soldier to carry thecustomary sixty rounds of ammunition without fatigue. This could not bedone with the Minié arm of large caliber heretofore in use. It was also topresent the advantage of greater strength with less weight of metal. It was,in addition, the province of the commission to ascertain the influence ofthe number of grooves, to obviate the use of the culot, and to modify theobjectionable shape of the ball, which was too conical; and, finally, to con-struct a breech-sight less faulty than the one in use on the Minié rifle.

On the second point, whether an even or an odd number of grooves ismost advantageous, the experiments led to the conclusion that the latterwas preferable in point of accuracy, as an odd number gave a land oppositeto the groove, causing the groove to fill more readily; and when a smallnumber of grooves only are to be used, three is a better number than four,as better preserving the cylindrical contour of the ball, which, with fourgrooves, inclines to become a square. Whether the last conclusion is wellfounded may be doubted, when we inspect the ball fired from a three-grooved bore. It has much of a triangular shape, and a greater number ofgrooves would produce a much better appearance.

The adoption of a smaller caliber infers, of course, a correspondingdiminution of the weight of the ball, when it is not made disproportionatelylong. The balls submitted were, however, in their form and arrangement,for the most part, entirely unsuited for field service. As it was one of theprominent objects of the commission to determine upon a suitable form,and the Minié ball heretofore used did not take sufficient hold on the bar-rel, from its too conical shape, it was agreed to alter it, the lower half beingmade wholly cylindrical, the upper part remaining unchanged. The trialswith these balls gave far better results. While at short distances, the eleva-tion had to be somewhat greater than for the former balls, at 700 yardsthey were equal. The experiments at Woolwich, on the projecting culot,and whether any culot is advantageous, showed less accuracy by one thirdfor the ball without culot.

These experiments also elicited the fact that the Minié or expanding ballgave better results when separated from the cartridge in loading than whenunited to it; and in the latter case, still better when the envelope was wellgreased. It was also thought that no small influence was exerted on the ex-panding ball by the grain of the powder, the coarse grain giving the better re-sults. This was ascribed to its slower inflammation, which put the ball moregradually in motion, giving time for the full expansion of the lead. . . .

XII. THE SYSTEM OF LANCASTER

The peculiarity of this system, which of late has attracted great attention inEngland, and is adopted into the artillery of that nation, relates to the inte-

APPENDIX A 281

rior conformation of the barrel, which is neither round nor grooved; butthe interior cross-section is an ellipse, and the bore has a certain turn in itslength. At the breech the twist becomes nearly rectilinear, but soon as-sumes the increasing inclination, which is uninterrupted to the muzzle;both axes of the ellipse, however, undergo a diminution, the greater of0.066, the less of 0.029 inch.

The system thus proposed by Lancaster seems to be partially borrowedfrom the American smooth bore, with the addition of the expanding ball,which, enlarged by the action of the gases on the conical plug, retains itscylindrical part entire, unchanged by the increased twist, and only alterswhen the point has left the muzzle.

Strictly speaking this twisting ellipse is nothing else than the parabolicgrooves before described.

As the American system is the basis of Lancaster’s it deserves a passingnotice. It adopts the principle of the parabolic grooves, and a small twist;that is, the grooves do not, as usual, retain a fixed angle from breech tomuzzle, but beginning with a direction nearly parallel to the axis of thebore, they assume a greater and greater inclination to it as they approachthe muzzle. This species of grooves, which is called a “gaining twist,” by im-pressing a gradual motion of rotation on the ball, effects the purpose ofpreventing the ball from stripping, or being forced over the lands by thefirst impulse of the gases.

The followers of this system claim for it increased accuracy and dimin-ished recoil; assertions which are somewhat doubtful as regards the elon-gated ball, in which the cylindrical part encounters increased friction—afriction yet further augmented by the continued change that part under-goes from the ever increasing twist.

In Denmark, balls other than the round have for some years been in use.. . . both balls were sometimes of the same caliber. The cylinder was tiedabove the small ball, and in the groove of the plate.

CONCLUSION

In taking a retrospect of what has been accomplished in the systemsheretofore treated, . . . the improvement of infantry arms must be kept inview. These were, first, increased facility of loading; second, increased ac-curacy and range; third, the charge; fourth, the inclination of the grooves;fifth, the diameter and shape of the ball. The first two can, it is evident, beattained only through the last three, which are to be regarded rather as themeans to an end. Such has been the process in all the systems proposedsince 1820, and facility of loading and increased accuracy have been,though not always in an equal degree, attained.

In the systems introduced from Delvigne to Thouvenin, the round ball

282 APPENDIX A

was retained, but with such diminished diameter, as to secure, through theincreased windage, facility of loading. Delvigne, for this purpose, gave hisballs a windage of 0.027 inch, the powder being kept from crushing by theuse of a chamber, with a diameter less than the bore, upon which the ballrested. In loading, however, the ball was considerably disfigured, as, on theupper side, it was flattened by the face of the rammer, despite the concavityof the latter, and on the other it was forced into the chamber. The resultsobtained being unsatisfactory, Pontchara, to preserve the shape of the ball,introduced a wooden sabot, which, with a patch, partly enveloped the ball.This did not wholly prevent the disfiguration of the ball, besides introduc-ing new difficulties. This system in this state was, however, adopted inFrance, and attempts made to improve it by lengthening the barrel and di-minishing the twist of the grooves, still retaining the same charge ofninety-six grains. The chief obstacle, however, to improved results, still layin the disfiguration of the ball, which greatly increased the resistance ofthe air, and thereby diminished the range.

The system of Wild gave much better results. In this the round ball wasstill retained, with a considerable windage, which was diminished, as de-sired, by a thicker or thinner patch. The preservation of the spherical shapeof the ball is here, too, a condition; and this, with the method of loading,whereby the accumulation of dirt was avoided, showed, in the experimentsof Baden and Hesse in 1843, the superiority of these rifles, both in accu-racy and penetration over any of the systems then known. They were alsoobserved to require a less elevation for the greater distances.

With the appearance of Thouvenin’s and the accompanying pointed ball,the rifled arm assumed a different aspect, since the range of its executionwas limited only by the extent of human vision. No longer can artillery,when opposed to infantry, take up its position and securely discharge itsrounds of grape and canister, secure of immunity from any but a randomshot from its adversary. At this distance it is now at the mercy of the rifle ofthe foot-soldier; hence, when covering the artillery, the rifled arm becomesa much more efficient support than formerly, when it was not always in itspower to afford the needful protection.

How profoundly these improvements have been felt and acknowledged,is shown by the speedy and general adoption of this system, which noneother has supplanted without presenting the same defects. Facility of load-ing is attained in this system by a sufficient windage, and increased accu-r a c y, range, and penetration, though the charge is diminished and theweight of the ball augmented, by the use of the pointed ball. In France, forexample, the charge has been reduced from 96 grains to 68 grains, whilstthe weight of the ball has increased from 452 grains (the round ball of1842) to 725 grains. The reasons for this are, in the first place, that thepowder is kept by the tige from being crushed; secondly, that the powder isfully burned by the time the ball quits the muzzle; and, thirdly, the effect ofthe form of the ball and its grooves, (“cannelures.”) The great influence of

APPENDIX A 283

these three points is shown in the fact that rifles, formerly loaded withround balls after the old method, when brought into this system un-changed except by the introduction of the tige, acquire greatly increasedaccuracy and range. Still, one circumstance operates unfavorably on thelatter of these two properties—that is, the partial disfiguration of the ballby the rammer, which both changes the point of the ball and forms a rimthere more or less marked. This defect has been attempted to be remediedby giving, as in Prussia, to the lower part of the hollow in the rammer-headan increased width. The ball, too, when the cylindrical part is too long, maytake too strong a hold on the grooves, when these are somewhat deep, bywhich the direction of the ball will, indeed, be secured, but the augmentedfriction will be injurious to the range.

In spite of all attempts to guard against deforming the projectile, it hasnot yet been attained; and this system must be regarded as that of constantdisfiguration of the ball, to which all that we have treated of belong, exceptthat of Wild.

While in the system of Thouvenin the ball is forced into the grooves bythe aid of the rammer and the tige, the same is effected in that of Minié bythe expansive force of the gas, which fills up the cavity of the ball andpresses it equally outward. This system does not essentially increase the ac-c u r a c y, and the range is diminished; but it attains two advantages, viz: astill greater facility of loading, and the preservation of the original form ofthe ball. An apparent contradiction is here asserted, viz: that, did the disfig-uration of the ball not take place, the system of Thouvenin would insurestill greater range and accuracy, while the Minié system, in which the ballretains the shape which theoretical principles have assigned to it, gives nogreater accuracy, and a range even inferior. The explanation of this anom-aly is to be sought in the fact that, in the Minié system, the culot does notalways correctly fulfill its functions, but is separated from the ball at themoment of loading; or else, being turned edgeways, causes the total loss ofthe shot. The diminished range may be accounted for by supposing that aportion of the gas escapes before the ball has completely filled the grooves.These defects were sought to be remedied, in Belgium, in the ball of Tim-merhans, and in a great degree successfully; but still the charge had to beaugmented nearly eight grains.

A further peculiarity of this system consisted in the progressive grooves,which were not, however, indispensable, since grooves of the shallow androunded kind gave the same result, namely: a certain and easy filling ofthem.

The system of Wilkinson was founded on principles similar to those ofMinié, in effecting the filling of the grooves through the action of thegases; not, however, as in the latter, by pressure from the interior outwards,but by pressure from behind on the conical part, the cylindrical part beingprovided with deep grooves, which permitted its constituent rings to moveforwards, before the inertia of the solid anterior part was overcome. Thus

284 APPENDIX A

much is evident, from the experiments at Infield and in Austria, that armsof this system surpass nearly every other in accuracy, range, and penetra-tion. Ease of loading, security against crushing the powder, and preserva-tion of the figure of the ball, are in this, as in Minié’s system, prominentprinciples. The Swiss system fulfills, in an equal degree, all the require-ments of an excellent arm for service. The loading is here effected with aslittle difficulty, as in the other systems, the ball being shoved down to agiven point only, so as to leave a space between the powder and the ball;but the filling of the grooves is effected differently. As in the system ofThouvenin, it is accomplished by the aid of the rammer; in those of Miniéand Wilkinson, by the operation of the gas on the ball; so it is here broughtabout by the use of a greased patch, which surrounds the lower part of theball. This system also differs from the others in having a remarkably smallcaliber. These peculiarities are by no means detrimental to the effective-ness of the weapon, since, in the qualities of accuracy, range, and penetra-tion, it excels all systems yet reduced to practice, without a resort to exces-sive charges or high elevation. On the contrary, in the latter respect it hasthe advantage of the other systems. . . .

There remains, finally, the breech-loading system, including the Frenchwall piece, the Norwegian breech loading, and the Prussian needle gun, allof which differ materially from each other in their mechanism; the first twohaving the ordinary percussion cap, whilst the latter is fired by means of aneedle, which enters the priming. This system differs from all the forego-ing, in that the ball is first forced into the barrel by the gases. It is decid-edly the easiest and most expeditious in loading, and equals that of Thou-venin in accuracy and range. The only disfiguration that the ball suffers, isthe elongation which the cylindrical part undergoes by its forcible entryinto the bore, which is of little consequence.

In all the recent systems where they have not been ingrafted on oldarms, there has been a diminution in the inclination of the grooves for-merly deemed necessary, except in the Prussian needle gun, the SwissStutzer, and Jäger rifle, as also the Mecklenburg-Thouvenin rifle.

APPENDIX A 285

A P P E N D I X B :

R I F L E S A N D R I F L E M A K E R S

The following section lists by originating country all the rifles referred to inthe text and also includes many that are not as significant in the develop-mental scheme that this book has followed. These rifles are all listed, be-cause they were at some time in the military service of their country orwere serious contenders for that role. The most significant of these riflesare emphasized, because they were forerunners in the mechanical progres-sion from rifled muskets to the modern assault rifle.

Most of the terms and abbreviations used are quite clear, but some ofthe abbreviations require clarification.

C a rt r i d g e : In almost all cases, these are composite cartridges, made ofbrass (or similar metal), and they contain in one unit the primer, propel-lant, and bullet.

Cartridge dimensions: 7.62 x 51mm NATO means the caliber is 7.62mmand the total length of the cartridge is 51mm; this was a standard NATOcartridge at the time. There are oddities such as the .30-06 U.S. car-tridge, which has a .30-inch caliber; this design was finalized in 1906.See also the note about Spencer cartridges under “United States:Spencer.”

Rifling: The number of grooves and the direction of the spin. Rh meansright-handed spin and lh the opposite.

Magazine: There are three types of magazines: integral meaning that themagazine cannot normally be removed from the weapon; box meaningthat the boxlike magazine can be removed; and tube meaning the maga-zine holds the cartridges from tip to base in a line. Note that there werealso a number of external cartridge holders fitted near to the breech onsome British weapons, which were not true magazines, as the weaponwas still loaded manually.

M/v: The muzzle velocity of the weapon, or the speed at which the bulletemerges from the barrel. F p s means feet per second, m / s meters persecond.

287

Rate of fire (or cyclic rate): This is often theoretical, but it is the maxi-mum number of rounds that can be fired from the weapon if the ammu-nition supply were continuous and the weapon did not overheat.

Readers will note that muzzle energy, maximum range, and similar factsare not included. This is simply because they are of little real value to therifleman on the battlefield unless he is a sniper.

Dates of manufacture are given wherever possible, but where an “M”precedes a date, this is the given model number and year of adoption by thestate mentioned. Other dates are the year of issue or adoption and areshown at the start of an entry. In a few cases dates have been approxi-mated. Manufacturers’ names are given whenever possible. State manufac-tured arms are also noted. In the latter case, the state owned arsenal wasthe designer and maker of the weapon described. Those models followedby an asterisk (*) were slightly, not fundamentally, modified.

Reliability is not a factor that can be readily quantified, but by consult-ing the text the faults of service rifles can be seen. Although often coveredby a mass of figures and propaganda, the constant need for any new equip-ment to be adequately tested before issue is paramount. Soldiers must begiven weapons and equipment to enable them to perform their duties atleast risk to themselves; after all, war and combat are risky enough withouthaving your rifle quit on you!

ARGENTINA

Ballester RigaudHafdasa

1946. Semi-automatic carbine. Cartridge: 9mm Parabellum.Length: 33.5in (850mm). Barrel: 12.6in (320mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 54-round box.M/v: approx. 1250 fps (380 m/s).

FaraFARA 83 Assault Rifle

Ca. 1983. Gas operated, selective fire.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45 NATO.Length, butt extended: 39.37in (1000mm).Length, butt folded: 29.3in (745mm).Weight: 8lb 11oz (3.95kg).Barrel: 17.9in (452mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 3166 fps (965 m/s).Rate of fire: 750rpm.

288 APPENDIX B: ARGENTINA

M1891 RifleImproved Turkish M1890.Cartridge: 7.65 x 53 Mauser.Length: 48.6in (1235mm).Weight: 8lb 13oz (3.99kg).Barrel: 29.13in (740mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 2133 fps (650 m/s).

1891 Cavalry CarbineAs rifle.Cartridge: 7.65 x 53 Mauser.Length: 37.0in (940mm).Weight: 7lb 4oz (3.28kg).Barrel: 17.6in (448mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 1893 fps (577 m/s).

M1909 RifleSimilar to German Gew. 98. Made in Argentina after 1942.Cartridge: 7.65 x 53 Mauser.Length: 49.2in (1249mm).Weight: 8lb 15oz (4.07kg).Barrel: 29.13in (740mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2706 fps (825 m/s).

ARMENIA

State ArsenalK3 Rifle

1996. Bullpup design with a Kalashnikov-type gas-operated system. Cartridge: 5.45 x 39.5mm.Length: 27.6in (700mm).Weight (loaded): 8lb 13oz (4.0kg).Barrel: 16.34in (41.5mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 2952 fps (900 m/s).Rate of fire: 600 rpm

K11 Sniping Rifle1996. Bolt-action. Cartridge: 5.45 x 39.5mm.Length: 36.2in (920mm).Weight: 7lb 11oz (3.5kg).

APPENDIX B: ARMENIA 289

Barrel: 16.34in (415mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 2952 fps (900 m/s).

AUSTRIA (INCLUDING AUSTRIA-HUNGARY)

FrüwirthGendarmerie Carbine M1872

Bolt action, tube magazine beneath barrel.Cartridge: 11 x 42R Werndl.Length: 40.9in (1038mm).Weight: 8lb 2oz (3.69kg).Barrel: 22.4in (570mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 6-round tube.M/v: 978 fps (298 m/s).

Kropatschek 1881 Gendarmerie Carbine

Bolt action, tube magazine beneath the barrel.Cartridge: 11.15 x 58R Werndl.Length: 40.95in (1040mm).Weight: 8lb 6oz (3.80kg).Barrel: 22.4in (570mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round tube.M/v: 1007 fps (307 m/s).

Mannlicher M1885 Rifle

Straight-pull bolt action. Clip-loaded magazine.Cartridge: 11.15 x 58R Werndl.Length: 52.3in (1328mm).Weight: 10lb 8oz (4.8kg).Barrel: 31.8in (808mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 1444 fps (440 m/s).

M1886 RifleAs M1885, new sights.Cartridge: 11.1 5 x 58R Werndl.Length: 52.2in (1326mm).Weight: 9lb 15oz (4.5kg).Barrel: 31.7in (806mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 1444 fps (440 m/s).

290 APPENDIX B: AUSTRIA

1886/90 RifleM1886 rifles converted to fire 8 x 50R Mannlicher cartridge. M/v: 2035 fps (620 m/s).

1888 RifleM1886 rebarreled. Cartridge: 8 x 50R Austrian Mannlicher.Length: 50.4in (1281mm).Weight: 9lb 1oz (4.4 kg).Barrel: 30.2in (765mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 1755 fps (535 m/s).

1888/90 RifleModel 1888 with new sights for M88/90 cartridge.M/v: 2028 fps (618 m/s).

1890 Cavalry CarbineStraight-pull bolt.Cartridge: 8 x 50R Austrian Mannlicher.Length: 39.6in (1005mm).Weight: 7lb 5oz (3.3kg).Barrel: 19.61 in (498mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 1886 fps (575 m/s).

1890 Gendarmerie Carbine1892. As cavalry carbine.Details: as M1890 Cavalry Carbine.

M1895 RifleStraight-pull bolt.Cartridge: 8 x 50R Austrian Mannlicher.Length: 50.4in (1280mm).Weight: 8lb 5oz (3.78kg).Barrel: 30.1 9in (765mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 2030 fps (620 m/s).

1895 Short RifleStraight-pull bolt. Cartridge: 8 x 50R Austrian Mannlicher.Length: 39.49in (1003mm).Weight: 6lb 13oz (3.09kg).Barrel: 19.68in (500mm), 4 grooves, rh.

APPENDIX B: AUSTRIA 291

Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 1902 fps (580 m/s).

1895 Cavalry CarbineSimilar to short rifle.Details: the same

M1914 RifleAs German Gew. 98 but with a different stock.Cartridge: 8 x 50R Austrian Mannlicher.Length: 50.19in (1275mm).Weight: 8lb 13oz (4.0kg).Barrel: 30.7in (780mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2034 fps (620 m/s).

SteyrAUG (Armee Universal Gewehr) Rifle

1977. Designed to Austrian Army specifications for assault rifle. A d o p t e dby them as StuG 77. Bullpup design. Modular weapon system.

Gas operated rotating bolt, selective fire. Adopted by the armed forces ofAustralia, Ireland, Morocco, Oman, and New Zealand.

Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm 93 or NATO.Length: 31.1in (790mm).Weight: 7lb 5oz (3.6kg).Barrel: 20.0in (508mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 3182 fps (970 m/s).Cyclic rate: 650 rds/Min

AUG CarbineCa. 1977. As rifle, but with shorter barrel.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45M93 or NATO.Length: 27.16in (690mm). Weight: 7lb 5oz (3.3kg).Barrel: 16.0in (407mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 3133 fps (950 m/s).Cyclic rate: 700 rds/Mn

S5G69 Sniping Rifle1969. Bolt action. Rotary (Schoenauer pattern) magazine. Number of

versions.Cartridge: 7.62 x 51 NATO or .243 Winchester.Length: 44.9in (1140mm).Weight: 8lb 9oz (3.90kg).

292 APPENDIX B: AUSTRIA

Barrel: 25.56in (650mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round rotaryM/v: 2822 fps (860 m/s).

IWS 2000/AMR 5075 Anti-Materiel Rifle.1990. Smoothbore, long recoil, semi-automatic firing pin–stabilized

projectiles.Cartridge: 15.2mm AMR. Length: 70.9in (1800mm). Weight: 39lb 11oz (18kg).Barrel: 47.2in (1200mm), smoothbore.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 4757 fps (1450 m/s).

Wänzl 1866 Infantry Rifle

Lifting-block breech-loading conversion system of earlier muzzle-loading rifles.

Cartridge: 14 x 33R Wänzl.Length: 52.32in (1329mm).Weight: 9lb 6oz (4.27kg).Barrel: 34.84in (885mm), 4 grooves, rh.M/v: 1280 fps (390 m/s).

1866 Short RifleConversion of light infantry percussion rifles to the Wänzl system. Cartridge: 14 x 33R Wänzl.Length: 43.5in (1105mm).Weight: 10lb 6oz (4.7kg).Barrel: 26.0in (661mm), 4 grooves, rh.M/v: 1240 fps (378 m/s).

M1866 CarbineAs M1866 rifle, but shorter.Cartridge: 14 x 33R Wänzl.Length: 41.61in (1057mm).Weight: 9lb 2oz (4.1 3kg).Barrel: 24.1in (611mm), 4 grooves, rh.M/v: 1224 fps (373 m/s).

Werndl 1867 Infantry Rifle

Single shot, rotary block breech.Cartridge: 11.5 x 58R Werndl.Length: 50.3in (1278mm).Weight: 9lb 12oz (4.4kg).

APPENDIX B: AUSTRIA 293

Barrel: 33.66in (855mm), 6 grooves, rh.M/v: 430 fps (436 m/s).

M1867 CarbineAction as rifle.Cartridge: 11 x 42R Werndl Carbine.Length: 39.0in (99 1mm).Weight: 7lb 0oz (3.2kg).Barrel: 22.4in (570mm), 6 grooves, rh.M/v: 978 fps (298 m/s).

1873 Infantry RifleImproved mechanism.Cartridge: 11 x 58R Werndl.Length: 49.8in (1265mm).Weight: 9lb 5oz (4.2kg).Barrel: 33.1in (840mm), 6 grooves, rh.M/v: 1430 fps (436 m/s).

1873 CarbineImproved mechanism.Cartridge: 11 x 42R Werndl Carbine.Length: 39.5in (1004mm).Weight: 7lb 3oz (3.3kg).Barrel: 22.8in (580mm), 6 grooves, rh.M/v: 984 fps (300 m/s).

1877 Infantry RifleAs for the M1873 with an improved cartridge.As M1873, except M/v: 1476 fps (450 m/s).

1867/77 Rifles and CarbinesM1867 rifles and carbines rechambered for new cartridge.Details: new M/v, rifle: 1476 fps (450 m/s). M/v, carbine: 1007 fps (307 m/s).

1877 CarbineReplacement for 67/77 conversions.Details: as 1873 Carbine, except M/v: 1007 fps (307 m/s).

BELGIUM

Albini-BraendlinM1867 Infantry Rifle

Converted smoothbore muskets or muzzle-loading rifles to Albini trap-door breech system.

294 APPENDIX B: BELGIUM

Cartridge: 11 x 50R Albini.Length: 53.07in (1348mm).Weight: 10lb 1oz (4.6kg).Barrel: 34.76in (883mm), 4 grooves, rh.M/v: 1360 fps (415 m/s).

M1873 Infantry RifleLifting trap-door breech.Cartridge: 11 x 50R. Albini.Length: 53.0in (1347mm).Weight: 9lb 14oz (4.49kg).Barrel: 34.72in (882mm), 4 grooves, rh.

1873 Short RifleAs Infantry Rifle but shorter, for Gendarmerie and cavalry. Cartridge: 11 x 42R.Length: 45.1in (1145mm).Weight: 8lb (3.64kg).Barrel: 26.77in (680mm), 4 grooves, rh.M/v: 1165 fps (355 m/s).

Comblain

Hubert-Joseph Comblain (1813–1893), armourer and designer of thedropping-block rifle patented in 1870. Manufactured by the Petit Syndicatde Liège.

M1870 Civil Guard CarbineFalling-block breech operated by an underlever. Cartridge: 11 x 50R Albini.Length: 47.2in (1200mm).Weight: 9lb 13oz (4.46kg).Barrel: 31.8 in (808mm), 4 grooves, rh.M/v: 1410 fps (430 m/s).

FN

Fabrique Nationale d’Armes de Guerre of Herstal, Belgium, a world-famousarms manufacturing company, has been in business since 1888 as the Bel-gian national arms manufacturer.

M301918. Similar to U.S. (BAR). M1918. Made in 7.65mm caliber for Bel-

gium, 7.92mm for China, 7mm for Chile.Cartridge: 7.65 x 53mm (and as noted above).Length: 45.27in (1150mm).Weight: 20lb 8oz (9.3kg).Barrel: 22.0in (560mm), 4 grooves, rh.

APPENDIX B: BELGIUM 295

Magazine: 20-round box.M/v: 1890 fps (620 m/s).Rate of fire: 500 rpm.

Type D1920s. Based on U.S. M1918 BAR. Cartridge: 7.92 x 57 Mauser (and others).Length: 45.1in (1145mm).Weight: 20lb 5oz (9.2kg).Barrel: 19.7in (500mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20-round box.M/v: up to 2500 fps (762 m/s).Rate of fire: 480 rpm.

Model 1949/SAFNDesign begun mid-1930s, completed in late 1940s. Gas operated, semi-

automatic.Cartridge: 7.92 x 57 Mauser.Length: 44.0in (1116mm).Weight: 9lb 8oz (4.3kg).Barrel: 22.3in (590mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 10-round box.M/v: 2400 fps (730 m/s).

FAL Model 50-001953. Improved M1949 mechanism. Selective fire or semi-automatic

only.Cartridge: 7.62 x 5 NATO.Length: 42.9in (1090mm).Weight: 9lb 6oz (4.3kg).Barrel: 20.98in (533mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20-round box.M/v: 2756 fps (840 m/s).Rate of fire: 650–700 rpm.

FAL Model 50-64Ca. 1953. As FAL 50-00, but with a folding steel stock.Cartridge: 7.62 x 51 NATO.Length, butt extended: 43.1 in (1095mm).Length, butt folded: 33.27in (845mm).Weight: 8lb 9oz (3.90kg).Barrel: 20.98in (533mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20-round box.M/v: 2756 fps (840 m/s).Rate of fire: 650–700 rpm.


FAL Model 50-63Ca. 1953. The Paratrooper Model of the FAL Model 50-64.Cartridge: 7.62 x 51 NATO.Length, butt extended: 40.2in (1020mm).Length, butt folded: 30.3 in (770mm).Weight: 8lb 4oz (3.8kg).Barrel: 17.1in (436mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20-round box.M/v: 2657 fps (810 m/s).Rate of fire: 650–700 rpm.

FAL Model 50-411958. As standard rifle, but heavier barrel.Cartridge: 7.62 x 51 NATO.Length: 45.3in (1150mm).Weight: 13lb 3oz (6.0kg).Barrel: 20.98in (533mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20-round box.M/v: 2756 fps (840 m/s).Rate of fire: 650–700 rpm.

CAL 1966. Reduced FAL.Too early for the military, who had not yet received the 5.56mm message.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45M93.Length: 38.5in (978mm).Weight: 6lb 8oz (294kg).Barrel: 18.46in (469mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20-round box.M/v: 3200 fps (975 m/s).Rate of fire: 850 rpm.

FNC Rifle1976. Replacement for CAL. Gas piston, bolt carrier, and rotating bolt.

Selective fire with three-round burst control.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45 NATO.Length, butt extended: 39.3in (997mm).Length, butt folded: 30. 6in (766mm).Weight: 8lb 6oz (3.80kg).Barrel: 17.68in (449mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 3166 fps (965 m/s).Rate of fire: 650–700 rpm.

FNC Carbine1976. As FNC rifle but shorter barrel.


Cartridge: 5.56 x 45 NATO.Length, butt extended: 35.9in (911mm).Length, butt folded: 26.77in (680mm).Weight: 7lb 12oz (3.5kg).Barrel: 14.3in (363mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20-round box.M/v: 3117 fps (950 m/s).Rate of fire: 650–700 rpm.

Model 30-11 Sniping Rifle1970–1990. Last Mauser bolt-action rifle built by FN. FN-MAG

machine gun bipod could be fitted.Cartridge: 7.62 x 5 NATO.Length: 43.98in (1117mm).Weight: 10lb 11oz (4.9kg).Barrel: 19.76in (502mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2790 fps (850 m/s).

M1889 Infantry Rifle1892. A new small-caliber design with a one-piece bolt. Charger-loaded

integral box magazine Cartridge: 7.65 x 53 Mauser.Length: 48.6in (1235mm).Weight: 8lb 13oz (3.99kg).Barrel: 29.1 3(740mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 2133 fps (650 m/s).

M1889 Civil Guard RifleThe infantry rifle but with the bolt handle turned down.Details: as M1889 Infantry Rifle.

1889 Cavalry CarbineAs infantry rifle but shorter.Cartridge: 7.65 x 53 Mauser.Length: 34.8in (885mm).Weight: 6lb 10oz (3.0kg).Barrel: 15.8in (400mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 1837 fps (560 m/s).

1889 Dismounted Troops’ CarbineA short rifle rather than a carbine.Cartridge: 7.65 x 53M Mauser.


Length: 41.1in (1045mm).Weight: 7lb 12oz (3.5kg).Barrel: 21.65in (550mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 1919 fps (585 m/s).

1889 Mounted Gendarmerie CarbineAs cavalry carbine but fully stocked.Cartridge: 7.65 x 53 Mauser.Length: 34.8in (885mm).Weight: 6lb 12oz (3.1kg).Barrel: 15.8in (400mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 1837 fps (560 m/s).

M1935 Short RifleBolt mechanism based on Gew. 98, magazine inside the stock.Cartridge: 7.65 x 53 Mauser.Length: 43.4in (1107mm).Weight: 9lb 0oz (4.1kg).Barrel: 23.4in (595mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2346 fps (715 m/s).

M1889/36 RifleConversion of M1889 rifles to the M1935 specification.Cartridge: 7.65 x 53 Mauser.Length: 43.1in (1094mm).Weight: 8lb 5oz (3.77kg).Barrel: 23.6in (600mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 2346 fps (715 m/s).

M1922 RifleCommercial 1898 bolt mechanism with internal magazine.Cartridge: 7 x 57 Mauser.Length: 48.7in (1237mm).Weight: 8lb 13oz (4.0kg).Barrel: 29.1 3(740mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2575 fps (785 m/s).

M1924 RifleCommercial short rifle to replace the M1922 for export. Made in vari-

ous calibers.


Cartridge: 7 x 57 Mauser.Length: 42.91 in (1090mm).Weight: 8lb 6oz (3.8.3kg).Barrel: 23.27in (59 1mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2379 fps (725 m/s).

M1935/46Post-1945 conversions of M1935 rifles to U.S. .30-06 cartridge.Cartridge: .30-06 Springfield.Length: 43.5in (1105mm).Weight: 8lb 15oz (4.1kg).Barrel: 23.2in (590mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2740 fps (835 m/s).

BOLIVIA

M1895 RifleThe Argentine M1891 rifle.

M1907 RifleThe Mauser Gewehr 98 as exported, firing the 7.65 x 53mm cartridge.

M1950 RifleThe Czech Model 1924 in 7.65mm caliber and with some minor

changes.

BRAZIL

ImbelMD2

1985. A 5.56mm rifle based on the FN-FAL, made under license. Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm M193 or NATO.Length, butt extended: 40.5in (1030mm).Length, butt folded: 30.1in (764mm).Weight: 9lb 11oz (4.4kg).Barrel: 17.8in (453mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20- or 30-round box.M/v: 3150 fps (960 m/s).Rate of fire: 700 rpm.

MD31985. As MD2, but fixed plastic butt.Details: As MD2 but weight: 10lb 1oz (4.6kg).

300 APPENDIX B: BOLIVIA

M1894 RifleSimilar to Spanish M1893.Cartridge: 7 x 57 Mauser.Length: 48.6in (1235mm).Weight: 8lb l4oz (4.0kg).Barrel: 29.0in (738mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2300 fps (700 m/s).

M1904 RifleAs the German Gewehr 98 except caliber.Cartridge: 7 x 57 Mauser.Length: 49.2in (1249mm).Weight: 8lb 13oz (4.0kg).Barrel: 29.0in (738mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2300 fps (700 m/s).

M1908 RifleDetails: as M1904 rifle.

CANADA

Diemaco (Colt license holder in Canada)C7 Rifle

1984. Canadian version of M16A2. No 3-round burst capability. Cartridge: 5.56 x 45 NATO.Length: 40.15in (1020mm).Weight: 76 4oz (3.3kg).Barrel: 20.0in (510mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 3035 fps (925 m/s).Rate of fire: 800 rpm.

C7A1Rifle1990. Improved C7 with optical sight.Details: as C7 rifle.

C8 Assault Carbine1984. Compact C7, with a telescopic butt and a shorter barrel.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45 NATO.Length, butt extended: 33.1in (840mm).Length, butt folded: 29.92in (760mm).Weight: 5lb 15oz (2.7kg).Barrel: 14.6in (370mm), 6 grooves, rh.

APPENDIX B: CANADA 301


C8A1 Assault Carbine.1990. C8 with telescope sight. Used by Netherlands special forces. Details: as C8.

RossThere were two types of Ross rifles: the 1905 and the 1910. Both usedstraight-pull bolts.

Rifle, Ross, Mark 11905. Cartridge: .303 British.Length: 48.63in (1235mm).Weight: 8lb 1oz (3.64kg).Barrel: 28.0in (711mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5 round integral box.M/v: 2000 fps (610 m/s).

Rifle, Ross, Mark 21909. As Mark 1 but with improved sight, modified bolt cocking on

opening, and chamber dimensions to British service standard.Details: as for Mark 1.A number of variations were made.

Rifle, Ross, Mark 3Improved 1910 pattern.

Rifle, Ross, Mark 3*As Mark 3, with small changes to improve the locking.

Rifle, Ross, Mark 3BCa. 1918. The only Ross rifle to be formally accepted into British ser-

vice (the others were used by the Canadian Army). It was the Mark 3or 3* with the addition of a Lee-Enfield–style magazine cut-off.

Cartridge: .303 British.Length: 50.56in (1285mm).Weight: 9lb 14oz (4.5kg).Barrel: 30.2in (775mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5 round box.M/v: 2600 fps (790 m/s).

302 APPENDIX B: CANADA

CHILE

M1895 RifleAs Brazilian M1894.Cartridge: 7 x 57 Mauser.Length: 48.5in (1232mm).Weight: 8lb l4oz (4.0kg).Barrel: 29.1in (738mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2700 fps (823 m/s).

M1895 Short RifleShortened rifle, bolt handle turned down.

1895 CarbineBolt and magazine as the rifle, but shorter than short rifle. Cartridge: 7 x 57 Mauser.Length: 37.0in (940mm).Weight: 7lb 8oz (3.4kg).Barrel: 1825in (464mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2600 fps (790 m/s).

M1904 RifleAs the Brazilian M1904.

CHINA

State Arsenal1912–1925. Based on German Commission Rifle M1888. Bolt action,Mannlicher-type clip-loading magazine.

Cartridge: 7.92 x 57 Mauser.Length: 49.3in (1251mm).Weight: 8lb 8oz (3.9kg).Barrel: 29.3in (743mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: cc 2067 fps (630 m/s).

Generalissimo “Chiang-Kai-Shek” Rifle1936–1949, based on the Mauser M1898. Cartridge: 7.92 x 57 Mauser.Length: 43.8in (1111mm).Weight: 9lb 0oz (4.1kg).Barrel: 23.6in (600mm), 4 grooves, rh.

APPENDIX B: CHINA 303

Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: cc 2690 fps (825 m/s).

Type 56 Carbine1956. Exact copy of the Russian Simonov SKS.

Type 68 Rifle1968. As Simonov SKS but uses Kalashnikov bolt system.Cartridge: 7.62 x 39mm Soviet. M1943.Length: 40.5in (1030mm).Weight: 71lb 11oz (3.49kg).Barrel: 20.5in (521mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 15-round box.M/v: 2395 fps (730 m/s).Rate of fire: 750 rpm.

Type 79 Sniping Rifle1979. Exact copy of Russian Dragunov SVD sniping rifle.

Type 81 Assault Rifle1981. Improved Type 68. Cartridge: 7.62 x 39mm Soviet M1943.Length: 37.6in (955mm).Weight: 7lb 8oz (3.4kg).Barrel: 15.8in (400mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 2395 fps (730 m/s).Rate of fire: 750 rpm.

Type CQ Assault RifleCa. 1988. Chinese copy of the M16A.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm M193.Length: 38.9in (987mm).Weight: 7lb loz (3.2kg).Barrel: 19.9in (505mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20-round box.M/v: 3248 fps (990 m/s).Rate of fire: 750 rpm.

Type 561956. Similar to AK-47.

Type 56-1Ca. 1956. Similar to AK-S.

Type 56-2As Type 56-1 but with skeleton folding butt.

304 APPENDIX B: CHINA

Type 56-CCa. 1956. Uses plastic furniture as AK74.Cartridge: 7.62 x 39mm M1943.Length, butt extended: 30.1 in (765mm).Length, butt folded: 22.2in (563mm).Weight: 7lb 11oz (350kg).Barrel: 13.6in (345mm). 4 grooves. rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 2296 fps (700 m/s).Rate of fire: 700 rpm.

M1904 RifleSteyr rotating bolt action, clip-loader. Sold to China.Cartridge: 7.92 x 57 Mauser.Length: 48.2in (1225mm).Weight: 8lb 3oz (4.0kg).Barrel: 28.5in (725mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 2247 fps (685 m/s).

1895 RifleThe Chilean M1895.

Model 21 Short RiflePost-1924. Chinese-manufactured copy of Belgian M1924 in 7.92

Mauser caliber.

COLOMBIA

M1891 RifleThe Argentinian M1891.

M1904 RifleThe Brazilian M1904.

COSTA RICA

M1895 RifleThe Chilean M1895.

M1910 RifleBased on Gew. 98.Cartridge: 7 x 57 Mauser.Length: 48.8in (1240mm).

APPENDIX B: COSTA RICA 305

Weight: 8lb 12oz (4.0kg).Barrel: 29.13in (740mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2494 fps (760 m/s).

CROATIA

APS95 Assault Rifle1995. Based on the Israeli Galil.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45 NATO.Length, butt extended: 38.6in (980mm).Length, butt folded: 28.7in (730mm).Weight: 8lb 2.5oz (3.7kg).Barrel: 17.7 in (450mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 35-round box.M/v: 3002 fps (915 m/s).Rate of fire: 650 rpm.

E992 Sniping Rifle1995. Bolt-action. Iron sights and telescope mount.Cartridge: 7.62 x 51 NATO.Length: 47.8in (1215mm).Weight: 141lb 5oz (6.5kg).Barrel: 22.2in (565mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 2854 fps (870 m/s).

EM992 Sniping Rifle1995. As E992 but chambered and rifled for the .300 Winchester Mag-

num cartridge to give extra range and power.Cartridge: .300 Winchester Magnum.Length: 49.0in (1245mm).Weight: 14lb 9oz (6.6kg).Barrel: 22.8in (580mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 4-round box.M/v: 3395 fps (1035 m/s).

MACS Sniping Rifle1990s. Single shot, bolt action. Cartridge: .50 Browning.Length: 57.9in (1470mm).Weight: 25lb 6oz (11.5kg).Barrel: 30.7in (780mm), 8 grooves, rh.M/v: 2805 fps (855 m/s).

306 APPENDIX B: CROATIA

CZECHOSLOVAKIA

ZH 29 Rifle 1929. Semi-automatic with piston. Cartridge: 7.92 x 57 Mauser.Length: 45.5in (1155mm).Weight: 10lb 0oz (4.5kg).Barrel: 21.5in (545mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 10- or 25-round box.M/v: 2700 fps (823 m/s).

ZK 420 1946. Similar to AK pattern. The vz 52 was preferred.Cartridge: 7.92 x 57 Mauser.Length: 41.3in (1047mm).Weight: 10lb 0oz (4.5kg).Barrel: 21.0in (533mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 10-round box.M/v: 2700 fps (823 m/s).

vz 52 1953. Semi-automatic, gas operated. Cartridge: 7.62 x 45mm.Length: 40.0in (1015mm).Weight: 9lb 0oz (4.1kg).Barrel: 20.5in (520mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 10-round box.M/v: 2440 fps (743 m/s).

vz 52/56Ca. 1952. Vz 52 rebarrelled to fire WarPac standard 7.62 x 39mm car-

tridge. M/v reduced to 2705 fps (825 m/s).Details: as vz 52 except for M/v.

vz 58 CZCa. 1958. Composite AK-47/vz 52 designs.Cartridge: 7.62 x 39mm 1943.Length, butt extended: 33.2in (843mm).Length, butt folded: 25.164 (640mm).Weight: 6lb l4oz (3.1 kg).Barrel: 15.8in (400mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 2330 fps (710 m/s).Rate of fire: 800 rpm.

APPENDIX B: CZECHOSLOVAKIA 307

CZ 2000 Assault Rifle1995. Newly developed for the 5.56 NATO cartridge. Gas operated.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45 NATO.Length: 33.46in (850mm).Weight: 6lb 9oz (3.0kg).Barrel: 15.0in (382mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 2985 fps (910 m/s).Rate of fire: 800 rpm.

CZ 2000 Short Assault Rifle1995. Cartridge: 5.56 x 45 NATO.Length: 26.6in (675mm).Weight: 5lb 12oz (2.6kg).Barrel: 7.3in (185mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 2887 fps (880 m/s).Rate of fire: 800 rpm.

M96 Falcon Anti-Materiel Rifle 1995. Bolt action magazine rifle. Cartridge: 12.7 x 108mm DShK.Length: 54.3in (1380mm).Weight with 5 rounds: 32lb 4oz (14.92kg).Barrel: 36.5in (927mm), 8 grooves, rh.Magazine: 2- or 5-round box.M/v: 2789 fps (850 m/s).

M1898/22 Rifle1922. Based on Mexican M1912 rifle; M1898 bolt action.Cartridge: 7.92 x 57 Mauser.Length: 48.8in (1240mm).Weight: 9lb 5oz (4.2kg).Barrel: 29.1in (740mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2854 fps (870 m/s).

1898/29 Short RifleFor export M1924 short rifle.

1924 Short RifleShorter M1898/22t.Cartridge: 7.92 x 57 Mauser.

308 APPENDIX B: CZECHOSLOVAKIA

Length: 43.2in (1098mm).Weight: 9lb 2oz (4.1kg).Barrel: 23.2in (590mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2756 fps (840 m/s).

1933 Gendarmerie CarbineShortened M1924 rifle. Cartridge: 7.92 x 57 Mauser.Length: 39.2 in (996mm).Weight: 7lb 11oz (3.5kg).Barrel: 17.9in (455mm), 4 grooves, d1Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2510 fps (765 m/s).

M1954 Sniping RifleAssembled from selected M1891/30 actions for the the Type D heavy

ball bullet cartridge. Optical sight.Cartridge: 7.62 x 54R.Length: 48.4in (1230mm).Weight: 11lb 7oz (5.2kg).Barrel: 28.7in (730mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 2640 fps (805 m/s).

DENMARK

BangSoren H. Bang developed a number of rifles using a muzzle cap to trapemerging gas to drive an operating rod to open the breech. Tested betweenca. 1910 and 1930 by various countries, but none was ever accepted forservice.

M1889 RifleBolt action.Cartridge: 8 x 58R Danish Krag.Length: 52.3in (1328mm).Weight: 10lboz (4.6kg).Barrel: 37.4in (950mm), 6 grooves, lh; increasing magazine: 5-round

integral.M/v: 1968 fps (600 m/s).

M1889-08 Rifle1908. As M1889, but sighted for a new cartridge with pointed bullet.M/v: 2460 fps (750 m/s).

APPENDIX B: DENMARK 309

M1889-10 Rifle1910. As M1889, but with 4-groove constant pitch rifling.

M1889 Cavalry CarbineModified M1889 rifle.Cartridge: 8 x 58R Danish Krag.Length: 43.3in (1100mm).Weight: 8lb l4oz (4.0kg).Barrel: 23.6in (600mm), 6 grooves, rh; increasing magazine: 5-round in-

tegral.M/v: 2035 fps (620 m/s).

M1889 Engineer CarbineAs cavalry carbine, but can take a bayonet.Details: the same

M1 889-23 Cavalry Carbine1923. As M1889 Cavalry Carbine but fitted for a bayonet.

M1889-24 Infantry Carbine1924. Built from converted M1889 rifles, or manufactured to the same

specification.Cartridge: 8 x 58R Danish Krag.Length: 43.5in (1105mm).Weight: 8lb 12oz (4.0kg).Barrel: 24.0in (610mm), 6 grooves, rh, increasing; or 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral.M/v: 2035 fps (620 m/s).

M1889-24 Artillery Carbine1924. As 1889 Cavalry Carbine, but with turned down bolt handle.

M1928 Sniping Rifle1928. Based on M1894 Infantry Rifle with a free-floating heavy barrel.Cartridge: 8 x 58R Danish Krag.Length: 46.1in (1170mm).Weight: 1lb 13oz (5.4kg).Barrel: 23.0in (585mm), 6 grooves, rh, increasing; or 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral.M/v: 2460 fps (730 m/s).

1877 Marine Carbine Short rifle. Dropping block breech with operating lever above the

breech. Tube magazine under the barrel. Similar in appearance to theMartini.

310 APPENDIX B: DENMARK

Cartridge: 11.7 x 42R rimfire.Length: 37.5in (952mm).Weight: 8lb 15oz (4.1kg).Barrel: 20.1in (510mm), 5 grooves, rh.Magazine: 7-round tube.M/v: 1148 fps (350 m/s).

MadsenM62. Light AutoMatic Rifle (LAR).

Gas operated, selective firer.Cartridge: 7.62 x 51 NATO.Length: 42.3in (1074mm).Weight: 10lb 9oz (4.8kg).Barrel: 21.1in (536mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20-round box.M/v: 2651 fps (808 m/s).Cyclic rate: 600 rpm.

M1867 RifleRolling block action.Cartridge: 11.7 x 42R Danish Remington RE.Length: 50.4in (1280mm).Weight: 9lb 4oz (4.2kg).Barrel: 35.71 in (907mm), 5 grooves, rh.M/v: 1230 fps (375 m/s).

1867 CarbineAs rifle, but short stock.Cartridge: 11.7 x 27R Danish Remington Carbine RE. Length: 36.0in (915mm).Weight: 6lb 15oz (3.2kg).Barrel: 21.1in (535mm), 5 grooves, rh.M/v: 870 fps (265 m/s).

1867/93 Marine RifleM1867 rifle rebuilt to fire centre-fire cartridges.Cartridge: 8 x 58R Danish Krag.Length: 36.0in (1022mm).Weight: 6lb 15oz (3.8kg).Barrel: 21.1in (740mm), 6 grooves, rh.M/v: 1980 fps (605 m/s).

M1867/96 Cavalry CarbineM1867 carbine rechambered for the 11.7 x 51R centre-fire cartridge.Details: As M1867 Carbine, except Cartridge: 11.7 x 51R Danish Rem-

ington and M/v: 1345 fps (410 m/s).

APPENDIX B: DENMARK 311

Schutz & Larsen1942 Police Carbine

Rotating bolt action repeating rifle.Cartridge: 8 x 58R Danish Krag.Length: 43.6in (1108mm).Weight: 8lb 11oz (3.93kg).Barrel: 22.6in (575mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 4-round integral box.M/v: 2133 fps (650 m/s).

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC

Carbine M21953. Similar to Beretta Model 1938 sub-machinegun.Cartridge: .30 U.S. Carbine.Length: 37.2in (945mm).Weight: 7lb 12oz (3.5kg).Barrel: 16.2in (412mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 25- or 30-round box.M/v: 1876 fps (572 m/s).Rate of fire: 580 rpm.

Rifle M621962. Gas-operated semi-automatic rifle.Cartridge: 7.62 x 51 NATO.Length: 42.5in (1080mm).Weight: 10lb 6oz (4.72kg).Barrel: 21.3in (540mm). 4 grooves, U1.Magazine: 20-round box.M/v: 2705 fps (825 m/s).

EGYPT

Misr1950s. Copy of the AKM, with very minor differences.

ARM1950s. Misr converted to semi-automatic fire only.

Haki Maadi1955. Manufactured in Egypt, modified Ag42B, and fired a more power-

ful cartridge.Cartridge: 7.92 x 57 Mauser.

312 APPENDIX B: DOMINICAN REPUBLIC


Maadi1960. A completely Egyptian model of the Ljungmann, chambered for

the Soviet 7.62 x 39M cartridge.Cartridge: 7.62 x 39M 1943.Length: 42.4in (1077mm).Weight: 8lb 6oz (3.80kg).Barrel: 22.4in (570mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 10-round box.M/v: 2395 fps (730 m/s).

M1868 RifleRolling block.Cartridge: 11.4 x 50R Egyptian Remington.Length: 50.3in (1278mm).Weight: 9lb 2oz (4.2kg).Barrel: 35.0in (889mm), 5 grooves, rh.M/v: 860 fps (390 m/s).

FINLAND

HeleniusAPH-RK-97 Anti-Materiel Rifle

1996. Single shot with vertical sliding breech block operated by hand-grip.

Cartridge: .50 Browning.Length: 52.4in (1330mm).Weight: 30lb 14oz (14.0kg).Barrel: 37.0in (940mm), 8 grooves, rh.M/v: 2723 fps (830 m/s).

M 1924 Infantry RifleRebarreled M1891 ex-Russian rifles. Cartridge: 7.62 x 54R.Length: 51.18in (1300mm).Weight: 9lb 4oz (4.2kg).Barrel: 32.2in (818mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 2830 fps (863 m/s).

APPENDIX B: FINLAND 313

M1927 Short RifleShortened M1924.Cartridge: 7.62 x 54R.Length: 46.7in (1185mm).Weight: 9lb 1oz (4.1 kg).Barrel: 26.97in (685mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 2428 fps (740 m/s).

1928 Short Rifle Another short version of the M1924 with a new system of rifling.Details: as for M1927, except Weight: 9lb 3oz (4.2kg).

M1928/30 Short RifleM1928 shortened with improved magazine and a new backsight.Details: as for M1927, except Weight: 9lb 10oz (4.4kg).

M1939 Short RifleNew design, but the same as the M1927. New rifling and larger bore di-

ameter for a new heavy ball bullet.Cartridge: 7.62 x 54R.Length: 46.65in (1185mm).Weight: 10lb 0oz (4.5kg).Barrel: 26.97in (685mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 2297 fps (700 m/s).

PeloMaker unknown1950. Self-loading, recoil-operated. Cartridge: 7.92 x 57 Mauser.Length: 43.3in (1100mm).Weight: 9lb 4oz (4.19kg).Magazine: 6- or 10-round fixed box.M/v: 2460 fps (750 m/s).

Sako

Originally a government factory; now amalgamated with Valmet.

TRG-2l1960s. Bolt-action repeater. Telescope sight mount, emergency iron

sights.Cartridge: 7.62 x 51 NATO.Length: 45.3in (1150mm).

314 APPENDIX B: FINLAND

Weight: 10lb 6oz (4.7kg).Barrel: 26.0in (660mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 10-round box.M/v: 2821 fps (860 m/s).

TRG-411990s. The TRG-21 chambered for the .338. Cartridge: .338. Lapua Magnum cartridge.Length: 47.2in (1200mm).Weight: 1lb 4oz (5.1kg).Barrel: 27.1 6in (690mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 2998 fps (9 4 m/s).

M901980s. Improved Kalashnikov; action refined and lightened. Cartridge: 7.62 x 39mm Soviet 1943.Length, butt extended: 36.6in (930mm).Length, butt folded: 26.6in (675mm).Weight: 8lb 8oz (3.9kg). Barrel: 16.4in (4 16mm), 4 grooves, lh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 2625 fps (800 m/s).Cyclic rate: 700 rpm.

ValmetM1962 Assault Rifle

Based on Kalashnikov AK mechanism.Cartridge: 7.62 x 39mm Soviet M1943.Length: 36.0in (914mm).Weight: 9lb 0oz (4.1kg).Barrel: 16.5in (419mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 2400 fps (730 m/s).Cyclic rate: 650 rpm.

M1971 Assault RifleRevised M1962. Very similar to the AK-47.Cartridge: 7.62 x 39mm Soviet M1943.Length: 36.5in (928mm).Weight: 7lb 15oz (3.6kg).Barrel: 16.5in (420mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 2400 fps (730 m/s).Cyclic rate: 650 rpm.

APPENDIX B: FINLAND 315

1976 Assault RifleImproved M1971 Assault Rifle.Cartridge: 7.62 x 39mm Soviet M1943.Length: 35.94in (913mm).Weight: 8lb 1oz (3.7kg).Barrel: 16.5in (420mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 15-, 20- or 30-round box.M/v: 2400 fps (730 m/s).Cyclic rate: 650 rpm.

1978. Long RifleHeavy-barrelled M1976. Bipod and carrying handle.Cartridge: 7.62 x 39mm Soviet M1943.Length: 41.7in (1060mm).Weight: 10lb 6oz (4.7kg).Barrel: 22.4in (568mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5- or 30-round box.M/v: 2460 fps (750 m/s).Cyclic rate: 650 rpm.

FRANCE

Berthier1890 Cavalry Carbine

Bolt action carbine. In 1901 resighted to 2000m due to adoption ofBalle D.

Cartridge: 8 x 50R. Lebel.Length: 37.2in (945mm).Weight: 6lb 11oz (3.0kg).Barrel: 17.9in (453mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 3-round box.M/v: cc 2000 fps (609 m/s).

1890 Cuirassier CarbineAs Cavalry Carbine.Details: as Cavalry Carbine, except Weight: 6lb 10oz (2.98kg).

1890 Gendarmerie CarbineAs Cavalry Carbine.Details: as Cuirassier carbine, but Weight: 6lb 13oz (3.1kg).

1892 Artillery Musketoon The 1890 Cavalry Carbine with bayonet.

316 APPENDIX B: FRANCE

1902 Colonial Rifle Light rifle for use by native troops in French Indochina.Cartridge: 8 x 50R Lebel.Length: 44.3in (1126mm).Weight 7lb 3oz (3.3kg).Barrel: 24.92in (633mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 3-round box.M/v: (Balle D) 2274 fps (693 m/s).

1907 Colonial Rifle As 1902 but larger to suit taller Senegalese troops. Bolt action.Cartridge: 8 x 50R Lebel.Length: 51.4in (1306mm).Weight: 8lb 7oz (3.8kg).Barrel: 31.61 in (803mm), 4 grooves, lh.Magazine: 3-round box.M/v: 2300 fps (701 m/s).

1907/15 Infantry Rifle1915. Designed to replace the Lebel M1886. The 1907 Colonial Rifle

with a straight bolt handle.Cartridge: 8 x 50R Lebel.Length: 51.2in (1303mm).Weight: 8lb 6oz (3.8kg).Barrel: 31.4in (798mm), 4 grooves, lh.Magazine: 3-round box.M/v: 2350 fps (716 m/s).

1916 Infantry Rifle The 1907/15 rifle with an enlarged magazine loaded with a 5-round clip.Cartridge: 8 x 50R Lebel.Length: 51.2in (1303mm).Weight: 8lb 6oz (3.8kg).Barrel: 31.4in (798mm), 4 grooves, lh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 2350 fps (716 m/s).

1892/16 Artillery MusketoonModel 1892 Musketoon redesigned to take the 3-round clip.Cartridge: 8 x 50R Lebel.Length: 37.2in (945mm).Weight: 7lb 3oz (3.3kg).Barrel: 17.8in (453mm), 4 grooves, lh. Magazine: 3-round box.M/v: 2090 fps (637 m/s).

APPENDIX B: FRANCE 317

1907-15-34 RifleBasically, the 1907/15 rebarrelled and modified to fire the 7.5mm 1929

cartridge. Magazine: Mauser integral pattern, charger-loaded. Cartridge: 7.5 x 54mm French M1929.Length: 42.5in (1080mm).Weight: 8lb 2oz (368kg).Barrel: 22.8in (580mm), 4 grooves, lh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2674 fps (815 m/s).

1902-37 Short RifleThe 1902 Colonial Rifle firing the 7.5M caliber round.Cartridge: 7.5 x 54mm French M1929.Length: 42.32in (1075mm).Weight: 8lb 1oz (3.65kg).Barrel: 22.4in (570mm), 4 grooves, lh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 2674 fps (815 m/s).

DaudeteauM1896 Rifle

Bolt action. Issued to French Navy in 1896, withdrawn 1905, replacedby Lebel rifles.

Cartridge: 6.5 x 53.5SR Daudeteau No 12.Length: 50.7in (1287mm).Weight: 8lb 11oz (3.95kg).Barrel: 32.5in (825mm), 4 grooves, lh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2526 fps (770 m/s).

Gras1874 Rifle

Single shot, bolt action with straight handle.Cartridge: 11 x 59R Gras.Length: 51.4in (1305mm).Weight: 9lb 4oz (4.2kg).Barrel: 32.3in (821mm), 4 grooves, lh.M/v: 1443 fps (440 m/s).

M1874 Cavalry CarbineAs rifle but shorter, turned-down bolt handle.Cartridge: 11x 59R Gras.Length: 46.26in (1175mm).Weight: 7lb 13.5oz (3.6kg).


Barrel: 27.6in (702mm), 4 grooves, rh. M/v: 1404 fps (428 m/s).

M1874 Mounted Gendarmerie CarbineMAC Chatellerault, MAS & MATAs cavalry carbine but fitted for bayonet.Details: the same

M1874 Dismounted Gendarmerie CarbineAs cavalry carbine but fitted for bayonet.Details: the same

M1874 Artillery MusketoonShortened infantry rifle.Cartridge: 11 x 59R Gras.Length: 38.98in (990mm).Weight: 7lb 3oz (3.3kg).Barrel: 20.1in (500mm). 4 grooves, lh.M/v: 332 fps (406 m/s).

Ml 874/80/14 RifleConversion of old Gras rifles to 8mm caliber to fire the Lebel cartridge. Cartridge: 8 x 50R Lebel.Length: 51.4in (1305mm).Weight: 9lb (4.1kg).Barrel: 32.3in (820mm), 4 grooves, lh.M/v: 2296 fps (700 m/s).

1878 Marine RifleSteyr bolt action, tube magazine beneath the barrel.Cartridge: 11 x 59R Gras. Length: 48.98in (1244mm).Weight: 9lb 15oz (4.5kg).Barrel: 29.3in (743mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 7-round tube.M/v: 1493 fps (455 m/s).

1884 Infantry RifleFrench version of Kropatschek M1878 design with increased magazine

capacity.Details: the same, except Magazine: 8 rounds, Weight: 9lb 6oz (4.26kg).

1885 Infantry RifleCartridge: 11 x 59R Gras.Length: 48.98in (1244mm).


Weight: 9lb 4oz (4.2kg).Barrel: 29.6in (75mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 8-round tube.M/v: 493 fps (455 m/s).

LebelLebel created the first modern military rifle, being the first to use smoke-less powder and a small-caliber bullet.

1886 Infantry RifleBolt-action, tube magazine in the fore-end.Cartridge: 8 x 50R Lebel.Length: 51.45in (1307mm).Weight: 9lb 3oz (4.2kg).Barrel: 32.1in (815mm), 4 grooves, lh.Magazine: 8-round tube.M/v: 2067 fps (630 m/s).

1886/93 Infantry RifleImproved M1886.

M1886 R351935. M1886/93 rifle shortened to provide weapon for motorized in-

fantry until production of the MAS 1936 started.Cartridge: 8 x 50R Lebel.Length: 37.72in (958mm).Weight: 8lb 5oz (3.77kg).Barrel: 17.71 in (450mm), 4 grooves, lh.Magazine: 3-round tube.M/v: 1985 fps (605 m/s).

MAS (Manufacture d’Armes de Saint-Étienne)Mle 1917

Gas-operated semi-automatic, using a piston to rotate the bolt. Cartridge: 8 x 50R Lebel.Length: 52.4in (1331mm).Weight: 11lb 9oz (5.3kg).Barrel: 31.4in (798mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 2350 fps (716 m/s).

Mle 1918Improved Mle 1917. Used the standard issue cartridge charger rather

than a special one.Cartridge: 8 x 50R Lebel.



Mle 1936 Infantry RifleBolt action repeater, bolt locking into the receiver behind the magazine.

Bolt handle slopes forward. Slab-sided receiver, two-piece stock, slingring, foresight on nose-cap.

Cartridge: 7.5 x 54mm French 1929.Length: 40.2in (1020mm).Weight: 8lb 5oz (3.78kg).Barrel: 22.6in (573mm), 4 grooves, lh. Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 2700 fps (823 m/s).

Mle 1936/CR39 Short Rifle1939. Short-barrelled Mle 1936 with a hinged butt. For parachute and

mountain troops.Cartridge: 7.5 x 54mm French 1929.Length, butt extended: 34.9in (886mm).Length, butt folded: 34.3in (617mm).Weight: 8lb 8oz (3.9kg).Barrel: 17.7in (450mm), 4 grooves, lh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 2560 fps (780 m/s).

Mle 19491950. The result of development work started in 1944, this rifle was is-

sued to troops in 1949. Gas operated, semi-automatic fire only, tiltingblock.

Cartridge: 7.5 x 54mm French 1929.Length: 42.4in (1076mm).Weight: 9lb 0oz (4.07kg).Barrel: 22.8in (580mm), 4 grooves, lh.Magazine: 10-round box.M/v: 2788 fps (850 m/s).

Mle 1949/561956. A later version of the Mle 1949, the main change being a NATO

standard muzzle for grenade launching. A special grenade sight wasalso fitted.

Cartridge: 7.5 x 54mm French M1929.Length: 40.2in (1022mm).


Weight: 8lb 6oz (3.9kg).Barrel: 22.8in (580mm), 4 grooves, lh.Magazine: 10-round box.M/v: 2750 fps (838 m/s).

Mle 1962Replacement for the Mle 1949 and Mle 1949/56 firing the 7.62 x 51

NATO cartridge. Approved for service as the Mle 1962, then replacedby the FAMAS 5.56mm weapon (see below).

Cartridge: 7.62 x 51mm NATO.Length: 40.8in (1035mm).Weight: 9lb 5oz (4.2kg).Barrel: 22.8in (580mm), 4 grooves, lh.Magazine: 20-round box.M/v: 2758 fps (840 m/s).

Mle FR-F1 Sniping Rifle1964. Bolt action, pistol grip, box magazine. Bipod. Normally used with

telescope. Originally in 7.5mm caliber, many were later made in7.62mm.

Cartridge: 7.5 x 54mm French M1929.Length: 44.8in (1138mm).Weight: 11lb 7oz (5.2kg).Barrel: 21.7in (552mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 10-round box.M/v: 2795 fps (852 m/s).

Mle FR-F2 Sniping Rifle1984. Improved FR-F1. Details: as the FR-F1.

Mle FR-G1, FR-G21995. Variants of FR-F2. The FR-G1 has no thermal sleeve, a wooden

fore end, and a fixed-angle bipod. The FR-G2 is the G1 with an artic-ulated bipod.

Details: the same.

FAMAS F-1 Assault Rifle1980. Bullpup, selective fire, delayed blowback.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm French.Length: 29.8in (757mm).Weight: 8lb 3oz (3.7kg).Barrel: 19.2in (488mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 25-round box.M/v: 3 150 fps (960 m/s).Cyclic rate: 950 rpm.


FAMAS G-2 Assault Rifle1994. Updated export version F-1. Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm M193 or NATO.Length: 29.9in (760mm).Weight: 8lb 6oz (380kg).Barrel: 19.2in (488mm), 3 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20- or 30-round box.M/v: 3035 fps (925 m/s).Cyclic rate: 1100 rpm.

MeunierRifle A-6

1916. Semi-automatic, recoil-operated, rotating bolt. Integral charger-loaded magazine. Limited use in World War I.

Cartridge: 7 x 59mm Meunier.Length: 50.9in (1293mm).Weight: 8lb 14oz (4.0kg).Barrel: 28.35 in (720mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 6-round box.M/v: 2608 fps (795 m/s).

PGM (Manufacturer)Model UR Intervention Sniping Rifle

Bolt action repeating rifle, bipod.Cartridge: 7.62 x 51mm NATO.Length: 40.5in (1030mm).Weight: 12lb 2oz (5.5kg).Barrel: 8.5in (470mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 2625 fps (800 m/s).

Model UR Commando Sniping RifleAs UR Intervention Model but with a lighter barrel and a folding butt.Cartridge: 7.62 x 51mm NATO.Length, butt extended: 40.6in (1030mm).Length, butt folded: 29.1in (740mm).Weight: 11lb 3oz (5.0kg).Barrel: 18.5in (470mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 2625 fps (800 m/s).

Model Hecate Anti-Materiel RifleBolt action repeater, heavy barrel, bipod.Cartridge: .50 Browning.Length: 54.3in (1380mm).Weight: 30lb 7oz (13.80kg).



GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC (FORMER EAST GERMANY)

Years of manufacture coincide approximately with the appearance of theoriginal Kalashnikov model (see Kalashnikov).

MPiKCopy of the AK-47; no cleaning rod under the barrel.

MPiKSCopy of the AK-S; no cleaning rod.

MPiKMCopy of AKM. Cleaning rod.

MPiKMSIdentical copy of the AKM-S but without shaped muzzle.

MPiKMS-72As MPiKM. Has metal butt-stock.

KKMPi69As MPiKM. A training rifle chambered for the .22in. Long Rifle rimfire

cartridge.

GERMANY

Commission Rifle

This rifle was a mixture of ideas from Ferdinand Ritter von Mannlicher andothers working as a military commission to propose new rifle designs.

M1888 Infantry Rifle Bolt action, clip-loading, with the Mannlicher clip and magazine.Cartridge: 7.92 x 57mm Mauser.Length: 48.80in (1240mm).Weight: 8lb 6oz (3.8 1 kg).Barrel: 29.13 (740mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 2100 fps (640 m/s).

324 APPENDIX B: GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC

M1888 Cavalry Carbine1890. As M1888 rifle, but shorter.Cartridge: 7.92 x 57mm Mauser.Length: 37.4in (950mm).Weight: 6lb 1 3oz (3.10kg).Barrel: 17.12in (435mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 1886 fps (575 m/s).

M1888/05 and M1888/14 Infantry Rifles Some M1888 rifles were converted to charger loading in 1907 as an econ-

omy measure, and more in 1915 as an emergency wartime expedient.Details: as M1888 rifle.

M1891 Artillery Carbine As M1888 Cavalry Carbine.Details: as M1888, except Weight: 7lb 2oz (3.2kg).

M1907 RifleAs M1888 Rifle, but changes to bolt.Cartridge: 7.92 x 57mm Mauser.Length: 47.95in (1218mm).Weight: 8lb 9oz (3.9kg).Barrel: 27.95in (710mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 2805 fps (855 m/s).

GustloffVolksgewehr VGI-5

1945. Semi-automatic, delayed blowback. Few made.Cartridge: 7.92 x 33M Kurz.Length: 34.9in (885mm).Weight: 10lb 2oz (4.62kg).Barrel: 14.9in (378mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 2150 fps (655 m/s).

Haenel MKb 42 (H)

1942. Prototype selective fire assault rifle to fire the 7.92mm Kurz car-tridge. Gas operated. About 8,000 made.

Cartridge: 7.92 x 33M Kurz.Length: 37.0in (940mm).Weight: 10lb 13oz (4.90kg).Barrel: 14.37in (364mm), 4 grooves, rh.

APPENDIX B: GERMANY 325


MP43 (StG 44)1943. Improved MKb 42 (H). Shorter gas cylinder and longer barrel. Cartridge: 7.92 x 33M Kurz.Length: 37.0in (940mm).Weight: 11lb 4oz (5.12kg).Barrel: 16.46in (418mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 2125 fps (647 m/s).Rate of fire: 500 rpm.

Heckler & KochG3 Rifle

1961. Adopted by German Army. Selective fire.Cartridge: 7.62 x 51 NATO.Length: 40.2in (1021mm).Weight: 9lb 7oz (4.4kg).Barrel: 17.72in (450mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20-round box.M/v: 2625 fps (800 m/s).Rate of fire: 550 rpm.

G3A1 Rifle1963. G3 Rifle with retractable butt.Details: As G3 Rifle except Length, butt retracted: 31.50in (800mm).

Weight: 10lb 6oz (4.7kg).

G3A2 Rifle1962. G3 with free-floating barrel. Most G3s were rebuilt to this stan-

dard.Details: as G3 Rifle.

G3A3 Rifle1964. New flash suppressor/muzzle brake to NATO standard for

grenade launching.Cartridge: 7.62 x 51 NATO.Length: 40.35in (1025mm).Weight: 9lb 11oz (4.4kg).Barrel: 17.72in (450mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20-round box.M/v: 2625 fps (800 m/s).Rate of fire: 550 rpm.

326 APPENDIX B: GERMANY

G3A3ZF Sniping Rifle1964. Specially selected G3A3 Rifle fitted with a telescope sight.Details: as G3A3 Rifle.

G3A4 Rifle1964. Retracting-butt G3A3.Details: similar, except Length, butt retracted: 33.07in (840mm).

Weight: 10lb 6oz (4.7kg).

G3A6Iranian-manufactured version of the G3A3.

G3A7MKEK.Turkish-manufactured version of the G3A3. Cartridge: 7.62 x 51 NATO.Length: 40.16in (1020mm).Weight: 9lb 6oz (4.3kg).Barrel: 17.71 in (450mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20-round box.M/v: 2690 fps (820 m/s).Rate of fire: 600 rpm.

G3A7AIMKEK.Turkish-manufactured version of the G3A4. Cartridge: 7.62 x 51 NATO.Length, butt extended: 40.16in (1020mm).Length, butt folded: 33.07in (840mm).Weight: 10lb 0oz (4.5kg).Barrel: 17.71 in (450mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20-round box.M/v: 2690 fps (820 m/s).Rate of fire: 600 rpm.

G3SG/1 Sniping Rifle1973. Specially selected G3A3 rifle fitted with a set trigger and tele-

scope sight.Details: as G3A3, except Weight, with sight: 121lb 3oz (5.5kg).

PSG 1 Marksman’s Rifle1985. Specially built, using standard action but self-loading only; tele-

scope sight.Cartridge: 7.62 x 51 NATO.Length: 47.6in (1208mm).


Weight: 171lb 13oz (8.10kg).Barrel: 25.56in (650mm), 4 grooves, rh, polygonal.Magazine: 5- or 20-round box.M/v: 2723 fps (830 m/s).

MSG90 Sniping Rifle1987. Less costly PSGI, using standard action with self-loading only,

heavy free-floating hammered barrel, no iron sights, telescope sightstandard, and adjustable butt.

Cartridge: 7.62 x 5 NATO.Length: 45.9in (165mm).Weight: 14lb 2oz (6.4kg).Barrel: 23.6in (600mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5- or 20-round box.M/v: 2690 fps (820 m/s).

MSG90A1 Sniping Rifle1997. MSG90 with added iron sights and windage adjustment.Developed for U.S. Department of Defense.Details: as MSG90, except Weight: 141lb 11oz (6.67kg).

MSG31987. As MSG90, with similar dimensions and standard iron sights as

well as telescope mount. Developed solely for the German Army.

HK32A2 Rifle1965. Variant G3A2 chambered for the 7.62 x 39mm Soviet M1943 car-

tridge. Not made in quantity.Cartridge: 7.62 x 39M943.Length: 40.2in (1021mm).Weight: 71lb 11oz (3.5kg).Barrel: 5.35in (390mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20-, 30-, or 40-round box.M/v: 2360 fps (720 m/s).Rate of fire: 600 rpm.

HK32A31965. Retracting-butt HK32A2.Details: similar, except Length, butt extended: 37.0in (940mm); Length,

butt retracted: 28.7in (729mm); Weight: 8lb 8oz (3.49kg).

HK32KAI1965. Short-barrelled, retracting butt carbine version.Cartridge: 7.62 x 39mm 1943.Length, butt extended: 34.0in (864mm).Length, butt retracted: 26.4in (670mm).Weight: 8lb 6oz (3.80kg).


Barrel: 12.67in (322mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20-, 30-, or 40-round box.M/v: 2295 fps (700 m/s).Rate of fire: 600 rpm.

HK33A2 Rifle1965. G3 firing 5.5mm cartridge.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm M193.Length: 36.2in (920mm).Weight: 8lb 1oz (3.65kg).Barrel: 15.35in (390mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20- or 40-round box.M/v: 3018 fps (920 m/s).Rate of fire: 750 rpm.

HK33A3 Rifle1965. As HK33A2, but with retractable butt.Details: similar, except Length, butt extended: 37.0in (940mm); Length,

butt retracted: 28.9in (735mm); Weight: 8lb 12oz (3.98kg).

HK33KAI1965. Short-barrelled, retracting butt carbine version.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm M193.Length, butt extended: 33.97in (863mm).Length, butt retracted: 26.774 (680mm).Weight: 8lb 12oz (3.98kg).Barrel: 12.67in (322mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20- or 40-round box.M/v: 3008 fps (917 m/s).Rate of fire: 650 rpm.

HK33EA21985. Improved HK33A2 with ambidextrous selector/safety. Rifling to

suit either type of 5.56M cartridge. Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm M193 or NATO.Length: 36.2in (920mm).Weight: 8lb (3.65kg).Barrel: 15.35in (390mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 25-round box.M/v: 3018 fps (920 m/s).Rate of fire: 750 rpm.

HK33EK1985. Retracting butt, short barrel carbine version.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm M193 or NATO.Length, butt extended: 34.14 (865mm).Length, butt retracted: 26.6in (675mm).


Weight: 8lb 12oz (3.9kg).Barrel: 12.7in (322mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 25-round box.M/v: 2887 fps (880 m/s).Rate of fire: 650 rpm.

HK33 SG/11985. Sniping HK33 with telescopic sight.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm 193 or NATO.Length: 36.2in (940mm).Weight: 8lb 1oz (4.1kg).Barrel: 15.35in (390mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5- or 25-round box.M/v: 3018 fps (920 m/s).Rate of fire: 750 rpm.

HK36 Rifle1971. Experimental rifle for the 4.6 x 36mm cartridge. Fixed magazine

loaded from prepacked box. Selective fire burst-fire facility giving 2,3, 4, or 5 rounds as required. Roller-locked, delayed blowback opera-tion. Development abandoned in 1976. G11 preferred.

Cartridge: 4.6 x 36mm Löffelspitz.Length, butt extended: 35.0in (890mm).Length, butt folded: 3.4in (797mm).Weight: 6lb 4oz (2.9kg).Barrel: 15.0in (381mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 281 fps (857 m/s).Rate of fire: 1,100 rpm.

HK53 Short Assault Rifle1973. Very compact carbine. HK33K with a shorter barrel and special

magazine.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45M93 or NATO.Length, butt extended: 29.72in (755mm).Length, butt retracted: 22.1 6in (563mm).Weight: 61lb 11oz (3.1kg).Barrel: 8.85in (225mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 40-round box.M/v: 2460 fps (750 m/s).Rate of fire: 700 rpm.

G8 Rifle1985. Was originally the HK11 machine gun, but was redesignated as a

rifle after border guard requested changes. Modular weapon system.Cartridge: 7.62 x 51 NATO.


Length: 40.5in (1030mm).Weight: 7lb 15oz (8.15kg).Barrel: 17.71 in (450mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20-round box, or 50-round drum, or belt.M/v: 2625 fps (800 m/s).Rate of fire: 800 rpm.

G8A1Rifle1985. G8 rifle, but will not accept the belt-feed modification; restricted

to use with magazines.Details: the same.

G11 K3 Rifle1990 (in service). Caseless cartridge rifle. Gas operated, rotating cham-

ber breech mechanism. Has overheating problems still not com-pletely resolved.

Cartridge: 4.7 x 33 DM11.Length: 29.5in (750mm).Weight: 8lb (3.63kg).Barrel: 21.26in (540mm), 4 grooves, rh, increasing.Magazine: 45-round box.M/v: 3,051 fps (930 m/s).Rate of fire: 600 rpm. Three-round burst rate: 2,100 rpm.

G36 Rifle1995. Designed for the German Army to replace the G11 after a bad re-

port by Special Forces. Gas operated, rotating bolt locking. Cartridge: 5.56 x 43mm NATO.Length, butt extended: 39.29in(998mm).Length, butt retracted: 29.8in (758mm).Weight: 7lb 9oz (3.4kg).Barrel: 18.9in (480mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 3018 fps (920 m/s).Rate of fire: 750 rpm.

G36K Short Rifle1995. Issued to German Special Forces. Short version of the G36.Cartridge: 5.56 x 43 NATO.Length, butt extended: 33.78in (858mm).Length, butt retracted: 24.1in (613mm).Weight: 6lb 14oz (3.13kg).Barrel: 13.0in (320mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 2789 fps (830 m/s).Rate of fire: 750 rpm.


G36E and G36KE Assault Rifles1995. Export versions of the G36 and 036K with optical sight of 1.5x

power.Details: the same as G36 and 036K.

G41 Rifle1985. Improved HK33, firing SSIO9 NATO standard cartridge. Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm NATO.Length: 39.3in (997mm).Weight: 9lb loz (4.10kg).Barrel: 16.92in (430mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 3,150 fps (960 m/s).Rate of fire: 850 rpm.

G41A21985. G41 rifle with retractable butt.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm NATO.Length, butt extended: 39.2in (996mm).Length, butt retracted: 3.7in (806mm).Weight: 9lb 9oz (4.35kg).Barrel: 17.71in (450mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 3150 fps (960 m/s).Rate of fire: 850 rpm.

G4IK1985. Retracting butt, short-barrelled carbine member of the family.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm NATO.Length, butt extended: 36.61in (930mm).Length, butt retracted: 29.13in (740mm).Weight: 9lb 6oz (4.3kg).Barrel: 14.96in (380mm), 6 grooves, lh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 3000 fps (915 m/s).Rate of fire: 900 rpm.

Mauser M1871 Infantry Rifle

Bolt action, single shot. Bolt handle straight.Cartridge: 11.15 x 60R Mauser.Length: 52.95in (1345mm).Weight: 10lb 1oz (4.6kg).Barrel: 33.66in (855mm), 4 grooves, rh.M/v: 1411 fps (430 m/s).


1871 Light Infantry Rifle1876. As M1871 rifle, but a shorter barrel. Cartridge: 11.15 x 60R Mauser. Length: 48.8in (1240mm). Weight: 9lb 14oz (4.5kg). Barrel: 29.5in (750mm), 4 grooves, rh. M/v: (418 m/s).

1871 Carbine1876. As M1871 rifle. Bolt handle turned down.Cartridge: 11.15 x 60R Mauser. Length: 39.2in (995mm). Weight: 7lb 9oz (3.4kg). Barrel: 19.9in (505mm), 4 grooves, rh. M/v: 1280 fps (390 m/s).

1879 Border Guards’ RifleAs M1871 Carbine, but a two-position flip rear sight.Details: the same

M1871/84 Infantry Rifle1885. Modified 1871 rifle as a repeater. Tube magazine under the barrel

and a lifting mechanism below the bolt. Cartridge: 11.15 x 60R Mauser.Length: 51.1in (1297mm).Weight: 10lb 3oz (4.61 kg).Barrel: 31.5in (800mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 8-round tube.M/v: 1411 fps (430 m/s).

1888/97 Infantry Rifle1895. Based on the Commission Rifle M1888, but with various Mauser

ideas incorporated. The army would have adopted it, but Mauserthen brought out the Gewehr 98, a far better design.

Cartridge: 7.92 x 57mm Mauser.Length: 48.8in (1240mm).Weight: 8lb 11oz (3.98kg).Barrel: 29.13in (740mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 2067 fps (630 m/s).

1898 Infantry Rifle (Gewehr 98).Mauser military design; three-lug bolt, charger-loaded integral box mag-

azine, large receiver ring, recessed bolt face, and a short-travel firingpin to give fast locking.


Cartridge: 7.92 x 57mm Mauser.Length: 49.2 in (1250mm).Weight: 9lb 0oz (4.09kg).Barrel: 33.66in (740mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2854 fps (870 m/s).

1898 Carbine (Karabiner 98)1899 Pattern, adopted 1900, withdrawn 1902. Gew. 98 action. Cartridge: 7.92 x 57mm Mauser.Length: 37.2in (945mm).Weight: 7lb 5oz (3.3kg).Barrel: 17.13in (435mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 1854 fps (565 m/s).

M1898 Carbine (Kar. 98A)1902 Pattern, withdrawn 1905. Gew. 98 action. Cartridge: 7.92 x 57mm Mauser.Length: 37.2in (945mm).Weight: 7lb 9oz (3.4kg).Barrel: 17.12in (435mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2608 fps (795 m/s).

M1898AZ Carbine (Kar. 98AZ or Kar. 98a)1908. Attept to provide an all-arms carbine without excessive muzzle

blast. Flattened bolt handle, turned down.Cartridge: 7.92 x 57mm Mauser.Length: 42.9 (1090mm).Weight: 8lb 3oz (3.71 kg).Barrel: 23.2in (590mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2756 fps (840 m/s).

1898b Short Rifle (Kar. 98b)1920. Refurbished Gew. 98 rifles issued to the Reichswehr in 1920–

1921. Details: as Gew. 98.

1898k Short Rifle (Kar. 98k)1935. Standard issue to the We h r m a c h t . As Kar. 98b, but shorter.

Gew. 98 action, turned down bolt.Cartridge: 7.92 x 57mm Mauser.Length: 43.7in (10mm).


Weight: 8lb 10oz (3.92kg).Barrel: 23.6in (600mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2477 fps (755 m/s).

Gewehr 98/401940. Mixture of Mannlicher and Mauser. Selected by the German

Army due to a shortage of rifles, and the Budapest factory had capac-ity. Rifle was converted to 7.92 x 57mm caliber, and to the Mausercharger-loaded magazine system, but the bolt and the rest of the riflewere of the Mannlicher design.

Cartridge: 7.92 x 57mm Mauser.Length: 43.1 in (1095mm).Weight: 9lb (4.1kg).Barrel: 23.6in (600mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2477 fps (755 m/s).

M1915 Aviator’s Rifle1915. Recoil-operated semi-automatic. Adopted in small numbers by

aircraft observers.Cartridge: 7.92 x 57mm Mauser.Length: 49.13in (1248mm).Weight: 10lb 8oz (4.7kg).Barrel: 26.6in (675mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 10- or 20-round curved box.M/v: 2510 fps (765 m/s).

M1918 Tank-GewehrFirst anti-tank rifle; a large but conventional Mauser bolt action.Cartridge: 13 x 92SR T-Patrone.Length: 61.81 in (1680mm).Weight: 39lb 0oz (17.6kg).Barrel: 38.69in (983mm), 4 grooves, rh.M/v: 3000 fps (913 m/s).Armour penetration: 25mm at 200m at 0°.

M29/40 Short Rifle1940. Kar. 98k made by Steyr- D a i m l e r-Puch from parts for export.

Based on the Polish Model 1929, the rifle was as Kar. 98k except fora different muzzle cap and slight differences in stock contour.

M33/441940. The Czech M1933 Gendarmerie carbine made to suit German

mountain troops.


Cartridge: 7.92 x 57mm Mauser.Length: 38.98in (990mm).Weight: 8lb 6oz (3.78kg).Barrel: 19.3in (490mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2247 fps (685 m/s).

Gew 41(M) Infantry Rifle1941. Gas-operated, rotating bolt. Tested, but rejected for excessive

fouling and weight.Cartridge: 7.92 x 57mm Mauser.Length: 46.1in (1172mm).Weight: 11lb 1oz (5.0kg).Barrel: 21.65in (550mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 10-round box.M/v: 2428 fps (740 m/s).

StG 45 Assault Rifle1945. Prototype only, to answer a demand for a lighter assault rifle than

the StG 44. Cartridge: 7.92 x 33M Kurz.Length: 35.2in (893mm).Weight: 8lb 3oz (3.71 kg).Barrel: 15.8in (400mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 2,100 fps (640 m/s).Cyclic rate: 400 rpm.

Model SP66 Sniping Rifle1976. Short-action bolt system with bolt handle near the front end of the

bolt. Heavy barrelled repeating rifle. Telescope mount on receiver.Cartridge: 7.62 x 51mm NATO.Length: 44.1in (1120mm).Weight: 13lb 12oz (6.3kg). Weight with telescope barrel: 25.56in

(650mm); Weight without brake, 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 3-round integral box.M/v: 2362 fps (720 m/s).

Model 86 Sniping Rifle1986. Short-action bolt system, free-floating heavy barrel with muzzle

brake. Telescope mount on receiver. Cartridge: 7.62 x 51mm NATO.Length: 47.6in (1210mm).Weight: 10lb 13oz (4.90kg).Barrel: 30.7in (780mm) with brake, 4 grooves, rh.



Model SR93 Sniping Rifle1993. Short-throw bolt action repeating rifle. Adjustable for right- or

left-hand use without tools. Heavy barrel, bipod, telescope mount onreceiver.

Cartridge: .300 Winchester Magnum or .338 Lapua Magnum.Length: 48.4in (1230mm).Weight: 13lb 0oz (5.90kg).Barrel: 25.59in (650mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 6-round box (.300) or 5-round box (.38).M/v: .300: 3238 fps (987 m/s); .338: 2998 fps (914 m/s).

Mondragon Model 1908 Porfirio Díaz Rifle

Gas-operated semi-automatic. Designed in Mexico. Box magazine.Cocking handle has lock to allow manual operation. Adopted by theGermans for aerial use as the Model 1915, having been bought fromSIG in Switzerland when their Mexican order was cancelled.

Cartridge: 7 x 57 Mauser.Length: 42.1in (1068mm).Weight: 9lb 6oz (4.3kg).Barrel: 24.4 in (620mm), 4 grooves.Magazine: 8-round box.M/v: 2050 fps (625 m/s).

RheinmetallFG 42 Parachutists’ Rifle

Gas-operated, selective fire. Fires from a closed breech in semi-auto-matic mode, open breech in full automatic.

Cartridge: 7.92 x 57mm Mauser.Length: 37.0in (940mm).Weight: 9lb 15oz (4.5kg).Barrel: 20.0in (508mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20-round box.M/v: 2,500 fps (761 m/s).Cyclic rate: 750 rpm.

Panzerbuchse 38 Anti-tank Rifle1938. Single-shot rifle with a semi-automatic vertical sliding breech

block that opened on recoil and closed when reloaded. Cartridge: 7.92 x 94mm PzB.Length: 51.0in (1,295mm).Weight: 35lb 0oz (15.9kg).


Barrel: 43.0in (1,092mm), 4 grooves, rh.M/v: 3,795 fps (1210 m/s).Armour penetration: 30mm at 100m at 60°.

Panzerbuchse 39 Anti-tank Rifle1939. Simplified Panzerbuchse 38. Breech opened by manual operation

of the pistol grip. Cartridge: 7.92 x 94MPzB.Length: 62.3in (1581mm).Weight: 27lb 4oz (12.4kg).Barrel: 42.8in (1086mm), 4 grooves, rh.M/v: 4150 fps (1265 m/s).Armour penetration: 30mm at 100m at 60°.

Panzerbuchse 41 Anti-tank Rifle1941. Solothurn design, made by Rheinmetall. Recoil operated.Cartridge: 20 x 138B Long Solothurn.Length: 83.0in (2108mm).Weight: 97lb 0oz (44.0kg).Barrel: 35.4in (900mm), 8 grooves, rh. Magazine: 5- or 10-round box.M/v: 2,400 fps (731 m/s).Armour penetration: 30mm at 250m at 0°.

WaltherGewehr 41(W) Assault Rifle

Ca. 1941. Gas operated, semi-automatic only. Rectangular box maga-zine.


MKb 42 (W) Assault Rifle1942. Designed for 7.92mm kurz cartridge, a gas-operated rifle. Curved

box magazine.Cartridge: 7.92 x 33mm Kurz.Length: 36.65in (931mm).Weight: 9lb 11oz (4.4kg).Barrel: 16.0in (406mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 2,120 fps (646 m/s).Cyclic rate: 600 rpm.


Gewehr 43 Assault Rifle1943. Improved Gew. 41 (W) with changed gas system; conventional

piston and cylinder. Cartridge: 7.92 x 57mm Mauser.Length: 440in (1117mm).Weight: 9lb 9oz (24.3kg).Barrel: 22.0in (559mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 10-round box.M/v: 2448 fps (746 m/s).

WA2000 Sniper Rifle 1985–1990. Advanced sniping rifle. Semi-automatic, gas-operated, ro-

tating bolt. Cartridge: .300 Winchester Magnum.Length: 35.563in (905mm).Weight: 15lb 5oz (6.95kg).Barrel: 25.59in (650mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 6-round box.M/v: 3238 fps (987 m/s).

Werder 1869 Infantry Rifle

Bavarian. Lightning rifle. Dropping block similar to the Martini-Henry,but opened by a lever inside the trigger guard and closed by an exter-nal lever on the pivoting shaft.

Cartridge: 11 x 50R Werder.Length: 51.18in (1300mm).Weight: 9lb 10oz (4.4kg).Barrel: 35.0in (890mm), 4 grooves, rh.M/v: 1463 fps (446 m/s).

1869 CarbineAs rifle, but firing a shorter cartridge. Cartridge: 11 x 41R Werder.Length: 37.8in (960mm).Weight: 7lb 11oz (3.5kg).Barrel: 21.65in (550mm), 4 grooves, rh.M/v: 1148 fps (350 m/s).

1869M Infantry RifleM1869 rifle action with a Mauser-pattern 11mm caliber barrel and

chamber to give standardization.Cartridge: 11.15 x 60R Mauser.Length: 51.9in (1317mm).Weight: 9lb 3oz (4.2kg).


Barrel: 34.8in (885mm), 4 grooves, rh.M/v: 1,378 fps (420 m/s).

GREAT BRITAIN

Accuracy International

Company is based in Hampshire, England. Formed in the 1970s, they de-veloped the sniper rifle adopted by the British Army as the L96A1.

Accuracy International Sniper Rifle 1985Bolt action. Cartridge: 7.62 x 5 NATO.Length: 47.0in (194mm).Weight: 14lb 5oz (6.5kg).Barrel: 25.78in (655mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 10-round box.M/v: 2788 fps (850 m/s).

AW Sniper RifleAdopted as Psg 90 sniping rifle by Sweden in 1996. Reliable in sub-zero

weather conditions. Bolt action.Cartridge: 7.62 x 51 NATO.Length: 47.3in (1200mm).Weight: 14lb 5oz (6.5kg).Barrel: 25.56in (650mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 9-round box.M/v: 2788 fps (850 m/s).

Boys Anti-Tank RifleNamed for Captain Boys, one of the design team at Enfield Lock, which

designed this weapon.

Mark 1 Anti-tank Rifle1937. Bolt action.Cartridge: .50in Boys. Length: 63.5in (1614mm).Weight: 36lb 0oz (16.6kg).Barrel: 36.0in (914mm), 7 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 3250 fps (990 m/s).Armour penetration: 21mm at 300yards at 0°.

340 APPENDIX B: GREAT BRITAIN

BSA (Birmingham Small Arms)

BSA was in business until 1973 in England. They made many service rifles,as well as aircraft cannon, during World War II.

P.28Experimental, submitted to British Army ca. 1950. Chambered for .280

round; was rejected when the .280in cartridge was abandoned. Gasoperated.

Cartridge: .280 British.Length: 42.2in (1072mm).Weight: 9lb 9oz (4.4kg).Barrel: 22.2in (565mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20-round box.M/v: 2525 fps (770 m/s).

Sterling Armament Co. Ltd.

Located in Essex, England, Sterling is best known for making submachineguns.

De Lisle carbineA Lee-Enfield bolt action attached to a .45in barrel contained by a large

and almost completely efficient silencer. Specially produced for issueto airborne troops and commandos during World War II.

Cartridge: .45 ACP.Length: 35.5in (901mm).Weight: 7lb 8oz (3.4kg).Barrel: 8.27in (210mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 8-round box (Colt 9 AI).M/v: 853 fps (260 m/s).

EnfieldRifle, magazine, .276in, Pattern 1913

1913. Mauser bolt action, integral magazine, charger loading.Cartridge: .276 Enfield.Length: 46.2in (1173mm).Weight: 8lb 9oz (3.9kg).Barrel: 26.0in (660mm), 5 grooves, lh.Magazine: 5-round integralM/v: 2785 fps (849 m/s).

Rifle, magazine, .303 in, Pattern 1914, Mark 1e Remington1916. This is the Pattern 1913 rifle mass-produced in .303 chambering

to meet wartime demands. Due to lack of full standardization of

APPENDIX B: GREAT BRITAIN 341

parts, American production was divided into three sub-Marks; theMark 1e was made by Remington Arms–UMC at their Eddystone,Pennsylvania, factory. Other weapons were made by Winchester atNew Haven, Connecticut, and Ihon, New York.

Cartridge: .303 British.Length: 46.16in (1172mm).Weight 9lb 2oz (4.1kg).Barrel: 26.0in. (660mm), 5 grooves, lh.Magazine: 5-round integralM/v: 2525 fps (770 m/s).

Rifle, magazine, .303 in, Pattern 1914, Mark 1w* (T)1918. Selected Mark lw* rifles fitted with Aldis P1918 sighting tele-

scopes in a high mount above the bolt. All Pattern 1914 rifles wereplaced in storage in 1926 and re-introduced into service as the RifleNo 3 Mark 1 on 1 December 1941.

Rifle No 3 Mark 11926. Pattern 1914 Mark 1 rifles of any manufacturer were given this ti-

tle upon the renumbering of British rifles in 1926.

Rifle No 3 Mark 1*1926. Pattern 1914 Mark 1* rifles of any manufacturer were given this

title upon the renumbering of British rifles in 1926.

Rifle No 3 Mark 1 (F)1926. Pattern 1914 Mark 1 or 1* rifles fitted with fine-adjustment

sights were given this title upon the renumbering of British rifles in1926.

Rifle No 3 Mark 1 (T)1926. Pattern 1914 Mark lw* (T) rifles were given this title upon the

renumbering of British rifles in 1926.

Rifle No 3 Mark 1 (T) A1941. Nomenclature allotted to a small (less than 100) number of No 3

Mark 1 or 1* rifles fitted with low-set Aldis sighting telescopes.

U.S. Rifle, Cal. 30, M19171917. This is the Enfield Pattern 1914 rifle redesigned to accept U.S.

.30-06 cartridges and adopted as substitute standard to alleviate theshortage of Springfield M1903 rifles in 1917. This rifle was identicalto the Enfield P14.

Cartridge: .30-06 Springfield.Length: 46.30in (1174mm).


Weight 9lb 0oz (4.1kg).Barrel: 26.0in (660mm), 5 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral.M/v: 2750 fps (838 m/s).

Rifle, .280in, E11947. Bullpup. Gas operated, roller locked.Cartridge: .280in Enfield.Length: 35.98in (914mm).Weight 10lb 2oz (4.66kg).Barrel: 24.5in (622mm), 5 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20-round box.M/v: 2330 fps (771 m/s). Rate of fire: 600 rpm.

Rifle, 7mm, No 9 Mark 11949. Originally known as EM2. Bullpup. Gas operated, locking by

hinged lugs. Introduction rescinded in 1951.Cartridge: .280in Enfield.Length: 35.0in (889mm).Weight: 7lb 13oz (4.1kg).Barrel: 24.5in (622mm), 5 grooves, lh.Magazine: 20-round box.M/v: 2530 fps (77 m/s).Rate of fire: 650 rpm.

L85A1–SA801986. Gas-operated, rotating bolt, selective fire bullpup design. Infantry

version fitted with SUSAT (Sight Unit Small Arms Trilux), opticalsight as standard.

Cartridge: 5.56 x 45 NATO.Length: 30.90in (785mm).Weight: 8lb 6oz (3.8kg).Barrel: 20.4in (518mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 3084 fps (940 m/s).Rate of fire: 650–800 rpm.

L85A2Late 1990s/early 2000s. Modified version of the SA80 by Heckler and

Koch, which at last fulfills some of the promise of 20 years ago, andwhich will function in climates other than Salisbury Plain and Cat-terick.

Details: Modifications by Heckler and Koch, but essential details asSA80.


L86A1 Cadet RifleCa. 1986. Modified. L85A1 with manual bolt. May be fitted with a

.22in RF adapter for indoor range shooting.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45 NATO.Length: 29.8in (755mm).Weight: 8lb 14oz (4.0kg).Barrel: 19.5in (495mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 10-round box.M/v: 3084 fps (940 m/s).

Lee-Enfield

Note: asterisks after a rifle type denote that minor changes had been madeto a previous model, but not enough to justify a new Mark Number. Thisbecame rather confusing during World War I, especially as some riflesboasted as many as three or four asterisks.

Rifle, magazine, Lee-Enfield, Mark 11895. As the. Lee-Metford Mark 2*, differing only in the rifling. Cartridge: .303 British.Length: 49.5in (1257mm).Weight: 9lb 4oz (4.19kg).Barrel: 30.2in (769mm), 5 grooves, lh.Magazine: 10-round box.M/v: 2200 fps (670 m/s).

Rifle, magazine, Lee-Enfield, Mark 1*1899. No cleaning rod or fittings. Otherwise as Lee-Enfield Mark 1.

Rifle, Charger, loading, magazine, Lee-Enfield, Mark 1*1907. Conversion of Lee-Enfield rifles Mark 1 and 1* or Lee-Metford

Mark 2* with the addition of a charger guide, new magazine and newbacksight.

Details: as Rifle, magazine, Lee-Enfield Mark 1, except Weight: 9lb 5oz(4.2kg).

Rifle, Short, magazine, Lee-Enfield, Mark 11903. A rifle that could be used by all troops. Lee bolt action. Charger

loading, using guides formed on the bolt head. Cartridge: .303 British.Length: 44.6in (1132mm).Weight: 8lb 2.5oz (3.7kg).Barrel: 25.27in (640mm), 5 grooves, lh.Magazine: 10-round box.M/v: cc 2000 fps (610 m/s).


Rifle, Short, magazine, Lee-Enfield, Mark 1*1906. Improved magazine.Details: as Mark 1.

Rifle, Short, magazine, Lee-Enfield, Converted, Mark 11903. Converted. Lee-Metford Mark 1* with new sights, a shorter and

lighter barrel, and charger loading. Only one made.

Rifle, Short, magazine, Lee-Enfield, Converted, Mark 21903. Converted. Lee-Enfield Mark 1 and 1* and. Lee-Metford Mark 2

and 2* with new sights, shorter and lighter barrels, and modificationsto allow charger loading.

Details: as Mark 1.

Rifle, Short, magazine, Lee-Enfield, Converted, Mark 2*1906. Improved magazine.Details: as Mark 1, except Weight: 8lb 7oz (3.8kg).

Rifle, Short, magazine, Lee-Enfield, Mark 31907. As SMLE Mark 1 sights improved. Weight: 8lb 10.5oz (3.94kg).

Rifle, Short, magazine, Lee-Enfield, Converted, Mark 41907. Modified to SMLE Mark 3 standard.Weight: 8lb 14.5oz (4.1 3kg).

Rifle, Short, magazine, Lee-Enfield, Mark 1**1909. Issued to the Royal Navy; converted SMLE Mark 1 rifles with

SMLE Mark 3 foresight and rear wing-gauge sight.

Rifle, Short, magazine, Lee-Enfield, Converted, Mark 2**1909. Naval-only conversion, as the Mark 1**, but performed on the

SMLE Mark 2 rifle.

Rifle, Short, magazine, Lee-Enfield, Converted, Mark 2***1909. The third naval conversion, as before, but applied to the SMLE

Converted Mark 2*.

Rifle, Short, magazine, Lee-Enfield, Mark 1***1914. A conversion from the SMLE Mark 1* by fitting a wind-gauge

with U notch to the rear sight and a new blade foresight to suit Mark7 ball ammunition.

Rifle, Short, magazine, Lee-Enfield, Mark 3*1916. A wartime model differing from the Mark 3 in having the maga-

zine cut-off omitted.


Rifle, No 4, Mark 11941. Similar to the short magazine Lee-Enfield, but with an aperture

rear sight hinged at the rear of the body, the muzzle exposed for about3 inches and fitted with lugs for the spike bayonet.

Cartridge: .303 British.Length: 44.4in (1128mm).Weight: 9lb 1oz (4.10kg).Barrel: 25.19in (522mm), 5 grooves, lh.Magazine: 10-round box.M/v: cc 2440 fps (743 m/s).

Rifle, No 4, Mark 1(T)1942. The Rifle, No 4, Mk 1 fitted with a tangent rear sight and pre-

pared for a telescopic sight; the butt was fitted with a check rest.

Rifle, No 4, Mark 1*1941. Similar to the Mark 1 pattern, but a simplified method of remov-

ing the bolt. Most of these Mark 1 rifles were made in the UnitedStates or Canada and are stamped “U.S. PROPERTY” or “LONGBRANCH.”

Rifle, No 4, Mark 21949. As Mark 1, but with a new trigger mechanism.

Rifle, No 4, Mark 1/21949. A No 4 Mark 1 modified to Mark 2 by having the trigger rebuilt.

Rifle, No 4, Mark 1/2 (T)A No 4 Mk 1 (T) with the new trigger mechanism.

Rifle, No 4, Mark 1/31949. A No 4 Mark 1* with trigger modified to Mark 2.

Rifle, No 4,T/W3 Mark 21956. Specially selected No 4 Mark 2 rifles fitted with a No 32 Mark 3

sighting telescope.

Rifle, No 5, Mark 11945. The Jungle Carbine. A short rifle using the bolt and magazine of

the No 4 rifle but with a short barrel, short fore-end stock, muzzleflash eliminator, and rubber butt pad.

Cartridge: .303 British.Length: 39.5in (1003mm).Weight: 7lb 2.5oz (3.3kg).Barrel: 18.8in (475mm), 5 grooves, lh.


Magazine: 10-round box.M/v: cc 2400 fps (731 m/s).

Rifle, 7.62mm, L39A11960s. A modified Rifle No 4 firing the 7.62 NATO cartridge. Cartridge: 7.62 x 51mm NATO.Length: 46.5in (1180mm).Weight: 9lb 11oz (4.4kg).Barrel: 27.5in (700mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 10-round box.M/v: cc 2758 fps (841 m/s).

Rifle, 7.62mm, L42A11960s. Conversion of the Rifle No 4 Mark 1 or Mark 1* (T) sniping rifle

to fire the 7.62 NATO cartridge. Cartridge: 7.62 x 51mm NATO.Length: 46.49in (11 8 1mm).Weight: 9lb 11oz (4.4kg).Barrel: 27.5in (700mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20-round box.M/v: cc 2750 fps (838 m/s).

Carbine, magazine, Lee-Enfield, Mark 11902. Carbine, magazine, Lee-Metford, Mark 1 fitted with Lee-Enfield

barrels.

Carbine, magazine, Lee-Enfield, Cavalry, Mark 11907. Lee-Metford Carbine Mark 1 with Enfield rifling and improved

sights.Cartridge: .303 British.Length: 39.9in (1014mm).Weight: 7lb 7oz (3.4kg).Barrel: 20.8in (527mm), 5 grooves, lh.Magazine: 6-round single-column box.M/v: 2000 fps (610 m/s).

Carbine, magazine, Lee-Enfield, Cavalry, Mark 1*1899. As Mark 1 Cavalry Carbine, but without cleaning rod and fittings.

Lee-Metford

The Lee-Metford rifle was introduced into British service in 1888, underthe official designation of Rifle, magazine, Mark 1. The rifle has the rotat-ing bolt action and magazine of James Lee, and a rifled barrel designed byWilliam Metford.


Rifle, magazine, Mark 11888. Bolt-action rifle, with a removable box magazine and a cleaning

rod inserted into the fore-end beneath the muzzle. In August 1891,the designation of this rifle was officially changed to Rifle, magazine,Lee-Metford Mark 1.

Cartridge: .303 British.Length: 49.5in (1257mm).Weight: 9lb 8oz (4.37kg).Barrel: 30.2in (769mm), 7 grooves, lh.Magazine: 8-round single-column box.M/v: cc 2200 fps (670 m/s).

Rifle, magazine, Lee-Metford, Mark 1*1892. Improved Mark 1, with several modifications found desirable af-

ter the rifle had been put into service use. The only safety was nowthe half-cock position. The sights were modified to cater to the ballis-tics of smokeless propellant (Cordite), adjustable to 1800 yards.

Details: as Mark 1, except M/v: 2000 fps (60 m/s).

Rifle, magazine, Lee-Metford, Mark 21892. Magazine changed to hold 10 rounds in two columns.Details: as Mark 1, except Weight: 9lb 4oz (4.3kg); Magazine: 10-round

box.

Rifle, magazine, Lee-Metford, Mark 2*1895. This differed from the Mark 2 in that the bolt was lengthened by

10in (25.4mm) and fitted with two grooves for a safety catch, and thecocking piece was also lengthened and carried the safety catch.

Rifle, Charger-Loading, magazine, Lee-Metford, Mark 21907. Converted Mark 2, with a bridge charger guide across the boltway

and a new magazine.Cartridge: .303 British.Length: 49.5in (1257mm).Weight: 9lb 8oz (4.37kg).Barrel: 30.18in (766mm), 7 grooves, lh.Magazine: 10-round double-column box. M/v: 2060 fps (628 m/s).

Carbine, magazine, Lee-Metford, Mark 11894. A short rifle issued only to cavalry. As the Mark 2 rifle but differed

in minor details. Cartridge: .303 British.Length: 39.9in (1014mm).Weight: 7lb 7oz (3.37kg).


Barrel: 20.8in (527mm), 7 grooves, lh.Magazine: 6-round single-column box.M/v: 2000 fps (610 m/s).

Martini-EnfieldRifle, Martini-Enfield, Mark 1

1895. Conversion of Martini-Henry Mark 3 rifles with a new shorterbarrel rifled to the Enfield system. Very few made.

Cartridge: .303 British.Length: 46.5in (1181mm).Weight: 8lb 5oz (3.77kg).Barrel: 30.1 87in (767mm), 5 grooves, lh. M/v: cc 2000 fps (610 m/s).

Rifle, Martini-Enfield, Mark 1*Post-1895. As Mark 1, but fitted with adjustable barleycorn foresight.

Few made.Details: as Mark 1.

Rifle, Martini-Enfield, Mark 21896. Converted Martini-Henry Rifle Mark 2 (as Mark 1).Details: as Mark 1.

Rifle, Martini-Enfield, Mark 2*1903. The Mark 2 fitted with the adjustable foresight as for the Mark 1*.

Carbine, Martini-Enfield, Mark 1Martini-Metford Carbine rebarrelled to Enfield standard in 1903.

Carbine, Martini-Enfield, Artillery, Mark 11895. Converted Martini-Henry Rifle Mark 3 with a shorter barrel rifled

on the Enfield system. Cartridge: .303 British.Length: 37.31 in (948mm).Weight: 7lb 4.5oz (3.3kg).Barrel: 21in (533mm), 5 grooves, lh.M/v: cc 1800 fps (610 m/s).

Carbine, Martini-Enfield, Artillery, Mark 1*1899. Differs from Artillery Mark 1 by the omission of cleaning rod and

fittings.

Carbine, Martini-Enfield, Artillery, Mark 21897. Converted Martini-Henry Carbine Mark 1 and 3 with new fitting

barrels.


Carbine, Martini-Enfield, Artillery, Mark 2*1899. Converted Artillery Mark 2 omitting cleaning rod and fittings.

Carbine, Martini-Enfield, Artillery, Mark 31899. Converted Martini-Henry Rifle Mark 2 with new .303in barrel.Details: as Mark 1.

Carbine, Martini-Enfield, Cavalry, Mark 11896. Converted Martini-Henry Rifle Mark 2 with .303 inch barrel, but

omitting bayonet fittings.Details: as Artillery Mark 1, except Weight: 7lb 3oz (3.26kg).

Carbine, Martini-Enfield, Cavalry, Mark 1*1899. As Cavalry Mark 1, but omitting cleaning rod and fittings.

Martini-Henry

Martini falling block action and a barrel rifled on the system of AlexanderH e n r y, which involved the gradual deepening of the rifling grooves forabout 11 in from the breech face before they attained full depth.

Rifle, Martini-Henry, Mark 11874. Lever-operated dropping block, steel barrel.Cartridge: .67/450 Martini-Henry.Length: 49.0in (1245mm).Weight: 8lb 12oz (4.0kg).Barrel: 33.2in (843mm), 7 grooves, lh. M/v: cc 1315 fps (400 m/s).

Rifle, Martini-Henry, Mark 21877. Similar to Mark 1, but better trigger pull.Details: as Mark 1.

Rifle, Martini-Henry, Mark 31879. Improved Mark 2.Details: as Mark 1.

Rifle, Martini-Henry, Mark 41887. Longer lever to give more powerful extraction; the breech-block

reduced in thickness and fitted with modified extractor.Cartridge: .67/450 Martini-Henry.Length: 49.4in (1254mm).Weight: 9lb 2oz (4.1kg).Barrel: 33.1in (840mm), 7 grooves, lh.M/v: cc 1350 fps (411 m/s).


Carbine, Martini-Henry, Cavalry, Mark 11877. A short rifle. A reduced-charge carbine cartridge or the rifle car-

tridge could be fired.Cartridge: .67/450 Martini-Henry Carbine.Length: 37.68in (957mm).Weight: 7lb 8oz (3.4kg).Barrel: 21.4in (543mm), 7 grooves, lh. M/v: cc 1100 fps (335 m/s).

Carbine, Martini-Henry, Artillery, Mark 11879. As cavalry carbine but fitted for a bayonet.Details: the same, except Weight: 7lb 10oz (3.46kg).

Martini-Metford Rifle, Martini-Metford, Mark 1

1889. Normal lever-action Martini-Henry design but with a .303in Met-ford-rifled barrel. Not produced.

Cartridge: .303 British.Length: 49.69in (1262mm).Weight: 9lb 6.5oz (4.27kg).Barrel: 33.19in (843mm), 7 grooves, lh. M/v: cc 2200 fps (670 m/s).

Rifle, Martini-Metford, Mark 21900. As Mark 1. Only issued to British colonial forces.Cartridge: .303 British. Length: 49.5in (1257mm). Weight: 9lb 14oz (4.5kg). Barrel: 33.19in (843mm), 7 grooves, lh.M/v: 2200 fps (670 m/s).

Carbine, Martini-Metford, Artillery, Mark 11892. Conversion of Martini-Henry Artillery Carbine Mark 1 by fitting

a new .303in barrel, chambered and rifled as for the Lee-Metfordr i f l e .

Cartridge: .303 British.Length: 37.625in (956mm).Weight: 7lb 12.3oz (3.1 5kg).Barrel: 20.6in (522mm), 7 grooves, lh.M/v: cc 2000 fps (610 m/s).

Carbine, Martini-Metford, Artillery, Mark 21893. Converted Martini-Henry Rifle Mark 2, fitted with .303in barrel.Details: as Mark 1, except Weight: 7lb 1oz (3.2kg).Converted short butt rifles:


Length: 36.8in (936mm). Weight: 6lb 5oz (3.16kg).

Carbine, Martini-Metford, Artillery, Mark 31894. Converted Martini-Henry Rifle Mark 3. Long butt, fitted with

.303in barrel. Cartridge: .303 British.Length: 37.625in (956mm).Weight: 7lb 3oz (3.26kg).Barrel: 21.0in (533mm), 7 grooves, lh.M/v: cc 2000 fps (610 m/s).

Carbine, Martini-Metford, Cavalry, Mark 11892. Converted Martini-Henry Mark 1 Cavalry Carbine with a .303in

barrel.Cartridge: .303 British.Length: 37.625in (956mm).Weight: 81lb 1.5oz (3.67kg).Barrel: 20.6in (527mm), 7 grooves, lh.M/v: cc 2000 fps (610 m/s).

Carbine, Martini-Metford, Cavalry, Mark 1*1893. Fitted with foresight protecting wings.

Carbine, Martini-Metford, Cavalry, Mark 21892. Converted from Martini-Henry Artillery Carbine.Details: as Mark 1, except Weight: 8lb 4oz (3.7kg).

Carbine, Martini-Metford, Cavalry, Mark 2*1893. Foresight protecting wings.

Carbine, Martini-Metford, Cavalry, Mark 31893. Converted Martini-Henry Rifle Mark 2, with short .303in barrel.Cartridge: .303 British.Length: 37.6in (956mm).Weight: 6lb 12oz (3.1kg).Barrel: 21.0in (533mm), 7 grooves, lh.M/v: cc 2000 fps (610 m/s).

Parker-Hale (Gibbs & Parker-Hale)

Parker-Hale produced three sniping rifles that were adopted by various mil-itary forces. The company sold its rifle business in 1990, after which theModel 85 was manufactured in the United States by the Gibbs RifleCompany.


M82 Sniping Rifle1982. Bolt-action repeater with Mauser 98 type action. Heavy barrel,

fore-end rail for bipod or hand stop.Cartridge: 7.62 x 51mm NATO.Length: 45.8in (1162mm).Weight: 10lb 9oz (4.80kg).Barrel: 25.98in (660mm), 4 grooves, rh. Magazine: 4-round integral box.M/v: 2821 fps (860 m/s).

M83 Sniping Rifle1983. Bolt action, single shot, with Mauser 98 type action. Cartridge: 7.62 x 51mm NATO.Length: 46.7in (1187mm).Weight: 10lb 15oz (4.98kg).Barrel: 25.98in (660mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 4-round integral box.M/v: 2821 fps (860 m/s).

M85 Sniping Rifle1985. Further improvement on the M82/83 pattern. Cartridge: 7.62 x 51mm NATO.Length: 45.27in (1150mm).Weight with telescope: 12lb 7oz (5.564kg).Barrel: 27.6in (700mm), 4 grooves, 1h.Magazine: 10-round integral box.M/v: 2855 fps (870 m/s).

Snider

Jacob Snider was an American, but his system was never used in theUnited States.

Pattern 1 Rifled Musket1866. Snider’s conversion of the Enfield Rifled Musket Pattern 1853.

The conversion was the insertion of a side-hinged breech block withfiring pin, converting the previous muzzle-loading rifled musket intoa breech loader.

Cartridge: .67 Snider.Length (with bayonet): 72.5in (1841mm).Weight: 10lb 0oz (4.5kg).Barrel: 39.0in (990mm), 3 grooves, rh.M/v: 1240 fps (378 m/s).

Pattern 1* BSA, Enfield & LSA1867. As Pattern 1, but with small changes.


Pattern 2** BSA, Enfield & LSA1867. With a new extractor, the underside of the block was truly circular

so as to support the entire base of the cartridge and improvements tothe hammer.

Cartridge: .67 Snider.Length: 54.3in (1378mm).Weight: 9lb 2oz (4.1kg).Barrel: 36.5in (927mm), 3 grooves, rh.M/v: 1240 fps (378 m/s).

Short Enfield Rifle P601867. Snider conversion to the Pattern 2** standard.Cartridge: .67 Snider.Length: 48.7in (1237mm).Weight: 8lb 12oz (4.0kg).Barrel: 30.5in (775mm), 5 grooves, rh. M/v: 1200 fps (365 m/s).

Artillery Carbine P611867. Snider conversion to the Pattern 2** standard.Cartridge: .67 Snider.Length: 40.3in (1022mm).Weight: 7lb 8oz (3.4kg).Barrel: 21.5in (546mm), 5 grooves, rh.M/v: 1004 fps (306 m/s).

Cavalry Carbine P611867. Snider conversion to the Pattern 2** standard.Cartridge: .67 Snider.Length: 37.4in (950mm).Weight: 6lb 10oz (3.0kg).Barrel: 19.3in (489mm), 5 grooves, rh.M/v: 995 fps (303 m/s).

Naval Rifle P581867. Snider conversion to the Pattern 2** standard.

Constabulary Carbine1867. Conversion from Rifle, Short, P56, for Royal Irish Constabulary.Cartridge: .67 Snider.Length: 41.1in (1044mm).Weight: 7lb 5oz (3.32kg).Barrel: 22.5in (57mm), 3 grooves, rh.M/v: 1020 fps (310 m/s).


Rifle, Pattern 1853, Snider, Improved Action 1868, Interchangeable, Mark 31869. As Enfield Rifle Pattern 2**, but steel barrel instead of iron.

Carbine, B. L., Rifled, Snider, YeoManry, Mark 11880. Converted from the Snider 1853 Rifle, used the Mark 3 action.Cartridge: .67 Snider.Length: 37.9in (962mm).Weight: 7lb 0oz (3.2kg).Barrel: 21.63in (549mm), 3 grooves, rh.M/v: 995 fps (303 m/s).

Swinburn Model 1875 Rifle

Lever-action dropping block similar to the Martini-Henry action, with alonger operating lever.

Cartridge: .67/450 Martini-Henry.Length: 49.5in (1257mm).Weight: 9lb 5oz (4.2kg).Barrel: 33.0in (838mm), 7 grooves, rh.M/v: 1350 fps (411 m/s).

GREECE

Mannlicher-Schoenauer M1903 RifleBolt action, rotary magazine.Cartridge: 6.5 x 54mm Mannlicher-Schoenauer.Length: 48.2in (1225mm).Weight: 8lb 5oz (3.77kg).Barrel: 28.5in (725mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round charger-loaded spool.M/v: 2231 fps (680 m/s).

Mannlicher-Schoenauer M1905 Cavalry CarbineShortened M1903 rifle.Cartridge: 6.5 x 54mm Mannlicher-Schoenauer.Length: 40.35in (1,025mm).Weight: 7lb 12oz (3.5kg).Barrel: 20.67in (525mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round charger-loaded spoolM/v: 2,057 fps (627 m/s).

Mannlicher-Schoenauer M1903/14 RifleImproved M1903.Details: the same, except Weight: 8lb 7oz (3.8kg).

APPENDIX B: GREECE 355

Mannlicher-Schoenauer M1905/14 Cavalry CarbineSimilar modifications as rifle.Weight: 7lb 14oz (3.6kg).

HUNGARY

Gepard Gepard M1 Anti-Materiel Rifle

1990s. Single-shot heavy rifle with interrupted-lug breech block at-tached to the pistol grip. Telescope mount on receiver.

Cartridge: 12.7 x 108mm DShK.Length: 61.8 in (1,570mm).Weight: 41lb 14oz (19.0kg).Barrel: 43.4in (1,100mm), 8 grooves, rh.M/v: 2,756 fps (840 m/s).

Gepard M1A1 Anti-Materiel Rifle1990s. Gepard M1 rifle mounted on a Bergen-type frame that doubles

as a mounting.Details: as Gepard M1 rifle except Weight: 48lb 8oz (22kg).

Gepard M2 Anti-Materiel Rifle1990s. Semi-automatic. Cartridge: 12.7 x 108mm DShK.Length: 60.2in (1530mm).Weight: 26lb 7oz ( 2.0kg).Barrel: 43.4in (1100mm), 8 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5- or 10-round box.M/v: 2756 fps (840 m/s).Armour penetration: 15mm at 600m at 0°.

Gepard M2A1 Anti-Materiel Rifle1990s. Shorter M2 for airborne and mobile troops.Cartridge: 12.7 x 108mm DShK.Length: 49.61in (1260mm).Weight: 22lb 1oz (10kg).Barrel: 32.68in (830mm), 8 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5- or 10-round box.M/v: 2592 fps (790 m/s).

Gepard M3 Anti-Materiel Rifle1990s. M2 rifle chambered for the Soviet 14mm cartridge. Cradle con-

tains a hydraulic recoil buffer.Cartridge: 14.5 x 114mm Soviet.Length: 74.0in (1880mm).

356 APPENDIX B: HUNGARY

Weight: 44lb 1oz (20.0kg).Barrel: 58.27in (1480mm), 8 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5- or 10-round box.M/v: 3280 fps (1000 m/s).

AKM-631963. As AKM, but forward pistol grip beneath the fore-end. We i g h s

about 5oz (20g) less than the Russian AKM.

AMD-651965. AKM-63 with a short barrel and side-folding metal butt.Cartridge: 7.62 x 39mm M1943.Length, butt extended: 33.5in (851mm).Length, butt folded: 25.50in (648mm).Weight: 7lb 3oz (3.27kg).Barrel: 12.5in (318mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 2296 fps (700 m/s).Rate of fire: 600 rpm.

NGM Assault Rifle1990s. Hungarian AK74 chambered for the 5.4mm cartridge for export. Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm M193 or NATO.Length: 36.8 to (935 mm). Weight: 7lb 0oz (3.2kg).Barrel: 16.2in (412mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 2953 fps (900 m/s).Rate of fire: 600 rpm.

M1935 Short RifleShort rifle based on Rumanian M1893, but firing the Hungarian 8 x

56R M31 cartridge. Rotating bolt, clip-loaded, box magazine.Cartridge: 8 x 56R Hungarian Mannlicher.Length: 48.8in (110mm).Weight: 8lb 14oz (4.0kg).Barrel: 23.6in (600mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 2400 fps (730 m/s).

1943 Short RifleRedesign of German M98/40 (see Mauser), using the Mauser- t y p e

charger-loading magazine. Mannlicher bolt.Cartridge: 8 x 56R Hungarian Mannlicher.Length: 43.0in (1092mm).Weight: 8lb 10oz (3.92kg).

APPENDIX B: HUNGARY 357

Barrel: 23.6in (600mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2400 fps (730 m/s).

INDIA

INSAS (Indian Small Arms System)Assault Rifle

1993. Gas-operated, selective fire, rotating bolt, based on Kalashnikov.Cartridge is based on the Belgian SSIO9 but is not NATO standard.

Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm.Length, fixed butt: 37.2in (945mm).Length, extended butt: 37.8in (960mm).Length, folded butt: 29.5in (750mm).Weight: 7lb (3.2kg).Barrel: 18.26in (464mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20- or 30-round box.M/v: 3,000 fps (915 m/s).Rate of fire: 650 rpm.

IRAN (PERSIA)

Model 1310 and 13171931. These were Czech M98/29 rifles and short rifles.

Model 1328Czech M1898/29 short rifle with changes to the sling attachments.Cartridge: 7.92 x 57mm Mauser.Length: 38.2in (970mm).Weight: 8lb 9oz (3.90kg).Barrel: 18.1 in (460mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2379 fps (725 m/s).

IRAQ

Al-Kadisa Al-Kadisa Sniping Rifle

1980s. Russian Dragunov SVD sniping rifle manufactured under li-cense.

Cartridge: 7.62 x 54mmR.Length: 48.4in (1230mm).

358 APPENDIX B: INDIA

Weight: 9lb 7oz (4.3kg).Barrel: 24.4 in (620mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 10-round box.M/v: 2,723 fps (830 m/s).

Tabuk1980s. Copy of the AKM with slight manufacturing differences.

ISRAEL

Galil7.62mm ARM Assault Rifle/Light Machine Gun

Current. Kalashnikov-type system with a Garand-type firing mechanism.Cartridge: 7.62 x 51mm NATO.Length, butt extended: 41.3in (1,050mm).Length, butt folded: 31.9in (810mm).Weight: 9lb 11oz (4.4kg).Barrel: 21.1in (535mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 25-round box.M/v: 2788 fps (850 m/s).Rate of fire: 650 rpm.

7.62mm AR Assault RifleCurrent. As the assault rifle, but without bipod.Details: as ARM, except Weight: 8lb 11oz (3.95kg).

7.62mm SAR Short Assault RifleCurrent. Shortened AR.Cartridge: 7.62 x 51mm NATO.Length, butt extended: 36.0in (915mm).Length, butt folded: 26.6in (675mm).Weight: 8lb 5oz (3.8kg).Barrel: 15.8in (400mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 25-round box.M/v: 2,625 fps (800 m/s).Rate of fire: 750 rpm.

5.56mm AR Assault Rifle/Machine GunCurrent. Reduced model 7.62mm ARM to fire the 5.56mm cartridge;

magazine curved instead of straight.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm NATO.Length, butt extended: 38.5in (979mm).Length, butt folded: 29.2in (742mm).Weight: 9lb 9oz (4.35kg).

APPENDIX B: ISRAEL 359

Barrel: 18.1 in (460mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 35- or 50-round box.M/v: 316 fps (950 m/s).Rate of fire: 650–700 rpm.

5.56mm AR Assault RifleCurrent. As AR, but with no bipod or carrying handle.Details: as AR, except Weight: 8lb 11oz (3.95kg).

5.56mm SAR Short Assault RifleCurrent. Short AR.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm NATO.Length, butt extended: 33.07in (840mm).Length, butt folded: 24.7in (614mm).Weight: 8lb 5oz (3.8kg).Barrel: 13.07in (332mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 35- or 50-round box.M/v: 2953 fps (900 m/s).Rate of fire: 650–700 rpm.

MAR Micro Assault RifleCurrent. Very short AR for special forces. Folding tube stock.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm NATO.Length, butt extended: 27.16in (690mm).Length, butt folded: 17.5in (445mm).Weight: 6lb 8oz (2.95kg).Barrel: 7.68in (195mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 35-round box.M/v: 2,330 fps (700 m/s).Rate of fire: 650 rpm.

Galil SniperCurrent. Standard Galil rifle with special modifications: bipod, heavy

barrel, muzzle brake, telescopic sight mount on receiver, two-stagetrigger. Semi-automatic fire only.

Cartridge: 7.62 x 51mm NATO.Length, butt extended: 43.9in (1,115mm).Length, butt folded: 33.07in (840mm).Weight, with bipod and sling: 4lb 2oz (6.4kg).Barrel: 20.0in (508mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 2,674 fps (815 m/s).

360 APPENDIX B: ISRAEL

ITALY

Beretta Beretta P30 Carbine

1957. Similar to American Winchester M1 carbine. Selective fire.Cartridge: .30 U.S. Carbine.Length: 37.3in (946mm).Weight: 7lb 3oz (3.26kg).Barrel: 17.91 in (455mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 1,968 fps (600 m/s).Rate of fire: ca 500 rpm.

BM59 Infantry Rifle1960. Garand M1 type with a 7.62mm barrel; also can fire automatic. Cartridge: 7.62 x 51mm NATO.Length: 43.0in (1095mm).Weight: 9lb 9oz (4.4kg).Barrel: 19.30in (491mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20-round box.M/v: 2700 fps (823 m/s).Rate of fire: 800 rpm.

BM59 Alpini Rifle1960. Modified BM59 for mountain troops. Cartridge: 7.62 x 5 NATO.Length: 43.2in (1097mm).Weight: 10lb 1oz (4.6kg).Barrel: 19.30in (49.1mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20-round box.M/v: 2700 fps (823 m/s).Rate of fire: 800 rpm.

BM59 Parachutist Rifle1960. As Alpini, even shorter barrel.Cartridge: 7.62 x 5 NATO.Length: 43.7in (1110mm).Weight: 9lb 10oz (4.46kg).Barrel: 18.4in (468mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20-round box.M/v: 2625 fps (800 m/s).Rate of fire: 810 rpm.

BM59 Mark 4 Squad Automatic1964. Heavy-barrel version, heavy bipod, and handguard.

APPENDIX B: ITALY 361

Cartridge: 7.62 x 51mm NATO.Length: 48.9in (1242mm).Weight: 12lb (5.4kg).Barrel: 21.0in (533mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20-round box.M/v: 2730 fps (832 m/s).Rate of fire: 750 rpm.

AR70 Assault Rifle1970. Gas operated.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm M193.Length: 37.6in (955mm).Weight: 7lb 10oz (3.5kg).Barrel: 17.8in (450mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 3116 fps (950 m/s).Rate of fire: 650 rpm.

SC70 Assault Carbine1970. Assault rifle with folding butt.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm M193.Length, butt extended: 37.80in (960mm).Length, butt folded: 28.9in (734mm).Weight: 7lb 12oz (3.5kg).Barrel: 17.8in (450mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 3116 fps (950 m/s).Rate of fire: 650 rpm.

SCS70 Short Carbine1975. Shorter SC-70.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm M193.Length, butt extended: 32,28in (820mm).Length, butt folded: 23.5in (596mm).Weight: 8lb 2.5oz (3.7kg).Barrel: 12.6in (320mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 2903 fps (885 m/s).Rate of fire: 600 rpm.

AR70/901990. Improved AR70. Takes M16-type magazines.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm NATO.Length: 39.3in (998mm).Weight: 8lb 13oz (3.99kg).Barrel: 17.71 in (450mm), 6 grooves, rh.

362 APPENDIX B: ITALY


SC70/901990. Folding butt version of the AR70/90. Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm NATO.Length, butt extended: 38.81 in (986mm).Length, butt folded: 2980in (757mm).Weight: 8lb 12oz (3.99kg).Barrel: 7.8in (450mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 3150 fps (960 m/s).Rate of fire: 700 rpm.

SCS70/901990. Short barreled SC70/90.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm M193.Length, butt extended: 34.5in (876mm).Length, butt folded: 25.5in (647mm).Weight: 8lb 5oz (3.8kg).Barrel: 13.9in (352mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 2952 fps (900 m/s).Rate of fire: 700 rpm.

SCP70/901995. As SCS70/90, but with gas regulator and attachable grenade

launcher.Details: as SCS70/90.

Sniper Rifle1985. Mauser-type bolt action. Cartridge: 7.62 x 51mm NATO.Length: 45.9in (1165mm).Weight: 12lb 7oz (5.5kg).Barrel: 23.07in (586mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: ca 2854 fps (870 m/s).

BernardelliB2 Infantry Rifle

1985. Rifle proposed to Italian A r m y. Beretta preferred; developmentceased in 1990.

Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm M193.Length, butt extended: 38.5in (979mm).


Length, butt folded: 29.2in (742mm).Weight: 8lb 9.5oz (3.9kg).Barrel: 18.1in (460mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30- or 50-round box.M/v: 3002 fps (915 m/s).Rate of fire: 600 rpm.

B2S Assault Carbine1985. Short-barreled B2.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm.Length, butt extended: 33.5in (851mm).Length, butt folded: 24.7in (614mm).Weight: 8lb (3.65kg).Barrel: 13.1in (332mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30- or 50-round box.M/v: 2756 fps (840 m/s).Rate of fire: 720 rpm.

Breda Model PG

1935. Gas-operated rifle.Cartridge: 7 x 57mm Mauser.Length: 43.9in (1115mm).Weight: 11lb 9oz (525kg).Barrel: 17.9in (455mm), 4 grooves.Magazine: 20-round box. M/v: cc 1885 fps (575 m/s).

CEI-Rigotti1900. Gas-operated selective fire. Operation similar to U.S. Winchester

M1 carbine. “One of the earliest selective-fire rifles which worked”(Hogg).

Cartridge: 6.5 x 52mm Mannlicher-Carcano. Length: 39.4in (1000mm).Weight: 9lb 9oz (4.3kg).Barrel: 19.0in (483mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 10-, 20-, or 50-round box.M/v: 2400 fps (730 m/s).

Mannlicher-Carcano

Mannlicher clip-loading magazine and a simplified one-piece bolt devel-oped by Salvatore Carcano of the Turin arsenal.

M1891 RifleRotating bolt, clip-loading.


Cartridge: 6.5 x 52mm Mannlicher-Carcano.Length: 50.8in (1290mm).Weight: 8lb 6oz (3.80kg).Barrel: 30.71 in (780mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 6-round box.M/v: 2400 fps (730 m/s).

1891 Cavalry CarbineShort M1891.Cartridge: 6.5 x 52mm Mannlicher-Carcano.Length: 37.52in (953mm).Weight: 6lb 15oz (3.16kg).Barrel: 17.8in (451mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 6-round box.M/v: 2083 fps (635 m/s).

1891 ITS Special Troops’ CarbineAnother short M1891.Cartridge: 6.5 x 52mm Mannlicher-Carcano.Length: 37.52in (953mm).Weight: 7lb 2oz (3.2kg).Barrel: 17.8in (45mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 6-round box.M/v: 2083 fps (635 m/s).

1891/24 CarbineAs M1891 special carbine, but with rifle sight.Details: as 1891 Cavalry Carbine.

M1891/38 Short RifleM1891 Rifle remodeled to correspond to the 7.35mm 1938 rifle in ap-

pearance but firing the 6mm cartridge.

1938 Short RifleM1891 adapted to fire the new 7.35mm cartridge.Cartridge: 7.35 x 51mm Carcano.Length: 40.16in (1020mm).Weight: 8lb 2oz (3.68kg).Barrel: 22.13in (562mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 6-round box.M/v: 2477 fps (755 m/s).

M1938 CarbineM1891 Cavalry or TS carbine rebarreled to fire 7.3mm ammunition.Details: as originals except M/v: 2378 fps (725 m/s).


Vetterli1870 Infantry Rifle

Rotating bolt action single shot. Cartridge: 10.4 x 47R Vetterli-Vitali. Length: 52.95in (1345mm).Weight: 9lb 13oz (4.12kg).Barrel: 33.9in (860mm), 4 grooves, rh.M/v: 1410 fps (430 m/s).

M1870 Short RifleShortened M1870.Cartridge: 10.4 x 47R Vetterli-Vitali.Length: 43.1in (1095mm).Weight: 8lb 13oz (4.0kg).Barrel: 24.0in (610mm), 4 grooves, rh.M/v: 1345 fps (410 m/s).

1870 Cavalry CarbineM1870 rifle action, short barrel.Cartridge: 10.4 x 47R Vetterli-Vitali.Length: 36.6in (929mm).Weight: 7lb 13oz (3.5kg).Barrel: 17.71 in (450mm), 4 grooves, rh.M/v: 1230 fps (375 m/s).

M1882 Naval RifleM1870 rifle with a tube magazine in the fore-end. Loaded through the

open action.Cartridge: 10.4 x 47R Vetterli-Vitali.Length: 47.64in (1210mm).Weight: 8lb 15oz (4.1kg).Barrel: 28.7in (730mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 8-round tube.M/v: 1312 fps (400 m/s).

Vetterli-Vitali

Adapted original single-shot Vetterli rifles to include a box magazine systemdesigned by Vitali.

1870/87 Infantry RifleM1870 rifle converted by the insertion of the Vitali box magazine.Cartridge: 10.4 x 47R Vetterli-Vitali.Length: 52.95in (1345mm).Weight: 9lb 3oz (4.12kg).Barrel: 33.9in (860mm), 4 grooves, rh.



1870/87 Short RifleConverted Vetterli short rifle to Vitali magazine rifle.Details: as original model.

1870/87 Cavalry CarbineConversion to Vitali magazine.Details: as original model.

1870/87/151915. M1870/87 Infantry Rifle reconverted to a Mannlicher-type clip-

loaded magazine and rebarrelled for the standard 6.5mm cartridge.Cartridge: 6.5 x 52mm Mannlicher-Carcano.Length: 52.95in (1345mm).Weight: 10lb 3oz (4.62kg).Barrel: 33.9in (860mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 6-round box.M/v: 2395 fps (730 m/s).

JAPAN

ArisakaMeiji 29th Year Rifle

1896. Bolt-action rifle.Cartridge: 6.5 x 51mm SR.Length: 50.0in (1271mm).Weight: 9lb (4.1kg).Barrel: 30.98in (787mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral.M/v: 2493 fps (760 m/s).

Meiji 30th Year Rifle1897. Similar to 29th Year Rifle. In British service, 1915–21, as Rifle,

magazine, 0.256in, Pattern 1900.Cartridge: 6.5 x 51mm SR.Length: 50.16in (1274mm).Weight: 8lb 13oz (4.0.3kg).Barrel: 31.1in (789mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral.M/v: 2542 fps (77S m/s).

Meiji 30th Year Cavalry Carbine1900. Shortened 30th Year Rifle.

APPENDIX B: JAPAN 367

Cartridge: 6.5 x 51mm SR.Length: 37.9in (962mm).Weight: 7lb 7.5oz (3.4kg).Barrel: 18.9in (480mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral.M/v: cc 2360 fps (720 m/s).

Meiji 35th Year Infantry RifleKoishikawa.1902. Improved 30th Year Rifle with a better bolt and a new tangent

sight. Issued to the Japanese Navy.Cartridge: 6.5 x 51mm SR.Length: 50.19in (1275mm). Weight: 8lb 15oz (4.1kg). Barrel: 31.1in (790mm), 6 grooves, rh. Magazine: 5-round integral. M/v: 2542 fps (775 m/s).

Meiji 38th Year Infantry Rifle1905. Improved 30th Year Rifle with simplified bolt and improved ex-

tractor. British service, 1915–1921, as Rifle, magazine, 0.256in, Pat-tern 1907.

Cartridge: 6.5 x 51mm SR.Length: 50.19in (1275mm).Weight: 9lb 2oz (4.12kg).Barrel: 31.45in (799mm), 4 or 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integralM/v: 2400 fps (730 m/s).

Meiji 38th Year Cavalry Carbine1905. Short version of the 38th Year Rifle. This carbine was employed in

British service, 1915–1921, as Carbine, magazine, 0.256in, Pattern1907.

Cartridge: 6.5 x S1SR.Length: 37.9in (963mm).Weight: 7lb 6oz (3.35kg).Barrel: 19.2in (487mm), 4 or 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integralM/v: 2250 fps (685 m/s).

Meiji 44th Year Cavalry Carbine1911. As 38th Year Carbine, but with permanently attached bayonet.Cartridge: 6.5 x 51mm SR.Length: 38.5in (978mm).Weight: 8lb 13oz (4.1kg).Barrel: 18.5in (469mm), 6 grooves, rh.

368 APPENDIX B: JAPAN

Magazine: 5-round integral.M/v: 2250 fps (685 m/s).

Type 99 Infantry Rifle1939. Redesigned 38th Year Rifle to fire the new 7.7mm cartridge. Cartridge: 7.7 x 58mm Arisaka.Length: 45.0in (1143mm).Weight: 9lb 2oz (4.9kg).Barrel: 25.8in (654mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral.M/v: 2400 fps (730 m/s).

Type 0 Parachutists’ Rifle1940. Experimental Type 99 rifle with interrupted screw thread joint be-

tween barrel and receiver for dismantling.

Type 1 Parachutists’ Rifle Nagoya1941. Variant of the Type 38 Cavalry Carbine with a side-hinged butt;

interim design for paratroops.

Type 2 Parachutists’ Rifle1942. Variation of Type 0 Parachutists’ Rifle with a sliding wedge joint

instead of the interrupted screw joint. Cartridge: 7.7 x 58mm Arisaka.Length: 45.27in. (1150mm).Weight: 8lb 1 5oz (4.1kg).Barrel: 25.4in (645mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral.M/v: 2368 fps (722 m/s).

HowaType 64 Rifle

1964. Gas-operated, selective fire. Muzzle brake. Straight-line layout,pistol grip.

Cartridge: 7.62 x 51mm.Length: 38.97in (990mm).Weight: 91lb 11oz (4.4kg).Barrel: 17.71 in (450mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20-round box.M/v: 2296 fps (700 m/s).Rate of fire: 500 rpm.

Type 89 Rifle1989. Gas-operated, selective fire. Muzzle brake. Replaced Type 64 in

Japanese forces. Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm NATO.

APPENDIX B: JAPAN 369

Length, fixed or extended butt: 36.1in (916mm).Length, folded butt: 26.5in (673mm).Weight: 7lb 11oz (3.5kg).Barrel: 16.54in (420mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20- or 30-round box.M/v: 3018 fps (920 m/s).Rate of fire: 750 rpm.

Type 97 Anti-tank Rifle1997. Gas-operated, full-automatic fire.Cartridge: 20 x 124mm.Length: 80in (2035mm).Weight 152lb (68.93kg).Barrel: 47in (1195mm), 8 grooves, rh.Magazine: 7-round vertical box.M/v: 2000 fps (609 m/s).Rate of fire: 350 rpm.Armour penetration: 12mm at 200m at 0°.

MurataMeiji 18th Year Rifle

1885. Final version of a design based on Gras and Mauser rifles pur-chased by Japan, perfected by Major Murata. Bolt action, single shot.

Cartridge: 11x 60R Murata.Length: 50.2in (1276mm).Weight: 9lb 0oz (4.09kg).Barrel: 32.0in (83mm), 4 grooves, rh.M/v: 1427 fps (435 m/s).

Meiji 22nd Year Rifle1889. Improved 18th Year Rifle as a smaller caliber magazine weapon. Cartridge: 8 x 53R Murata.Length: 47.52in (1207mm).Weight: 8lb 11oz (3.9kg).Barrel: 29.52in (750mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 8-round tube.M/v: 1853 fps (565 m/s).

Meiji 27th Year Rifle1889. Bolt and magazine as 22nd Year Rifle, but the magazine tube is

not exposed. Cartridge: 8 x 53R Murata.Length: 37.5in (952mm).Weight: 6lb 14oz (3.1 kg).Barrel: 19.3in (490mm), 4 grooves, rh.

370 APPENDIX B: JAPAN

Magazine: 6-round tube.M/v: 1706 fps (520 m/s).

KOREA, NORTH

Type 581958. AKM copy.

Type 681968. AKM-S copy.

KOREA, SOUTH

DaewooK1 Carbine

1982. Based on U.S. Colt M16.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm NATO.Length, butt extended: 30.9in (785mm).Length, butt folded: 23.0in (585mm).Weight: 6lb 5oz (2.9kg).Barrel: 10.35in (263mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 2730 fps (832 m/s).Rate of fire: 750 rpm.

K2 Rifle1987. Gas operated.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm NATO.Length, butt extended: 38.6in (980mm).Length, butt folded: 28.7in (730mm).Weight: 7lb 3oz (3.26kg).Barrel: 18.30in (465mm), 6 groovesMagazine: 30-round box.M/v: 3018 fps (920 m/s).Rate of fire: 800 rpm.

KIA1 Carbine1987. Shortened K2. No gas piston. Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm NATO.Length, butt extended: 32.68in (830mm).Length, butt folded: 25.4in (645mm).Weight: 6lb 6oz (2.9kg).Barrel: 10.35in (263mm), 2 grooves, rh.

APPENDIX B: KOREA, SOUTH 371


MEXICO

1895 Infantry RifleSpanish M1893, but without recessed bolt face.Cartridge: 7 x 57mm Mauser.Length: 48.6in (1234mm).Weight: 8lb 12oz (4.0kg).Barrel: 29.0in (738mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2395 fps (730 m/s).

M1895 CarbineShortened M1895 rifle. Bolt handle turned down.Cartridge: 7 x 57 Mauser.Length: 37.5in (953mm).Weight: 7lb 8oz (3.4kg).Barrel: 18.3in (465mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2300 fps (700 m/s).

M1902 Infantry RifleAs M1895 rifle, but with an 1898 bolt.Cartridge: 7 x 57 Mauser.Length: 48.6in (1234mm).Weight: 8lb 13oz (4.01 kg).Barrel: 29.1in (738mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2395 fps (730 m/s).

1907 Infantry RifleMade in Austria by Steyr. As M1902, but with a pistol-grip butt.Cartridge: 7 x 57 Mauser.Length: 48.78in (1239mm).Weight: 8lb 15oz (4.1kg).Barrel: 29.0in (738mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2300 fps (700 m/s).

Mondragon Model 1908 “Porfirio Díaz” RifleGas-operated semi-automatic with a rotating bolt. Designed in Mexico,

372 APPENDIX B: MEXICO

made in Switzerland by SIG. Box magazine. Gas cylinder exposed atfront of fore end.

Cartridge: 7 x 57 Mauser.Length: 42.04in (1068mm).Weight: 9lb 6oz (4.3kg).Barrel: 24.4 in (620mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 8-round box.M/v: 2050 fps (625 m/s) (see Germany).

M1910 Infantry RifleM1902 rifle manufactured in Mexico from 1913.Details: as for the 1902.

M1912 Infantry RifleProblems manufacturing the M1910 led to a further order for rifles

from Steyr. These were similar to the M1907 design, but most of theproduction went to the Austro-Hungarian Army.

1924 Short RifleBelgian M1924 rifle in 7mm caliber.

1936 Short RifleMexican-manufactured rifle that combined the Mauser 1898 bolt and

Springfield cocking-piece.Cartridge: 7 x 57 Mauser.Length: 42.91 in (1090mm).Weight: 8lb 5oz (3.78kg).Barrel: 23.2in (590mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2300 fps (715 m/s).

M1954 Short Rifle1936 altered to fire the .30-06 cartridge. Cartridge: .30-06 Springfield.Length: 44.1in (1120mm).Weight: 9lb 10oz (4.37kg).Barrel: 24.0in (610mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2772 fps (845 m/s).

THE NETHERLANDS

Beaumont 1871 Infantry Rifle

Bolt action single shot rifle.

APPENDIX B: THE NETHERLANDS 373

Cartridge: 11 x 51R Beaumont.Length: 52.0.in. (1320mm).Weight: 9lb 10oz (4.38kg).Barrel: 32.67in (830mm), 4 grooves, rh.M/v: 1328 fps (405 m/s).

M1871/88 Infantry RifleModel 1871 modified to take a Vetterli magazine, firing an improved

cartridge.Details: as 1871, except Weight: 10lb (4.5kg); Magazine: 4-round box;

M/v: 47

1895 Infantry RifleTurning bolt action, clip-loaded magazine.Cartridge: 6.5 x 54R Dutch Mannlicher.Length: 50.98in (1295mm).Weight: 9lb 8oz (4.3kg).Barrel: 31.1in (790mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 2428 fps (740 m/s).

1895 No 1 Cavalry CarbineAction as 1895.Cartridge: 6.5 x 54R Dutch Mannlicher.Length: 37.5in (952mm).Weight: 6lb 3oz (3.10kg).Barrel: 7.7 in (450mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 2050 fps (625 m/s).

1895 No 2 Gendarmerie CarbineSimilar to the cavalry carbine.Details: the same, except Weight: 7lb 1oz (3.2kg).

1895 No 3 Engineer and Artillery CarbineAs No 2 Carbine, but with a long handguard.Details: the same, except Weight: 6lb 15oz (3.1kg).

1895 No 4 Bicycle Troops’ CarbineAs No 3 Carbine, but with the handguard the same length as the stock.Details: the same.

1895A5 Carbine1930. Issued to the Dutch Air Force. A cut-down M1895 rifle.Cartridge: 6.5 x 54R Dutch Mannlicher.

374 APPENDIX B: THE NETHERLANDS

Length: 37.8in (960mm).Weight: 7lb 13oz (3.6kg).Barrel: 17.9 (455mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 2050 fps (625 m/s).

NORWAY

JarmannM1884 Rifle

Bolt-action, tube magazine beneath barrel.Cartridge: 10.15 x 61R Jarmann.Length: 56.95in (1345mm).Weight: 9lb 15oz (4.4kg).Barrel: 32.6in (828mm), 4 grooves, lh. Magazine: 8-round tube.M/v: 1362 fps (415 m/s).

M1884/87 RifleAs M1884 but with new sights to allow for newly adopted powder and

bullet.Details: the same, except M/v: 1625 fps (495 m/s).

Krag-Jorgensen M1894 Rifle

Bolt action. Special magazine.Cartridge: 6.5 x 55mm Swedish Mauser.Length: 49.61 in (1260mm).Weight: 8lb 14oz (4.1kg).Barrel: 29.92in (760mm), 4 grooves, rh, increasing.Magazine: 5-round integral.M/v: 2395 fps (730 m/s).

M1895 Cavalry Carbine Action rifle.Cartridge: 6.5 x 55mm Swedish Mauser.Length: 39.96in (1015mm).Weight: 7lb 8oz (3.4kg).Barrel: 20.47in (520mm), 4 grooves, lh.Magazine: 5-round integral M/v: 2100 fps (640 m/s).

M1897 Artillery and Engineer CarbineAs cavalry carbine except for fittings.

APPENDIX B: NORWAY 375

M1904 Engineer Carbine Cartridge: 6.5 x 53M Swedish Mauser.Length: 39.96in (10 15mm).Weight: 8lb 6oz (3.8 kg).Barrel: 20.47in (520mm), 4 grooves, lh.Magazine: 5-round integral.M/v: 2100 fps (640 m/s).

1907 Artillery CarbineAs M1904 Engineer Carbine except for fittings.

M1912 Short RifleCartridge: 6.5 x 55mm Swedish Mauser.Length: 43.5in (1106mm).Weight: 8lb 14oz (4.0kg).Barrel: 24.0in (610mm), 4 grooves, lh.Magazine: 5-round integral.M/v: 2330 fps (710 m/s).

1923 Sniping RiflePistol-grip stock, free-floating heavy barrel. Cartridge: 6.5 x 55mm Swedish Mauser.Length: 44.0in (1117mm).Weight: 9lb 1oz (4.1 kg).Barrel: 24.0in (610mm), 4 grooves, lh.Magazine: 5-round integral.M/v: 2330 fps (710 m/s).

1925 Sniping RifleAs M1894 Rifle, but with heavy barrel.Cartridge: 6.5 x 55mm Swedish Mauser.Length: 49.7in (1262mm).Weight: 9lb 14oz (4.5kg).Barrel: 30.0in (762mm), 4 grooves, lh.Magazine: 5-round integral.M/v: 2625 fps (800 m/s).

1930 Sniping RifleFree-floating heavy barrel, micrometer rear sight.Cartridge: 6.5 x 55mm Swedish Mauser.Length: 48.0in (1219mm).Weight: 11lb 7oz (5.2kg).Barrel: 29.5in (749mm), 4 grooves, lh.Magazine: 5-round integral.M/v: 2625 fps (800 m/s).

376 APPENDIX B: NORWAY

Krag-Peterson M1877 Marine Carbine

Short rifle, dropping block breech with lever above breech. Tube maga-zine under barrel.

Cartridge: 11.7 x 42R rimfire.Length: 37.5in (952mm).Weight: 8lb 15oz (4kg).Barrel: 20.1in (510mm), 5 grooves, rh.Magazine: 7-round tube.M/v: 1148 fps (350 m/s).

VapensmiaNM 149S Sniping Rifle

1960s. Mauser M98 bolt action repeater. Telescope mount on receiver.Cartridge: 7.62 x 51mm NATO.Length: 44.0in (120mm).Weight: 2lb 5oz (5.6kg) with telescope.Barrel: 23.6in (600mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 2690 fps (820 m/s).

POLAND

BerylBeryl Model 96

1996. Kalashnikov-type AK-47 design.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm.Length, butt extended: 37.13in (943mm).Length, butt retracted: 29.2 in (742mm).Weight: 7lb 6oz (3.35kg). Barrel: 1 8.0in (457mm), 6 grooves, rh. Magazine: 30-round box. M/v: 3018 fps (920 m/s) (NATO 5.56). Rate of fire: 700 rpm.

Mini-Beryl Model 961996. Short-barrelled Beryl Model 96.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm.Length, butt extended: 28.7in (730mm).Length, butt retracted: 20.66in (525mm).Weight: 6lb 10oz (3.0kg).Barrel: 9.3in (235mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20- or 30-round box.M/v: 2526 fps (770 m/s) (NATO 5.56).Rate of fire: 700 rpm.

APPENDIX B: POLAND 377

M281928. Based on U.S. M1918.Cartridge: 7.92 x 57mm Mauser.Length: 47.83in (1215mm).Weight: 20lb 15oz (9.5kg).Barrel: 24.0in (610mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20-round box.M/v: 2788 fps (850 m/s).Rate of fire: 600 rpm.

PMK1960s. Copy of AK-47. The same title is applied to a copy of the AK-S.

PMK-MCopies of both the AK-47 and AKM-S are covered by this designation.

Tantal 881988. This is the Polish version of the AKS-74. Cartridge: 5.45 x 43mm.Length, butt extended: 37.13 (943mm).Length, butt folded: 29.2in (742mm)Weight: 7lb 8oz (3.4kg).Barrel: 16.65in (423mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 2887 fps (880 m/s).Rate of fire: 650 rpm.

Tantal 891989. As Tantal 88, but chambered for 5.45 x 4mm cartridge.M/v: 2953 fps (900 m/s).

Marosczek 1935. wz/35 Anti-tank Rifle

Bolt-action repeating rifle. Muzzle brake.Cartridge: 7.92 x 107mm Marosczek.Length: 70.0in (1780mm).Weight: 19lb 8oz (8.9kg).Barrel: 47.3in (1200mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 10-round box.M/v: 4198 fps (1280 m/s).Armour penetration: 20mm at 300m at 0°.

State Manufacture1898 Infantry Rifle

1920. Polish copy of German Gew. 98 Infantry rifle.

378 APPENDIX B: POLAND

M1898 Short Rifle1920. Polish copy of the German Kar. 98AZ.

M1929 Short Rifle1930. Based on Czech M1924 rifle.Cartridge: 7.92 x 57mm Mauser.Length: 43.4in (1102mm).Weight: 9lb (4.09kg).Barrel: 23.6in (600mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2477 fps (755 m/s).

Onyx Type 89

1989. Polish version of the AK74 SU. Cartridge: 5.45 x 39.5MLength, butt extended: 28.35in (720mm).Length, butt retracted: 20.256in (519mm).Weight: 6lb 6oz (2.9kg).Barrel: 8.2in (207mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 2296 fps (700 m/s).Cyclic rate: 700 rpm.

Type 91 1991. As Type 89, but chambered for the 5.56 x 4mm cartridge. Details: the same, except M/v: 2330 fps (710 m/s).

PORTUGAL

Guedes M1885 Rifle

Breech block operated by trigger guard. Single shot. Cartridge: 8 x 60R Guedes.Length: 47.91 in (1217mm).Weight: 9lb 0oz (4.10kg).Barrel: 33.27in (845mm), 4 grooves, rh.M/v: 1706 fps (520 m/s).

1886 Infantry RifleBolt action, tube magazine. As French M1878 rifle but with a new bolt

and cartridge elevator mechanism.Cartridge: 8 x 60R Guedes (M73).Length: 51.97in (1320mm).

APPENDIX B: PORTUGAL 379

Weight: 10lb 1oz (4.6kg).Barrel: 31.6in (802mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 8-round tube.M/v: 755 fps (535 m/s).

1886/89 Infantry RifleM1886 rifles for colonial troops.

1886 Fiscal Guard CarbineShort M1886 rifle. Cartridge: 8 x 60R Guedes.Length: 45.9in (1165mm).Weight: 9lb 6oz (4.3kg).Barrel: 25.9in (657mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 6-round tube.M/v: 1558 fps (475 m/s).

M1886 Cavalry CarbineA short version of the infantry rifle.Cartridge: 8 x 60R Guedes.Length: 40.256in (1025mm).Weight: 8lb 13oz (4.0kg).Barrel: 20.5in (521mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round tube.M/v: 1394 fps (425 m/s).

M937, 937A Short Rifle1937. Very similar to Kar. 98k.Cartridge: 7.92 x 57mm Mauser.Length: 43.4in (1103mm).Weight: 8lb 12oz (3.96kg).Barrel: 19.69in (500mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2428 fps (740 m/s).

Mauser-VergueiroM1904 Rifle

Mauser action, but the bolt itself is more like the Mannlicher.Cartridge: 6.5 x 58 Mauser-Vergueiro.Length: 48.7in (1223mm).Weight: 8lb 6oz (3.80kg).Barrel: 29.1in (738mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2345 fps (715 m/s).

380 APPENDIX B: PORTUGAL

RUMANIA

AK weapon copies. Dates of manufacture correspond approximately withappearance of the original.

AKMCopies of Russian AK and AKM-S are both found under this designation.

AKM-RCompact copy of AKM. Short barrel ending at the front sight, smaller

magazine.Cartridge: 7.62 x 39mm M1943.Length, butt extended: 29.5 in (750mm).Length, butt folded: 21.65in (550mm).Weight: 6lb 13oz (3.10kg).Barrel: 8.1 in (305mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20-round box.M/v: 2854 fps (870 m/s).Rate of fire: 600 rpm.

AK-74As Russian AK-74, but the front handguard extends all the way to the

end of the gas cylinder. The fore-end has usual Rumanian handgrip.Cartridge: 5.45 x 39mm.Length: 37.0in (940mm).Weight: 7lb 8oz (3.4kg).Barrel: 16.34in (415mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 2887 fps (880 m/s).Rate of fire: 700 rpm.

M1892 RifleRotating bolt, clip-loading box magazine.Cartridge: 6.5 x 54R Rumanian Mannlicher.Length: 48.31 in (1227mm).Weight: 8lb 15oz (4.1kg).Barrel: 28.54in (725mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 2395 fps (730 m/s).

M1893 RifleImproved M1892. Changes to the bolt to prevent it from being incor-

rectly assembled.Details: as M1892.

APPENDIX B: RUMANIA 381

1893-03 CarbineShort M1893 rifle, with a turned-down bolt handleCartridge: 6.5 x 54R Rumanian Mannlicher.Length: 37.5in (952mm).Weight: 7lb 4oz (3.29kg).Barrel: 7.7 in (450mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 2312 fps (705 m/s).

1879 Peabody-Martini RifleL e v e r-action dropping block, single-shot rifle, based upon the Tu r k i s h

M1874.Cartridge: 11.4 x 60R Peabody-Martini.Length: 49.0in (1245mm).Weight: 9lb 7oz (4.4kg).Barrel: 33.26in (845mm), 5 grooves, rh.M/v: cc 1492 fps (450 m/s).

RUSSIA (INCLUDING ALL PARTS OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION)

M1868 Infantry Rifle Also called the Berdan 1 Rifle. Lifting block type.Cartridge: 10.6 x 57.5R.Length: 53.0in (1346mm).Weight: 9lb 6oz (4.3kg).Barrel: 32.5in (825mm), 6 grooves, rh.M/v: 1450 fps (442 m/s).

M1870 Infantry RifleAlso called the Berdan II Rifle. Bolt action, single shot. Cartridge: 10.6 x 57.5R.Length: 53.35in (1355mm).Weight: 9lb 9oz (4.35kg).Barrel: 32.80in (833mm), 6 grooves, rh.M/v: 1433 fps (437 m/s).

1870 CarbineShort M1870. Adopted by Bulgaria as M1880.Cartridge: 10.6 x 57.5R.Length: 38.0in (965mm).Weight: 6lb 3oz (2.80kg).Barrel: 18.7in (475mm), 6 grooves, rh.M/v: 1187 fps (362 m/s).

382 APPENDIX B: RUSSIA

M1870 Dragoon RifleVariant of M1870 Infantry Rifle.Cartridge: 10.6 x 57.5R.Length: 48.7in (1237mm).Weight: 7lb 1 4oz (3.6kg).Barrel: 28.35in (720mm), 6 grooves, rh.M/v: 1263 fps (385 m/s).

M1870 Cossack RifleAs Dragoon Rifle, except Length: 48.0in (1219mm); Weight: 7lb 8oz

(3.38kg).

M1895 Three-Line Berdan NagantConversion of M1870 Infantry Rifle and Cavalry Carbine to fire 7.62 x

54R cartridges. Cartridge: 7.62 x 54R (rifle version only). Length: 52.1in (1322mm).Weight: 9lb 5oz (4.2kg).Barrel: 31.6in (802mm), 4 grooves, rh.M/v: 985 fps (605 m/s).

Degtyarev PTRD Anti-tank Rifle

1941. Bolt action, single shot.Cartridge: 14.5 x 114mm Soviet.Length: 78.7in (2000mm).Weight: 38lb 2oz (17.29 kg).Barrel: 48.30in (1227mm), 8 grooves, rh.M/v: 3320 fps (1010 m/s).Armour penetration: 25m at 500m at 0°.

Dragunov (Russian State Factories)SVD Sniping Rifle

1963. Kalashnikov mechanism but short-stroke piston. Semi-automaticonly.

Cartridge: 7.62 x 54R Russian.Length: 48.22in (1225mm).Weight: 9lb 7oz (4.3kg).Barrel: 24.5in (622mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 10-round box.M/v: 2723 fps (830 m/s).

Federov AVF Avtomat

1913. Short-recoil selective fire, full-stocked, integral magazine.

APPENDIX B: RUSSIA 383

Cartridge: 6.5 x 51SR Arisaka.Length: 49.4 in (1253mm).Weight: 10lb 2oz (4.6kg). Barrel: 31.5in (800mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 2400 fps (730 m/s).

AVF Avtomat1916. Improved and reduced in size. Forward handgrip, curved detach-

able magazine. Cartridge: 6.3 x S1SR Arisaka.Length: 38.4in (973mm).Weight: 9lb 13oz (4.45kg).Barrel: 20.47in (320mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 25-round box.M/v: 2313 fps (703 m/s).

Kalashnikov

All Kalashnikov military rifles operate with the same basic gas-piston androtating-bolt system. Features for recognition are the short fore-end andhandguard, the gas cylinder above the barrel, and the curved magazine.

AK-471949.Cartridge: 7.62 x 39mm M1943.Length: 34.2 in (869mm).Weight: 9lb 7oz (4.3kg).Barrel: 16.3in (414mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 2329 fps (710 m/s).Rate of fire: 775 rpm.

AK-S1950. As AK-47, but with a folding wire butt.Details: as AK-47 except Length, butt folded: 27.5in (699mm).

AKM1959. Modified AK-47 with manufacturing shortcuts. Cartridge: 7.62 x 39mm M1943.Length: 34.49in (876mm).Weight: 8lb 7oz (3.8kg).Barrel: 16.3in (414mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 2329 fps (710 m/s).Rate of fire: 775 rpm.


AKM-S1960. As AKM, but with steel folding stock as AK-S.Details: As AKM, except Length, butt folded: 25.9in (657mm); Length,

butt extended: 35.2in (895mm); Weight: 7lb 13oz (3.5kg).

AKM-SU1975. Shortened AKM-S for armoured infantry. Cartridge: 7.62 x 39mm M1943.Length: 28.4in (722mm).Weight: 7lb 6oz (3.35kg).Barrel: 8.9in (225mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 2116 fps (645 m/s).Rate of fire: 800 rpm.

AK-741974. Reduced caliber AKM. Cartridge: 5.45 x 39.5mm.Length: 36.5in (928mm).Weight: 8lb 8oz (3.9kg).Barrel: 15.8in (400mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 2953 fps (900 m/s).Rate of fire: 650 rpm.

AKS-741974. Folding-stock version of the AK-74.Details: the same, except Length, butt folded: 27.16in (690mm).

AK-74-SU1980. Reduced caliber AKM-SU with folding butt.Cartridge: 5.45 x 39.5mm.Length, butt extended: 26.6in (675mm).Length, butt folded: 16.61in (422mm).Weight: 5lb 15oz (2.7kg).Barrel: 8.11in (206mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 2411 fps (735 m/s).Rate of fire: 700 rpm.

AK1011996. Similar to the basic AK-74.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm NATO.Length: 37.1in (943mm).Weight: 7lb 8oz (3.4kg).


Barrel: 16.34in (415mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 2985 fps (910 m/s).Rate of fire: 600 rpm.

Mosin-Nagant M1891 Infantry Rifle

Bolt action, charger-loaded box magazine.Cartridge: 7.62 x 54R.Length: 51.9in (1318mm).Weight: 8lb 5oz (4.1kg).Barrel: 32.3in (820mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 985 fps (605 m/s).

M1891 Dragoon RifleShortened infantry rifle. The Cossack rifle was the same weapon but

with a slightly different cleaning rod.Cartridge: 7.62 x 54R.Length: 48.6in (1235mm).Weight: 8lb 11oz (3.93kg).Barrel: 29.92in (760mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 1968 fps (600 m/s).

M1907 CarbineAs 1891 rifle, but a shortened weapon.Cartridge: 7.62 x 54R.Length: 40.16in (1020mm).Weight: 7lb 8oz (3.4kg).Barrel: 20.1in (510mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 1805 fps (550 m/s).

M1891/30 RifleSovietized M1891 rifle.Cartridge: 7.62 x 54R.Length: 48.4in (1230mm).Weight: 8lb 11oz (3.95kg).Barrel: 28.7in (730mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 2641 fps (805 m/s).

M1938 CarbineShortened M1891/30 rifle.


Cartridge: 7.62 x 54R.Length: 40.16in (1020mm).Weight: 7lb 10oz (3.45kg).Barrel: 20.1in (5 10mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 2575 fps (785 m/s).

M1944 CarbineAs M1938. The last adopted carbine in the world.Cartridge: 7.62 x 54R.Length: 40.35in (1025mm).Weight: 8lb 14oz (4.0kg).Barrel: 20.47in (520mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 985 fps (605 m/s).

Simonov AVS-36

1936. Gas-operated semi-automatic. Muzzle brake, box magazine.Cartridge: 7.62 x 54R Russian.Length: 48.1in (1220mm).Weight: 9lb 8oz (4.37kg).Barrel: 24.4in (620mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 15-round box.M/v: 2550 fps (776 m/s).

SKS1946. Gas-operated, semi-automatic. Wedge-shaped box magazine.Cartridge: 7.62 x 39mm Soviet 1943.Length: 40.2in (1022mm).Weight: 8lb 8oz (3.9kg).Barrel: 20.5in (520mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 2410 fps (735 m/s).

PTRS4 1 Anti-tank Rifle1980s. Semi-automatic, gas operated. Clip-loaded magazine, muzzle

brake, bipod.Cartridge: 14.5 x 114mm Soviet.Length: 84.0in (2006mm).Weight: 46lb 0oz (20.96kg).Barrel: 48.0in (121 6mm), 8 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 3320 fps (1010 m/s).Armour penetration: 23mm at 500m at 0°.


TokarevSVT38 Rifle

1938. Gas-operated semi-automatic, selective fire. Muzzle brake, shortcurved box magazine.

Cartridge: 7.62 x 54R Russian.Length: 48.10in (1222mm).Weight: 8lb 10oz (3.95kg).Barrel: 25.1in (635mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 10-round box.M/v: 2725 fps (830 m/s).

SVT40 Rifle1940. Improved SVT38, same action. Full-automatic capability but not

adopted.Cartridge: 7.62 x 54R Russian.Length: 48.10in (1222mm).Weight: 8lb 9oz (3.9kg).Barrel: 24.6in (625mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 10-round box.M/v: 2725 fps (830 m/s).

SKT40 Carbine1940. Short SVT40. Cartridge: 7.62 x 54R Russian.Length: 41.93in (1065mm).Weight: 8lb 1oz (3.65kg).Barrel: 18.5in (470mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20-round box.M/v: 2445 fps (745 m/s).

SERBIA

1878/80 Rifle 1880. Basically the German Mauser M1871 single-shot rifle with rifling

designed by Major Koka Milovanovicz of the Kragujevac arsenal (alsocalled the Koka Mauser in contemporary reports). Never repeateddue to manufacturing problems.

Cartridge: 10.15 x 63R Serbian Mauser.Length: 50.71in (1288mm).Weight: 9lb 14oz (4.47kg).Barrel: 30.71 in (780mm), 4 grooves, rh.M/v: 1673 fps (510 m/s).

1880/06 and 1880/07 Rifles 1906. M1878/80 rifles converted to 7mm caliber and fitted with a box

magazine.

388 APPENDIX B: SERBIA

Cartridge: 7 x 57 Mauser.Length: 50.7in (1288mm).Weight: 9lb 14oz (4.5kg).Barrel: 30.71 in (780mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2330 fps (710 m/s).

1885 Cavalry CarbineBolt action and tube magazine of the German M1871/84 rifle in a car-

bine. Cartridge: 10.15 x 63R Serbian Mauser.Length: 37.6in (955mm).Weight: 8lb 5oz (3.8kg).Barrel: 18.31in (465mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round tube in fore-end.M/v: 1525 fps (465 m/s).

M1899 Rifle Two-lug bolt, similar to the Chilean M1895 rifle.Cartridge: 7 x 57 Mauser.Length: 48.4in (1230mm).Weight: 8lb 14oz (4.0kg).Barrel: 29.13in (740mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2329 fps (710 m/s).

M1910 RifleAs Gew. 1898 except for fittings.Cartridge: 7 x 57 Mauser.Length: 48.7in (1238mm).Weight: 9lb 1oz (4.1 kg).Barrel: 29.13in (740mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2329 fps (710 m/s).

SIAM/THAILAND

M1902 RifleGew. 98 adapted for a rimmed cartridge. Cartridge: 8 x 50R Siamese Mannlicher.Length: 49.1in (1247mm).Weight: 8lb 9oz (3.9kg).Barrel: 29.13in (740mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2050 fps (625 m/s).

APPENDIX B: SIAM/THAILAND 389

1923 Short RifleM1902 Rifle rebuilt for a new cartridge.Cartridge: 8 x 52R Siamese Mauser.Length: 41.93in (1065mm).Weight: 8lb (3.65kg).Barrel: 22.0in (560mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2100 fps (640 m/s).

SINGAPORE

Chartered Industries SAR-80

1980. Gas-operated, selective fire. Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm 193.Length: 38.2in (970mm).Weight: 8lb 3oz (3.7kg).Barrel: 18.1in (459mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5- or 20-round box.M/v: 3182 fps (970 m/s).Rate of fire: 600 rpm.

SR-881988. Improved SAR-80. Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm NATO.Length, butt extended: 38.19in (970mm).Length, butt folded: 29.37in (746mm).Weight: 8lb 1oz (3.66kg).Barrel: 18.07in (459mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20- or 30-round box.M/v: 3182 fps (970 m/s).Rate of fire: 750 rpm.

SR-88-A Rifle1990. Further improved SR-88.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm NATO.Length, butt extended: 37.8in (960mm).Length, butt folded: 31.9in (810mm).Weight: 8lb 2oz (3.68kg).Barrel: 18.1 in (460mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 3084 fps (940 m/s).Rate of fire: 800 rpm.

390 APPENDIX B: SINGAPORE

SR-88-A Carbine1990. Shortened SR-88-A.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm NATO.Length, butt extended: 31.9in (810mm).Length, butt folded: 25.98in (660mm).Weight: 8lb 6oz (3.8kg).Barrel: 11.5in (292mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 2730 fps (832 m/s).Rate of fire: 800 rpm.

SOUTH AFRICA (REPUBLIC OF)

Westley Richards

Martini-Richards Rifle1895. Slightly modified British Martini-Henry Mark 4 rifle action.Cartridge: .67/450 Martini-Henry.Length: 49.5in (1260mm).Weight: 9lb 0oz (4.1kg).Barrel: 33.3in (843mm), 7 grooves, rh.M/v: cc 1350 fps (41 m/s).

Mechel (manufacturer)

NTW 20 Anti-Materiel RifleCurrent. Bolt action. Bipod attached to receiver. Heavy barrel with muz-

zle brake. Side-feeding box magazine.Cartridge: 20 x 83mm G151.Length: 70.7in (1795mm).Weight: 57lb 5oz (26.0kg).Barrel: 39.37in (1000mm), 8 grooves, rh.Magazine: 3-round box.M/v: 2362 fps (720 m/s).

NTW 14.5 Anti-Materiel Rifle.Current. Re-chambered NTW 20.Cartridge: 14.5 x 114mm Soviet.Length: 79.3in (2015mm).Weight: 63lb 15oz (29.0kg).Barrel: 48 in (1220mm), 8 grooves, rh.Magazine: 3-round box.M/v: 3543 fps (1080 m/s).

APPENDIX B: SOUTH AFRICA 391

VektorR4 Rifle

1982. Modified copy of the Galil rifle to suit the larger stature of SouthAfrican troops. Gas-operated, turning bolt, selective fire.

Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm M193.Length, butt extended: 39.6in (1005mm).Length, butt folded: 29.1in (740mm).Weight: 9lb 7oz (4.3kg).Barrel: 18.1 in (460mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 35-round box.M/v: 3215 fps (980 m/s).Cyclic rate: 700 rpm.

R5 Short Rifle1980s. Short R4, adopted by the South African Air Force and Marines.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm M193.Length, butt extended: 34.6in (877mm).Length, butt folded: 24.2 in (615mm).Weight: 8lb 3oz (3.7kg).Barrel: 13.1in (332mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 35-round box.M/v: 3018 fps (920 m/s).Cyclic rate: 700 rpm.

R6 Compact Assault Rifle1980s. Even shorter R4/R5 for use by vehicle crews, paratroops, and

others needing a personal protection weapon.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm M193.Length, butt extended: 3 1.69in (805mm).Length, butt folded: 22.2in (565mm).Weight: 8lb 1oz (3.67kg).Barrel: 11.0in (280mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 35-round box.M/v: 2706 fps (825 m/s).Cyclic rate: 585 rpm.

CR21 Assault Rifle1998. Gas operated, rotating bolt, selective fire. Bullpup. Built-in opti-

cal sight.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm NATO.Length: 29.92in (760mm).Weight, loaded: 8lb 6oz (3.80kg).Barrel: 8.1 in (460mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20- or 35-round box.M/v: 3215 fps (980 m/s).Cyclic rate: 700 rpm.

392 APPENDIX B: SOUTH AFRICA

SPAIN

Berdan M1867 Infantry Rifle

Breech-loading conversion of rifle muskets with a trap-door breech-block hinging up and forward. External hammer.

Cartridge: 14.5 x 41R.Length: 54.7in (1389mm).Weight: 9lb 7oz (4.28kg).Barrel: 3622in (920mm), 4 grooves, rh.M/v: 1197 fps (365 m/s).

M1867. Light Infantry RifleConversion of M1857 percussion rifle.Cartridge: 14.5 x 41 R.Length: 48.4in (1230mm).Weight: 8lb 7oz (3.8kg).Barrel: 30.31 in (770mm), 4 grooves, rh.M/v: 1100 fps (335 m/s).

M1867 CarbineConversion of M1857 Engineer Carbine.Cartridge: 4.5 x 4R.Length: 48.4in (1230mm).Weight: 8lb 5oz (3.77kg).Barrel: 30.3in (770mm), 4 grooves, rh.M/v: 97 fps (365 m/s).

Cetme (Centro de Estudios de Materiales Speciales, Madrid)Model 58

1958. Similar to Heckler & Koch G3, but fired the 7.62 x 51mm NATOcartridge with a reduced propellant charge.

Cartridge: 7.62 x 51mm Cetme.Length: 39.37in (1000mm).Weight: 11lb 5oz (5.13kg).Barrel: 17in (432mm). 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20-round box.M/v: 2493 fps (760 m/s).Rate of fire: 600 rpm.

Model C1965. Improved Model 58 for the standard NATO cartridge.Cartridge: 7.62 x 51mm NATO.Length: 39.96in (1015mm).Weight: 9lb 4oz (4.2kg).Barrel: 17.72in (450mm), 4 grooves, rh.

APPENDIX B: SPAIN 393

Magazine: 5- or 20-round box.M/v: 2560 fps (780 m/s).Rate of fire: 600 rpm.

Model L1984. Chambered for the 5.56mm cartridge.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm NATO.Length: 36.4in (925mm).Weight: 7lb 8oz (3.4kg).Barrel: 15.8in (400mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 12- or 30-round box.M/v: 2870 fps (875 m/s).Rate of fire: 700 rpm.

Model LI1985. Export version of the Model L. Took the U.S. Colt M16 and simi-

lar magazines.

Model LC1984. Carbine version Model L with a telescoping stock.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm NATO.Length, butt extended: 33.9in (860mm).Length, butt folded: 26.2in (665mm).Weight: 7lb 0oz (3.2kg).Barrel: 12.6in (320mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 12- or 30-round box.M/v: 2730 fps (832 m/s).Rate of fire: 750 rpm.

Model RFiring port weapon. Fires automatic only.Cartridge: 7.62 x 5 NATO.Length: 26.2in (665mm).Weight: 14lb 2oz (64kg).Barrel: 12.0in (305mm). 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20-round box.M/v: 2263 fps (690 m/s).Rate of fire: 600 rpm.

National Armouries1891 Infantry Rifle

Based on Turkish M1890, with bolt action and exposed magazine. Cartridge: 7.65 x 53 Belgian Mauser.Length: 48.7in (1238mm).Weight: 9lb 1oz (4.1 kg).

394 APPENDIX B: SPAIN


1892 Infantry RifleSimilar to 1891, but with internal charger-loaded magazine, new extrac-

tor, and improvements to the bolt. Chambered for a new cartridge.Cartridge: 7 x 57mm Spanish Mauser.Length: 48.6in (1235mm).Weight: 9lb 1oz (4.1 kg).Barrel: 29.0in (738mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2198 fps (670 m/s).

1892 Cavalry CarbineAction as M1891 rifle, turned-down bolt handle.Cartridge: 7 x 57mm Spanish Mauser.Length: 37.12in (943mm).Weight: 7lb 4oz (3.3kg).Barrel: 17.5in (445mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 1837 fps (560 m/s).

1893 Infantry RifleThe first Mauser with a charger-loading magazine within the stock. Bolt

action as M1891 rifle.Cartridge: 7 x 57mm Spanish Mauser.Length: 48.6in (1235mm).Weight: 8lb 11oz (3.95kg).Barrel: 29.1in (738mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2231 fps (680 m/s).

1895 Cavalry CarbineShortened M1893 rifle, turned-down bolt handle.Cartridge: 7 x 57mm Spanish Mauser.Length: 37.1in (943mm).Weight: 7lb 1oz (3.2kg).Barrel: 17.56in (446mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2165 fps (660 m/s).

M1913 Short RifleAs 1895 Cavalry Carbine, but fitted for bayonet. Troop trialed.Details: as N11895 Carbine.

APPENDIX B: SPAIN 395

1916 Artillery RifleReplaced earlier carbines on adoption of a new, more powerful car-

tridge. M1891 bolt, bolt handle turned down.Cartridge: 7 x 57mm Spanish Mauser.Length: 41.34in (1050mm).Weight: 8lb 4oz (3.8kg).Barrel: 21.69in (551mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2707 fps (82S m/s).

1943 Short RifleEssentially the German Kar. 98k. Straight bolt handle.Cartridge: 7.92 x 57mm Mauser.Length: 43.5in (105mm).Weight: 8lb 10oz (3.9.3kg).Barrel: 23.6in (600mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2460 fps (750 m/s).

M1870 RifleRemington manufacture.Cartridge: 11.15 x 57R Spanish Remington.Length: 50.31in (1278mm).Weight: 9lb 5oz (4.2kg).Barrel: 35.12in (892mm), 5 grooves, rh.M/v: 1365 fps (416 m/s).

1870 CarbineAs rifle but shorter.Cartridge: 11.15 x 57R Spanish Remington.Length: 42.13in (1070mm).Weight: 8lb 10oz (3.9kg).Barrel: 27.16in (690mm), 5 grooves, rh.M/v: 1148 fps (350 m/s).

1870 Short RifleSpanish-made M1870.Cartridge: 11.15 x 57R Spanish Remington.Length: 46.9in (1190mm).Weight: 8lb 13oz (4.0kg).Barrel: 32.3in (820mm), 6 grooves, rh.M/v: 1296 fps (395 m/s).

Model 1871 Infantry RifleStandard pattern breech.Cartridge: 11.15 x 57R Spanish Remington.

396 APPENDIX B: SPAIN

Length: 51.8in (1315mm).Weight: 9lb (4.1kg).Barrel: 37in (940mm), 6 grooves, rh.M/v: 1312 fps (400 m/s).

Model 1871 Short RifleShortened M1871 rifle.Cartridge: 11.15 x 57R Spanish Remington.Length: 42.5in (1080mm).Weight: 8lb 12oz (4.0kg).Barrel: 27.95in (710mm), 6 grooves, rh.M/v: 1214 fps (370 m/s).

M1871 Cavalry CarbineAction as 1871.Cartridge: 11.15 x 57R Spanish Remington.Length: 37.9 (963mm).Weight: 7lb 4oz (3.28kg).Barrel: 23.2in (588mm), 6 grooves, rh.M/v: 1171 fps (357 m/s).

1871 Artillery CarbineShortened M1871 rifle.Cartridge: 11.15 x 57R Spanish Remington.Length: 37.91in (963mm).Weight: 7lb 8oz (3.47kg).Barrel: 23.2in (588mm), 6 grooves, rh.M/v: 1171 fps (357 m/s).

Rolling block. Shortened 1871 rifle.Cartridge: 115 x 57R Spanish Remington.Length: 46.26in (1175mm).Weight: 8lb 11oz (3.95kg).Barrel: 31.6in (802mm), 6 grooves, rh.M/v: 453 fps (443 m/s).

SWEDEN

BoforsCGA 5 (Ak5).

1986. Modified Belgian (FN). FNC with special winter trigger- g u a r d .Three-round burst removed.

Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm NATO.Length, butt extended: 39.6in (1005mm).Length, butt folded: 29.5in (750mm).Weight: 8lb 9oz (3.9kg).

APPENDIX B: SWEDEN 397

Barrel: 17.71in (450mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 3051 fps (930 m/s).Rate of fire: 700 rpm.

CGASB (Ak5B).1993. Fitted with the British Sight Unit, Small Arms, Trilux (SUSAT). Details: as CGA 5 (Ak5).

CGA5D1995. CGA 5 with iron sights.Details: as CGA 5 (Ak5).

CGAS5-C21993. Short CGA 5 for use by vehicle crews and others requiring a

short-barreled weapon.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm NATO.Length, butt extended: 32.09in (815mm).Length, butt folded: 21.9in (553mm).Weight: 7lb 5oz (3.3kg).Barrel: 9.8in (250mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 2887 fps (880 m/s).Rate of fire: 750 rpm.

Carl GustavM21

1920s. As U.S. M1918.Cartridge: 6.5 x 55 Mauser.Length: 44.0in (1117mm).Weight: 19lb 3oz (8.7kg).Barrel: 26.4in (670mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20-round box.M/v: 2460 fps (740 m/s).Rate of fire: 500 rpm.

M371937. As U.S. M1918, but with recoil spring in butt.Cartridge: 6.5 x 55 Mauser.Length: 46.1 0in (1171mm).Weight: 20lb 14oz (9.5kg).Barrel: 24.0in (610mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20-round box.M/v: 2460 fps (740 m/s).Rate of fire: 480 rpm.

398 APPENDIX B: SWEDEN

FFV (Forsvarets Fabriksverken)FFV-890C

1983. Based upon the Galil. Fired the FN SSIO9/NATO 5.56mm car-tridge. Not selected for service.

Cartridge: 5.56 x 45 NATO.Length, butt extended: 33.9in (860mm).Length, butt folded: 24.6in (625mm).Weight: 7lb 11oz (3.5kg).Barrel: 13.4in (340mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 35-round box.M/v: 2730 fps (860 m/s).Rate of fire: 650 rpm.

Ljungmann Ag42 Rifle

1942. Gas-operated semi-automatic, detachable box magazine.Cartridge: 6.5 x 35mm Swedish Mauser.Length: 47.9in (1216mm).Weight: 9lb 11oz (4.4kg).Barrel: 25.1in (637mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 10-round box.M/v: 2460 fps (750 m/s).

Ag42B Rifle1943. Improved Ag42. Steel gas tube, changes to bolt and firing mecha-

nism, magazine modified.Cartridge: 6.5 x 55mm Swedish Mauser.Length: 47.8in (1215mm).Weight: 10lb 6oz (4.7kg).Barrel: 24.5in (623mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: JO-round box.M/v: 2450 fps (745 m/s).

M1894 CarbineTwo-lug bolt and integral magazine of Spanish M1893 rifle.Cartridge: 6.5 x 55mm Swedish Mauser.Length: 37.4in (950mm).Weight: 7lb 5oz (3.3.3kg).Barrel: 17.32in (440mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2132 fps (650 m/s).

M1894/17 CarbineAs M1894, but bayonet fitted.Details: as M1894.

APPENDIX B: SWEDEN 399

M1896 RifleAction and magazine as M1894 carbine but in a full-length rifle. Cartridge: 6.5 x 55mm Swedish Mauser.Length: 49.5in (1256mm).Weight: 8lb 15oz (4.07kg).Barrel: 29.1in (739mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2378 fps (725 m/s).

M1939 RifleModified German Kar. 98k with an 8mm caliber barrel to fire the 8 x

63M Browning cartridge as used in the Swedish machine gun. Car-tridge was too powerful.

M1940 RifleM1939 design fitted with a muzzle brake. Not kept in service very long.

SWITZERLAND

Grunel Sniping Rifle

1988. Based upon a match rifle. Electronic trigger mechanism, heavybarrel, muzzle brake.

Cartridge: 7.62 x 51mm NATO.Length: 45.27in (11 50mm).Weight: 1lb 11oz (5.3kg).Barrel: 25.56in (650mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 10-round box.M/v: 2690 fps (820 m/s).

1893 Cavalry CarbineStraight-pull bolt action. Clip-loaded box magazine.Cartridge: 7.5 x 53M1890 Schmidt-Rubin.Length: 40.0in (1016mm).Weight: 6lb 13oz (3.1kg).Barrel: 21.65in (550mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 6-round box.M/v: 1837 fps (560 m/s).

Milbank-Amsler

This was an adaptation of the American Milbank side-opening trap-doorbreech block, with a hammer and with the firing pin in the block, modifiedby Amsler of Switzerland and used to convert earlier percussion muzzle-loading weapons to breech-loading.

400 APPENDIX B: SWITZERLAND

M1851/67 RifleConversion as noted. Cartridge: 10.4 x 38R Swiss Peabody rimfire.Length: 49.6in (1260mm).Weight: 9lb 15oz (4.5kg).Barrel: 29.5in (750mm), 4 grooves, rh.M/v: 1362 fps (415 m/s).

M1856/67 RifleConversion from Jäger rifle.Cartridge: 10.4 x 38R Swiss Peabody rimfire.Length: 51.93in (1319mm).Weight: 9lb 5oz (4.2kg).Barrel: 34.1in (865mm), 4 grooves, rh.M/v: 1443 fps (440 m/s).

1863/67 Infantry RifleConversion as noted.Cartridge: 10.4 x 38R Swiss Peabody rimfire.Length: 54.3in (1380mm).Weight: 10lb 4oz (4.65kg).Barrel: 36.45in (926mm), 4 grooves, rh.M/v: 1476 fps (450 m/s).

1864/67 Short RifleConversion as above.Cartridge: 10.4 x 38R Swiss Peabody rimfire.Length: 49.49in (1257mm).Weight: 10lb 1oz (4.5kg).Barrel: 29.6in (752mm), 4 grooves, rh.M/v: 1362 fps (415 m/s).

Neuhausen M1889 Rifle

Conversion from Vetterli rotating bolt to SIG-Neuhausen straight-pullbolt for Swiss Army trials. Box magazine.

Cartridge: 7.5 x 53M Schmidt-Rubin.Length: 51.2in (1300mm).Weight: 8lb 14oz (4.0kg).Barrel: 30.3in (770mm), 3 grooves, rh.Magazine: 12-round tube.M/v: 2000 fps (610 m/s).

Schmidt-Rubin 1889 Infantry Rifle

Straight-pull bolt. Box magazine.Cartridge: 7.5 x 53M Swiss 1890.

APPENDIX B: SWITZERLAND 401

Length: 51.26in (1302mm).Weight: 10lb 11oz (4.9kg).Barrel: 30.71 in (780mm), 3 grooves, rh.Magazine: 12-round box.M/v: 968 fps (600 m/s).

1889/96 Infantry RifleImproved bolt version of M1889.Cartridge: 7.5 x 53M Swiss 1890.Length: 51.18in (1300mm).Weight: 9lb 15oz (4.5 1 kg).Barrel: 30.71 in (780mm), 3 grooves, rh.Magazine: 12-round box.M/v: 1968 fps (600 m/s).

1897 Cadet RifleS h o r t e r, lighter 1889/96, with improved bolt mechanism. Single-shot

only, no magazine.Cartridge: 7.5 x 53M Swiss 1890.Length: 43.5in (1105mm).Weight: 7lb 13oz (3.5kg).Barrel: 23.3in (592mm), 3 grooves, rh.M/v: 1853 fps (565 m/s).

1900 Short RifleShorter, lighter version of the M1889/96 with reduced-capacity maga-

zine. Cartridge: 7.5 x 53M Swiss 1890.Length: 43.5in (1105mm).Weight: 8lb 6oz (3.8kg).Barrel: 23.3in (592mm), 3 grooves, rh.Magazine: 6-round box.M/v: 1853 fps (565 m/s).

1905 Cavalry CarbineM1896 action carbine.Cartridge: 7.5 x 53M Swiss M1890.Length: 42.12in (1070mm).Weight: 8lb (3.63kg).Barrel: 21.65in (550mm), 3 grooves, rh.Magazine: 6-round box.M/v: 1805 fps (550 m/s).

M1911 Infantry RifleStronger bolt system, smaller magazine. New rifling.Cartridge: 7.5 x 55M Swiss M1911.


Length: 51.65in (13 12mm).Weight: 10lb 2oz (4.62kg).Barrel: 30.71 in (780mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 6-round box.M/v: 2600 fps (790 m/s).

M1911 CarbineShort rifle with the same action.Cartridge: 7.5 x 55M Swiss M1911.Length: 43.4in (1100mm).Weight: 8lb 10oz (3.93kg).Barrel: 23.3in (590mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 6-round box.M/v: 2500 fps (760 m/s).

M1931 Short RifleStraight-pull bolt; the magazine just in front of the trigger guard. Cartridge: 7.5 x 55M Swiss M1911.Length: 43.5in (1105mm).Weight: 8lb 13oz (4.01 kg).Barrel: 25.7in (655mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 6-round box.M/v: 2550 fps (775 m/s).

SIG (Schweizer Industrie Gesellschaft)SK46 Rifle

1946. Gas-operated semi-automatic, box magazine modelled upon theSchmidt-Rubin rifle.

Cartridge: 7.92 x 57mm Mauser (and others).Length: 44.3in (1125mm).Weight: 10lb 0oz (4.5kg).Barrel: 23.63in (600mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5- or 10-round box.M/v: 2700 fps (823 m/s).

AK53 Rifle1953. Unusual selective-fire rifle with the blow-forward system, with

fixed breech-block and a moving barrel. Large curved magazine withslot showing contents.

Cartridge: 7.5 x 55mm Swiss 1911.Length: 39.37in (1000mm).Weight: 10lb 12oz (4.9kg).Barrel: 23.63 in (600mm), 4 grooves, lh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 2450 fps (750 m/s).Cyclic rate: 300 rpm.


Stgw 57 Assault Rifle1957. Delayed blowback, selective fire; uses the roller-delayed breech

system from the Mauser StG 45. Folding bipod.Cartridge: 7.5 x 55mm Swiss 1911.Length: 43.4in (1102mm).Weight: 12lb 5oz (5.6kg).Barrel: 20.47in ( 520mm), 4 grooves, lh.Magazine: 24-round box.M/v: 2493 fps (760 m/s).Cyclic rate: 475 rpm.

SG510 Assault Rifle1960s. As Stgw 57 above but for export. Cartridge: 7.62 x 51mm NATO (and others).Length: 40.0in (106mm).Weight: 9lb 6oz (4.3kg).Barrel: 19.8in (505mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20-round box.M/v: 2592 fps (790 m/s).Cyclic rate: 500 rpm.

SG530 Assault Rifle1970s. Reduced Stgw 57 chambered for the 5.56mm cartridge, but

changed to gas piston operation. Too expensive to produce; replacedby the SG540.

Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm M193.Length: 37.0in (940mm).Weight: 7lb 8oz (3.45kg).Barrel: 15.5in (394mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 3000 fps (912 m/s).Cyclic rate: 600 rpm.

SG540 Assault Rifle 1980s. Designed by SIG, manufactured under license by Manurhin of

France, of Portugal, and FAMAE of Chile. Gas-operated, selectivefire.

Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm NATO.Length, fixed or extended butt: 37.4in (950mm).Length, butt folded: 28.35in (720mm).Weight, fixed butt: 7lb 3oz (3.26kg).Weight, folding butt: 7lb 1oz (3.2 kg).Barrel: 18.1 in (460mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20- or 30-round box.M/v: 3215 fps (980 m/s).Cyclic rate: 700 rpm.


SG542 Assault Rifle1960s. As SG540 but chambered for the 7.62 NATO cartridge.Cartridge: 7.62 x 51mm NATO.Length, fixed or extended butt: 39.37in (1000mm).Length, butt folded: 29.68in (754mm).Weight, fixed or folding butt: 7lb 13oz (3.5kg).Barrel: 18.31in (465mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20- or 30-round box.M/v: 2690 fps (820 m/s).Cyclic rate: 650 rpm.

SG543 Assault Carbine1980s. Carbine version of the SG540.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm NATO.Length, fixed or extended butt: 31.69in (805mm).Length, butt folded: 22.4in (569mm).Weight, fixed butt: 6lb 8oz (2.95kg).Weight, folding butt: 6lb 10oz (3.0kg).Barrel: 11.81in (300mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20- or 30-round box.M/v: 2870 fps (875 m/s).Cyclic rate: 750 rpm.

Stgw 90 Assault Rifle SG5501986. Replacement for Stgw 57 as a 5.56mm weapon. Improved the de-

sign of the SG540. Selective fire with three-round bursts. Lightbipod.

Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm NATO.Length, butt extended: 39.3in (998mm).Length, butt folded: 30.256in (772mm).Weight: 9lb 1oz (4.1kg).Barrel: 20.79in (528mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20- or 30-round box.M/v: 3215 fps (980 m/s).Cyclic rate: 700 rpm.

Stgw 90 Assault Carbine SG5511986. Short-barrelled Stgw 90 rifle. No bipod.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm NATO.Length, butt extended: 32.5 in (827mm).Length, butt folded: 23.68in (601mm).Weight: 7lb 8oz (3.4kg).Barrel: 14.6in (372mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20- or 30-round box.M/v: 3018 fps (920 m/s).Cyclic rate: 700 rpm.


SG550 SniperCa. 1986. Semi-automatic Stgw 90 assault rifle, heavy barrel.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm NATO.Length, butt extended: 44.5in (1130mm).Length, butt folded: 35.56in (905mm).Weight: 15 lb 8oz (7.0kg).Barrel: 25.59in (650mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20- or 30-round box.M/v: 3215 fps (980 m/s).

SIG552 CommandoLate 1980s. Very short semi-automatic SG551 SWAT arranged for use

by left- or right-handed firers.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm NATO.Length, butt extended: 28.7in (730mm).Length, butt folded: 19.8in (504mm).Weight: 7lb 1oz (3.2kg).Barrel: 8.90in (226mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-, 20-, or 30-round box.M/v: 2379 fps (725 m/s).

S I G - S a u e r. Short-throw bolt action (as Sauer 80/90 sporting and target rifle).1990s. Non-rotating bolt has hinged lugs that are driven out by cams to

lock into the receiver as bolt handle is turned down. Heavy barrel withmuzzle compensator, no iron sights. Produced in various calibers.

Cartridge: 7.62 x 51mm NATO.Length: 47.63in (1210mm).Weight: 14lb 8oz (6.6kg).Barrel: 24.0in (610mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 4-round box.M/v: 2690 fps (820 m/s).

SIG-Sauer SSG 3000 Sniping Rifle1992. Based on Sauer 200STR target rifle, with cam-locked bolt (as

above). Modular system. Heavy barrel with muzzle compensator, noiron sights, adjustable bipod.

Cartridge: 7.62 x 51mm NATO.Length: 46.45 in (1180mm).Weight: 11lb 14oz (5.4kg).Barrel: 24.0in (610mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 2690 fps (820 m/s).

Solothurn S 18/100 Anti-tank Rifle

Current. Recoil-operated semi-automatic.


Cartridge: 20 x 105B Short Solothurn.Length: 69.3in (1760mm).Weight: 99lb 3oz (45.0kg).Barrel: 35.40in (900mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5- or 10-round box.M/v: 2500 fps (762 m/s).Armour penetration: 27mm at 300m at 0°.

Vetterli1869 Infantry Rifle

Bolt action repeater, tube magazine. Cartridge: 10.4 x 38R Swiss Peabody RE.Length: 51.97in (1320mm).Weight: 10lb 4oz (4.66kg).Barrel: 33.1 in (841mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 2-round tube.M/v: 1427 fps (435 m/s).

1870 Cadet RifleBolt action as 1869 but single shot only. Cartridge: 10.4 x 38R Swiss Peabody RE.Length: 45.27in (1150mm).Weight: 7lb 3oz (3.3kg).Barrel: 2677in (680mm), 4 grooves, rh.M/v: 1312 fps (400 m/s).

M1871 CarbineShortened 1869 Rifle.Cartridge: 10.4 x 38R Swiss Peabody RE.Length: 36.69in (932mm).Weight: 7lb 3oz (3.3kg).Barrel: 18.5in (470mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 6-round tube.M/v: 1230 fps (375 m/s).

M1871 CarbineAs 1869 Rifle, but shorter. For light infantry.Cartridge: 10.4 x 38R Swiss Peabody RE.Length: 49.61 in (1260mm).Weight: 10lb 3oz (4.63kg).Barrel: 30.90in (785mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 10-round tube.M/v: 1410 fps (430 m/s).

M1878 Infantry RifleImproved 1869 but with the same action.


Cartridge: 10.4 x 38R Swiss Peabody RE.Length: 52.2in (1326mm).Weight: 10lb 2oz (4.6kg).Barrel: 33.1 in (841mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 12-round tube.M/v: 427 fps (435 m/s).

1878 Short RifleInfantry rifle fitted with a double set trigger.Cartridge: 10.4 x 38R Swiss Peabody RF.Length: 52.2in (1326mm).Weight: 10lb 3oz (4.62kg).Barrel: 33.1 in (841mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 12-round tube.M/v: 1427 fps (435 m/s).

M1878 CarbineShortened rifle.Cartridge: 10.4 x 38R Swiss Peabody RE.Length: 36.5in (928mm).Weight: 7lb 4oz (3.3kg).Barrel: 18.5in (470mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 6-round tube.M/v: 1230 fps (375 m/s).

1878 Border Guard CarbineAs M1878 Carbine.Cartridge: 10.4 x 38R Swiss Peabody RE.Length: 37.2in (945mm).Weight: 7lb 6oz (3.34kg).Barrel: 19.09in (485mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 6-round tube.M/v: 1230 fps (375 m/s).

1881 Short RifleAction as 1869, improved sights, improved trigger mechanism.Cartridge: 10.4 x 38R Swiss Peabody RE.Length: 52.0in (1321mm).Weight: 10lb 3oz (4.62kg).Barrel: 33.1in (840mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 12-round tube.M/v: 1427 fps (435 m/s).

M1881 Infantry RifleM1878 with improved sights and trigger.Cartridge: 10.4 x 38R Swiss Peabody RE.


Length: 52.2in (1326mm).Weight: 10lb loz (4.6kg).Barrel: 33.1 in (84mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 12-round tube.M/v: 427 fps (435 m/s).

TAIWAN

Type 65 Assault Rifle1965. Similar to the U.S. M16, but uses the rotating bolt system of the

ArmaLite AR18 rifle.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm M193.Length: 38.97in (990mm).Weight: 6lb 15oz (3.2kg).Barrel: 20.0in (508mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20- or 30-round box.M/v: 3248 fps (990 m/s).Cyclic rate: 750 rpm.

TURKEY

1874 Peabody Martin 1 RifleMade by the Providence Tool Company in the United States, and almost

identical to the British Martini-Henry Mark 1 rifle.Cartridge: .450 Turkish Martini.Length: 49.0in (1245mm).Weight: 8lb 12oz (4.3kg).Barrel: 33.2in (843mm), 5 grooves, rh.M/v: cc 1263 fps (385 m/s).

M1887 RifleM a u s e r ’s perfected black-powder design. German M71/84 tube maga-

zine rifle chambered for a 9.5mm cartridge.Cartridge: 9.5 x 60R Turkish Mauser.Length: 49.3in (1251mm).Weight: 9lb 4oz (4.19kg).Barrel: 29.92in (760mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 8-round tube.M/v: 755 fps (535 m/s).

1890 RifleSimilar to Belgian M1889. Box magazine.Cartridge: 7.65 x 53 Mauser.Length: 48.7in (1237mm).

APPENDIX B: TURKEY 409

Weight: 8lb 13oz (4.0kg).Barrel: 29.1in (740mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 2132 fps (650 m/s).

1890 Cavalry CarbineAction as 1890 rifle; turned-down bolt handle.Cartridge: 7.65 x 53 Mauser.Length: 39.2in (995mm).Weight: 7lb 11oz (3.5kg).Barrel: 19.68in (500mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 1886 fps (575 m/s).

M1893 RifleSimilar to the Spanish M1893.Cartridge: 7.65 x 53 Mauser.Length: 48.6in (1235mm).Weight: 8lb 15oz (4.1kg).Barrel: 29.0in (738mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2132 fps (650 m/s).

M1905 CarbineM1903 action; short barrel. Turned-down bolt handle.Cartridge: 7.65 x 53 Mauser.Length: 41.1in (1045mm).Weight: 8lb 4oz (3.8kg).Barrel: 21.7in (550mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2083 fps (635 m/s).

UNITED STATES

Allin-Springfield

Erskine S. Allin (a firearms inspector and master armourer at the NationalArmoury in Springfield, Mass) was asked in 1864 by the U.S. Chief of Ord-nance (then Gen. Alexander Dyer) to find an efficient way of converting ex-isting rifle-muskets to breech loaders. His system used the lifting trap-doorprinciple, patented by Allin in 1865.

M1866 Infantry RifleConversion of M1863 percussion rifle.Cartridge: .5-70 U.S. Government.

410 APPENDIX B: UNITED STATES

Length: 56.0in (1422mm).Weight: 9lb 14oz (4.5kg).Barrel: 36.6in (929mm), 3 grooves, rh.M/v: 1260 fps (384 m/s).

M1873 Infantry RifleNew manufacture 1873–1878.Cartridge: .45-70 Government.Length: 51.92in (131 9mm).Weight: 9b 3oz (4.7kg).Barrel: 32.4in (822mm), 3 grooves, rh.M/v: 1320 fps (402 m/s).

M1879 Infantry RifleNew manufacture 1879–1881. Cartridge: .45-70 Government.Length: 51.8in (1308mm).Weight: 9lb 2.4oz (4.5kg).Barrel: 32.4in (822mm), 3 grooves, rh.M/v: 1320 fps (402 m/s).

M1879 CarbineAs M1879 Infantry Rifle but shorter.Cartridge: .45-70 Government.Length: 41.30in (1049mm).Weight: 9lb 3oz (4.2kg).Barrel: 21.9in (556mm), 3 grooves, rh.M/v: cc 1200 fps (365 m/s).

M1884 Infantry RifleNew manufacture 1884–1889.Details: as M1873.

M1874 CarbineNew manufacture 1884–1889, changes as rifle.Details: as M1879 Carbine.

M1889 Infantry RifleNew manufacture 1889–1892.Details: as M1879.

ArmaliteAR-10

1957. Gas-operated, selective-fire. Cartridge: 7.62 x 5 NATO.Length: 40.51 in (1029mm).

APPENDIX B: UNITED STATES 411

Weight: 9lb 1oz (4.1 kg).Barrel: 20.0in (508mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20-round box.M/v: 2772 fps (845 m/s).Rate of fire: 700 rpm

AR-151957. Became the U.S. Military M16 (see Colt M16).Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm M193.Length: 39.0in (990mm).Weight: 6lb 5oz (2.9kg).Barrel: 20.0in (508mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 3240 fps (988 m/s).Rate of fire: 800 rpm.

AR-181964. Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm M193.Length, butt extended: 37.0in (940mm).Length, butt folded: 28.98in (736mm).Weight: 6lb 15oz (3.2kg).Barrel: 8.26in (464mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20-, 30-, or 40-round box.M/v: 3280 fps (1000 m/s).Rate of fire: 800 rpm.

AR-18S1970. Short version of the AR-18.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm M193.Length, butt extended: 30.1 in (765mm).Length, butt folded: 22.0in (560mm).Weight: 6lb 13oz (3.1 kg).Barrel: 18.26 in (257mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20- or 30-round box.M/v: 2560 fps (780 m/s).Rate of fire: 800 rpm.

Barrett M82A1 Light Fifty

1983. Semi-automatic, recoil-operated, rotating bolt; fitted with tele-scopic sight.

Cartridge: .50 Browning (12.7 x 99mm).Length: 61.0in (1549mm).Weight: 44lb (13.4kg).Barrel: 29.0in (737mm), 8 grooves, rh.



M82A21992. Smaller version of the M82A1, bullpup.Cartridge: .50 Browning (12.7 x 99mm).Length: 55.47in (1409mm).Weight: 29lb (12.24kg).Barrel: 29.0in (736mm), 8 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 2798 fps (853 m/s).

M90 1990. Bolt action bullpup.Cartridge: .50 Browning (12.7 x 99mm).Length: 45.0in (1143mm).Weight: 22.0lb (9.98kg).Barrel: 29.0in (736mm), 8 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 2798 fps (853 m/s).

BlakeJohn Blake of New York City–designed bolt-action rifle

1890. Bolt action, detachable rotary magazine. Submitted for militarytests, 1893, but refused.

Cartridge: .30-40 Krag.Length: 49.5in (1257mm).Weight: 9lb 10oz (4.37kg).Barrel: 30.0in (7.62 mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 7-round rotary.M/v: 2000 fps (610 m/s).

Browning Browning Automatic Rifle

1916. A light machine gun, not a rifle, although originally it had no bipod.Cartridge: .30-06.Length: 47.0in (1194mm).Weight: 16lb 0oz (7.26kg).Barrel: 24.0in (610mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20-round box.M/v: 2805 fps (855 m/s).Rate of fire: 550 rpm.

M1918A11927. This model was fitted with a bipod and selective fire.Cartridge: .30-06.


Length: 47.0in (194mm).Weight: 18lb 8oz (8.4kg).Barrel: 24.0in (610mm). 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20-round box.M/v: 2805 fps (855 m/s).Rate of fire: 550 rpm.

M1918A21939. The sturdy, simple version of the weapon that served throughout

World War II.Cartridge: .30-06.Length: 47.8in (1214mm).Weight: 19lb 6oz (880kg).Barrel: 24.0in (610mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20-round box.M/v: 2805 fps (855 m/s).Rate of fire: 450 or 650 rpm.

Burton Lee-Burton Enfield Experimental, submitted to the British A r m y,1882–1887. A modified Lee bolt action and a large hopper-type magazine.

Cartridge: Same .4 Enfield-Martini.Length: 50.18in (1274mm).Weight: 10lb 4oz (4.65kg).Barrel: 30.2in (767mm), 7 grooves, lh.Magazine: 5-round hopper.M/v: 570 fps (478 m/s).

Ward-BurtonAn experimental rifle, submitted to the U.S. A r m y, 1870–1872. Burton’sbolt action single shot mechanism. Rejected in favor of the Allin-Spring-field conversion.

Cartridge: .5-70 U.S. Government.Length: 51.9in (1318mm).Weight: 9lb 1oz (4.1 kg).Barrel: 32.63in (829mm), 3 grooves, rh.M/v: 1250 fps (381 m/s).

Chaffee-Reece 1882. Experimental bolt-action rifle with tube magazine in the butt. Un-successful in troop trials.

Cartridge: .45-70 Government.Length: 49.0in (1244mm).Weight: 9lb 3oz (4.6kg).Barrel: 27.9in (708mm), 3 grooves, rh.


Magazine: 5-round tube.M/v: 1300 fps (396 m/s).

Colt FirearmsM16

1962. The military designation of the Armalite AR-15 rifle (see Armalite)upon acceptance into U.S. military service.

M16A1 Rifle1967. M16 with a forward bolt closing plunger.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm M193.Length: 39.0in (990mm).Weight: 6lb 5oz (2.9kg).Barrel: 20.0in (508mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20- or 30-round box.M/v: 3250 fps (988 m/s).Rate of fire: 800 rpm.

M16A2 Rifle1982. Rifling changed to suit NATO standard 5.56mm bullet, optional

three-round burst device, with a heavier barrel and improved muzzlecompensator.

Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm NATO.Length: 39.37in (1000mm).Weight: 7lb 8oz (3.4kg).Barrel: 20.0.in. (508mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20- or 30-round box.M/v: 3110 fps (948 m/s).Rate of fire: 800 rpm.

M16A3 Rifle1980s. As M16A2 but with removable carrying handle and optical sight

mount on receiver.Details: as M16A2.

M16A4 Carbine1980s. Shortened M16A2 with telescoping butt-stock.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm NATO.Length, butt extended: 33.0.in. (838mm).Length, butt retracted: 29.80in (757mm).Weight: 5lb 13oz (2.64kg).Barrel: 14.6in (370mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20- or 30-round box.M/v: 3022 fps (921 m/s).Rate of fire: 700 rpm.


M231 Firing Port Weapon1980s. Specialized M16 rifle for use from armoured vehicles through

firing ports. Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm NATO.Length, butt extended: 32.3in (820mm).Length, butt folded: 27.95in (710mm).Weight: 8lb 9oz (3.9kg).Barrel: 14.5in (368mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 3000 fps (914 m/s).Rate of fire: 1100 rpm.

EvansOld Model Rifle

1872. Lever action, rolling block breech. Submitted to U.S. Army, butrejected.

Cartridge: .4 Evans Short.Length: 47.3in (1200mm).Weight: 10lb 2oz (4.6kg).Barrel: 30.0in (762mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 24-round helical.M/v: 850 fps (260 m/s).

New Model Rifle1877. Slight modifications to Old Model. One thousand purchased by

Russian Navy in 1878.Cartridge: .4 Evans Long.Length: 43.3in (1098mm).Weight 9lb 10oz (4.37kg).Barrel: 26.0in (660mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 26-round helical.M/v: 443 fps (440 m/s).

Gallager Richardson Single-shot Carbine

Made during the Civil War; most were percussion breech loaders. Trig-ger-guard lever slides the barrel forward to load.

Cartridge: .6-52 Spencer.Length: 41.0in (1040mm).Weight: 8lb 3oz (3.7 kg).Barrel: 22.3in (565mm), 4 grooves, rh.M/v: 900 fps (274 m/s).

Garand U.S. Rifle M1

1932. Semi-automatic, gas-operated, rotating bolt, clip-loaded integralmagazine.


Cartridge: .30-06 Springfield.Length: 43.5in (1103mm).Weight: 9lb 8oz (4.37kg).Barrel: 24.0in (610mm), 4 grooves, rh. Magazine: 8-round integral M/v: 2740 fps (835 m/s).The following modifications appeared in subsequent years:

US Rifle M1E1M1 with changes to the bolt and the operating mechanism.

US Rifle M1E2M1 rifle adapted for optical sights. Few made.

US Rifle M1E3M1 with changes to the bolt and the operating system. Few made.

US Rifle M1E4An expansion chamber inserted into the gas system to ease operation.

Few made.

US Rifle M1ESShortened version with 18.0in (457mm) barrel and folding stock. Exces-

sive muzzle blast. Abandoned.

US Rifle M1E6M1 with offset telescope sight for use of iron sights in emergency. Few

made.

US Sniper’s Rifle MIC M1E7M1 with telescope sight M73 (Lyman Alaskan) or M73B1 (Weaver 330).

Flash hider.

US Sniper’s Rifle MID M1E8M1 with sight M81, M82, or M84 on block mount.

US Rifle M1E9Variant of the M1E4 with a tappet system of gas operation.

US Rifle T26Short version of the M1 demanded by the Pacific Warfare Board in June

1945. Some were made, but the project was abandoned when WorldWar II ended.

US Rifle M14 1957. The clip system was abandoned, replaced by a charger-loaded 20-


round box, firing the 7.62 NATO round and turning it into a selectivefire weapon. Far too powerful a round for automatic fire. A waste ofeffort and replaced very quickly by the M16.

Cartridge: 7.62 x 5 NATO.Length: 44.1in (112mm).Weight: 8lb 9oz (3.9kg).Barrel: 22in (559mm), 4 grooves, rh. Magazine: 20-round box.M/v: 2800 fps (853 m/s).Rate of fire: 750 rpm.

US Rifle M14A11957. The squad automatic (LMG) version of the M14 rifle, with selec-

tive fire. Bipod and muzzle compensator.Cartridge: 7.62 x 5 NATO.Length: 44.30in (1125mm).Weight: 12lb 12oz (5.78kg).Barrel: 22.0in (559mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20-round box.M/v: 2800 fps (853 m/s).Rate of fire: 750 rpm.

US Rifle M211950s. Sniper version of the M14, fitted with Leatherwood telescopic

sight.Details: as M14.

Harris & McMillanM87R Sniper Rifle

1987. Bolt-action, magazine, anti-materiel rifle. Box magazine, heavybarrel, muzzle brake, bipod.

Cartridge: .50 Browning.Length: 53.0in (1346mm).Weight: 21lb 0oz (9.5kg).Barrel: 29.0in (736mm), 8 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 2798 fps (853 m/s).

M92 Sniper Rifle1992. Modified M87R, bullpup. Same barrel, bolt action and muzzle

brake. Bipod.Cartridge: .50 Browning.Length: cc 35.0in (890mm).Weight: cc 21lb 0oz (952kg).Barrel: 29.0in (736mm), 8 grooves, rh.



M93 Sniper Rifle1993. An improved M87R.Details: as for the M87R.

Hotchkiss Winchester-Hotchkiss M1879

Bolt-action, tube magazine in butt, loaded through trap. Purchased byU.S. Army and Navy.

Cartridge: .45-70 Government.Length: 48.6in (1234mm).Weight: 9lb 2oz (4.1kg).Barrel: 28.65in (728mm), 3 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round tubeM/v: Up to 1300 fps (396 m/s).

Winchester-Hotchkiss M1883Improved model; magazine loaded through open action. Tested by U.S.

Army, but rejected.Cartridge: .45-70 Government.Length: 51.8in (1314mm).Weight: 8lb 15oz (4.1kg).Barrel: 32.0in (813mm), 3 grooves, rh.Magazine: 6-round tube.M/v: Up to 1300 fps (396 m/s).

Johnson M1941

Recoil-operated, semi-automatic, rotating bolt, rotary magazine. Usedby U.S. Marines, Dutch East Indies Army and U.S. Special Forces in1941–1945.

Cartridge: .30-06 Springfield.Length: 45.5in (1156mm).Weight: 9lb 8oz (4.3kg).Barrel: 22.0in (558mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 10-round rotary integral.M/v: 2650 fps (807 m/s).

JoslynModel 1862 Carbine

Single shot, side-pivoting breech-block. Cartridge: .6-50 Spencer. Length: 39.5in (1003mm).


Weight: 8lb 7oz (2.92kg).Barrel: 22in (558mm), 4 grooves, rh.M/v: cc 900 fps (274 m/s).

Model 1864 CarbineAs Model 1862 but with hooded firing pin.Details: as M1862.

Keene/Remington-Keene M1880

Bolt action with tube magazine beneath barrel. Tested by the U.S. Armyand Navy but rejected. Small number issued to Indian Agency police.

Cartridge: .45-70 Government. Length: 48.5in (1232mm).Weight: 9lb 0oz (4.1kg).Barrel: 30.0in (762mm), 5 grooves, lh.Magazine: 8-round tube.M/v: 1275 fps (388 m/s).

Lee

James Paris Lee developed both rotating bolt and straight-pull bolt actions,together with a box magazine.

Lee M1895 Navy RifleStraight-pull bolt. Small fixed magazine ahead of trigger guard.Cartridge: .26 Lee U.S. Navy.Length: 47.0in (1194mm).Weight: 8lb 0oz (363kg).Barrel: 27.3in (692mm), 5 grooves, lh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2400 fps (732 m/s).

Remington-Lee M1879 Rifle Rotating bolt, full-stocked, removable magazine. Adopted by U.S.Navy.Cartridge: 45-70 Government.Length: 48.5in (1232mm).Weight: 8lb 8oz (3.9kg).Barrel: 29.5in (749mm), 3 grooves, rh. Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 1320 fps (402 m/s).

Remington-Lee M1882 RifleRotating bolt, removable box magazine. Tested by U.S. Army but re-

fused. As M1879, but an improved version.


Remington-Lee 1885 RifleFurther improved M1879. Removable magazine, a separate bolt-head

with improved extractor, and an enlarged cocking-piece. Adopted byU.S. Navy.

Cartridge: .45-70 Government.Length: 52.0in (1321mm).Weight: 8lb 8oz (3.9kg).Barrel: 33.5in (851mm), 3 grooves.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 1350 fps (411 m/s).

PalmerBolt action carbine. First U.S. military bolt action. Some 1000 purchasedin 1865.

Short bolt handle at rear of bolt, side-hammer. Cartridge: .6-52 Spencer.Length: 38.5in (978mm).Weight: 8lb 8oz (3.9kg).Barrel: 20.0in (508mm), 4 grooves, rh.M/v: cc 900 fps (274 m/s).

PeabodyM1868 Rifle

Lever-operated dropping breech-block, single shot. Cartridge: .6-50 Spencer.Length: 54.1in (1373mm).Weight: 9lb 15oz (4.5kg).Barrel: 35.9in (912mm), 3 grooves, rh.M/v: 1230 fps (375 m/s).

M1868 CarbineAction as rifle.Cartridge: .6-50 Spencer.Length: 38.19in (970mm).Weight: 8lb 8oz (3.9kg).Barrel: 9.96in (507mm), 3 grooves, rh.M/v: 984 fps (300 m/s).

Pedersen T2E1Rifle

1932. Delayed blowback, toggle system, semi-automatic. Also built un-der license as Vickers Automatic Rifle in Britain, 1930–1932.

Cartridge: .276 Pedersen 12.Length: 45.0in (1143mm).Weight: 9lb 0oz (4.10kg).



Remington

The only Remington rifle to see extensive military service was the rollingblock model. The system has a rearward-pivoting breech-block that is en-hanced by a conventional hammer. The block cannot be opened unless thehammer is cocked, and when the hammer falls, it interlocks with the blockto prevent opening.

USA 1870 Navy RifleStandard rolling block breech with hammer and smaller spur for open-

ing the block. Cartridge: .5-70 U.S. Government.Length: 48.6in (235mm).Weight: 9lb 1oz (4.1 kg).Barrel: 32.6in (828mm), 3 grooves, rh.M/v: 1275 fps (388 m/s).

M1870 CarbineAction as rifle. Not accepted for service.Cartridge: .5-70 U.S. Government.Length: 38.5in (1235mm).Weight: 7lb 13oz (3.5kg).Barrel: 23.3in (590mm), 3 grooves, rh.M/v: 1100 fps (335 m/s).

M1871 Army RifleSimilar to Navy model, but the breech mechanism is fitted with the

locking action in which the hammer drops to half-cock when theblock is closed. The rifle has to be fully cocked before firing.

Cartridge: .5-70 U.S. Government.Length: 51.8in (1314mm).Weight: 9lb 5oz (4.2kg).Barrel: 36.0in (914mm), 3 grooves, rh.M/v: 1315 fps (400 m/s).

M40A1 Sniping RifleCa. 1965. Bolt-action repeating rifle. The Remington 700 sporting rifle

militarized for the U.S. Marine Corps. Heavy barrel, telescope mount.Cartridge: 7.62 x 51mm NATO.Length: 43.98in (1117mm).Weight: 14lb 8oz (6.6kg).Barrel: 24.0in (610mm), 4 grooves, rh.


Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2550 fps (777 m/s).

Robar RC-50

Ca. 1980. Bolt action rifle. Bipod, small box magazine, muzzle brake,telescope sights only. Used by U.S. forces.

Cartridge: .50 Browning.Length: 55.0in (1397mm).Weight: 25lb 0oz (1.34kg).Barrel: 29.0in (736mm), 8 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 2723 fps (830 m/s).

Ruger Mini-14/20GB Infantry Rifle

1982. Military version of the commercial Mini-14 carbine. Gas-oper-ated, rotating bolt, semi-automatic, based on the Garand system.

Cartridge: 5.56 x 45M193.Length: 37.4in (950mm).Weight: 6lb 6oz (2.9kg).Barrel: 18.5in (470mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-, 20-, or 30-round box.M/v: 3297 fps (1005 m/s).

AC-556 Selective Fire Weapon1984. As Mini-14/20GB with a three-position selector giving single

shots, three-round bursts, or automatic fire.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm M193.Length: 37.74in (984mm).Weight: 6lb 6oz (2.9kg).Barrel: 18.5in (470mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-, 20-, or 30-round box.M/v: 3470 fps (1058 m/s).Cyclic rate: 750 rpm.

AC-556F Selective Fire Weapon1984. Shortened AC-556 with folding steel stock. Rifling changed from

one turn in 308mm to one turn in 254mm.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45M193.Length, butt extended: 32.1in (815mm).Length, butt folded: 23.7in (603mm).Weight: 6lb 15oz (3.2kg).Barrel: 13.0in (330mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-, 20-, or 30-round box.


M/v: 3470 fps (1058 m/s). Cyclic rate: 750 rpm.

KAC-556, KAC-556F1986. AC-556 and AC-556F in stainless steel instead of blued steel finish.Details: the same.

(Note: In the following models, the figures given for Spencer cartridgesdo not refer to the caliber of the weapon but to the dimensions of thecase mouth and base; most calibers were .5in.)

M1861 RifleExternal hammer and operating lever forming part of trigger guard. Piv-

oting breech-block with tube cartridge magazine inserted into thestock via the butt-plate.

Cartridge: .6-56 Spencer.Length: 47.0in (1194mm).Weight: 10lb 0oz (4.5kg).Barrel: 30in (762mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 7-round tube.M/v: 950 fps (290 m/s).

M1861 CarbineAction as M1861 Rifle, but shorter barrel.Cartridge: .6-56 Spencer.Length: 39.0in (991mm).Weight: 8lb 4oz (3.7kg).Barrel: 22.0in (559mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 7-round tube.M/v: 930 fps (283 m/s).

1861/67 Carbine ConversionConverted M1861 carbine by Springfield Armory, sleeving the barrel to

.5 caliber.Details: similar, except cartridge: .6-50 Spencer; Rifling: 3 grooves; M/v:

cc 1075 fps (327 m/s).

M1865 RifleAs M1861 Rifle, but chambered in .6-50.Details: as M1861 above, except M/v: cc 1125 fps (343 m/s).

M1865 CarbineAs M1861 but chambered for the .6-50 cartridge.

1865 Contract CarbineIdentical to M1865 Spencer-made carbine, but with 3-groove rifling.


M1867 RifleIdentical to M1865 rifle but marked M1867. About 7,000 were made,

some fitted with Spencer’s patent magazine cut-off, which was at-tached to the top of the breech-block.

M1867 Carbine SpencerAs M1865 but usually with Spencer magazine cut-off on breech-block.

New Model Rifle Spencer1868. Identical to M1867 rifle but marked N.M.

New Model Carbine Spencer 1868As M1867 carbine, but marked N.M.

M1871 Rifle ConversionRebarreled M1865 carbine.Cartridge: .56-50 Spencer.Length: 49.5in (1257mm).Weight: 10lb 10oz (4.8kg).Barrel: 32.5in (825mm), 3 grooves, rh.Magazine: 7-round tube.M/v: 1120 fps (341 m/s).

Springfield M1901 Rifle

Rotating bolt, Mauser design, integral charger-loaded magazine. Cartridge: .30 1901.Length: 49.3in (1251mm).Weight: 9lb 8oz (4.3.3kg).Barrel: 30.0in (762mm), 4 grooves, lh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2300 fps (701 m/s).

M1903 RifleSimilar to M1901 but shorter.Cartridge: .30-03 Springfield.Length: 43.4in (1103mm).Weight: 8lb 8oz (3.85kg).Barrel: 24.2 in (615mm), 4 grooves, lh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2300 fps (701 m/s).(Note: In 1906 the improved .30-06 cartridge was adopted, increasing

the M/v to 2805 fps [855 m/s]).

1903 Mark 1 Pedersen DeviceM1903 rifle converted by removing the bolt and inserting a blowback


pistol mechanism, feeding from an obliquely mounted box magazine.It fired a pistol-type cartridge and was intended to deliver constantfirepower during an infantry assault. Scrapped in the 1920s.

M1903A11929. M1903 rifle with a pistol-grip buttstock.Cartridge: .30-06 Springfield.Length: 43.5in (1105mm).Weight: 8lb 0oz (3.9kg).Barrel: 24.2 in (615mm), 4 grooves, lh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2805 fps (855 m/s).

1903A3 Remington & Smith-Corona1942. Re-designed M1903A1 for mass production. Aperture sight adopted.Cartridge: .30-06 Springfield.Length: 43.3in (1098mm).Weight: 8lb 13oz (4.0kg).Barrel: 24.0in (610mm), 2 or 4 grooves, lh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2805 fps (855 m/s).

1903A4 RemingtonSniper version. Various types of telescope fitted.Cartridge: .30-06 Springfield.Length: 43.2 in (1097mm).Weight: 9lb 2oz (4.1kg).Barrel: 24.0in (610mm), 4 grooves, lh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2805 fps (855 m/s).

M1892 RifleBolt action, loading trap.Cartridge: .30-40 Krag.Length: 49.14in (1248mm).Weight: 9lb 6oz (4.3kg).Barrel: 30.0in (762mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral.M/v: 2000 fps (610 m/s).

M1896 RifleAs M1892 but new sights. Magazine cut-off.Cartridge: .30-40 Krag.Length: 49.1in (1245mm).Weight: 8lb 15oz (4.3kg).


Barrel: 30.0in (762mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral.M/v: 2000 fps (610 m/s).

M1896 Cavalry CarbineAction as rifle.Cartridge: .30-40 Krag.Length: 41.2in (1045mm).Weight: 7lb 12oz (3.51 kg).Barrel: 22.0in (559mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral.M/v: 1750 fps (533 m/s).

M1898 RifleAction and general appearance as M1892, but with sights graduated to

2000 yards for new higher velocity ammunition. Cartridge: .30-40 Krag.Length: 49.13in (1248mm).Weight: 9lb 0oz (4.1kg).Barrel: 30.0in (762mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral.M/v: 2200 fps (670 m/s).

1898 Cavalry CarbineAs the M1896, but with high-velocity sights.Cartridge: .30-40 Krag.Length: 41.15in (1045mm).Weight: 7lb 12oz (3.5kg).Barrel: 22.0in (762mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral.M/v: 970 fps (600 m/s).

1899 Cavalry CarbineModified M1898 Cavalry Carbine.Details: no significant difference, except weight: 7lb 14oz (3.6kg).

Philippine Constabulary Short RifleCa. 1900. Conversions of various models of rifle to provide a suitably

short rifle for the Philippine police.Cartridge: .30-40 Krag.Length: 41.15in (1045mm).Weight: 8lb 1oz (3.6kg).Barrel: 22in (559mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral.M/v: 750 fps (533 m/s).


StonerM63A1 Rifle

1963. Modular rifle system that was something of a milestone in devel-opment. Designed by Eugene Stoner and made by Cadillac Gage, thesystem had 15 modules that could be assembled into rifle, carbine,and light machine gun format. The basic operating system was directgas impingement, with a gas tube above the barrel and a bolt carrierand rotating bolt.

Cartridge: 5.56 x 45M193.Length: 40.3in (1023mm).Weight: 7lb 12oz (3.6kg).Barrel: 20.0in (508mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 3250 fps (988 m/s).Cyclic rate: 700 rpm.

SR5O Anti-Materiel Rifle1996. Semi-automatic, gas-operated, rotating bolt. Long barrel with

muzzle brake. Side-feeding magazine, bipod.Cartridge: .50 Browning.Length: 58.4in (1483mm).Weight: 31lb 7oz (14.28kg).Barrel: 35.5in (902mm), 8 grooves, rh.Magazine: 10-round box.M/v: cc 2887 fps (880 m/s).

Triplett & Scott Repeating Carbine, Long

1864–1865. Barrel and breech pivot on the face of the butt action so asto revolve the barrel to align with the tube magazine in the butt. Cen-tral hammer.

Cartridge: .6-52 Spencer.Length: 48.0in (1220mm).Weight: 9lb 0oz (4.1kg).Barrel: 30.0in (762mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 7-round tube.M/v: 1025 fps (312 m/s).

Repeating Carbine, Short1864. As long weapon but with a shorter barrel. Cartridge: .6-52 Spencer.Length: 40.0in (1016mm).Weight: 8lb 6oz (3.8kg).Barrel: 22.0in (558mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 7-round tube.M/v: cc 1025 fps (312 m/s).


WarnerCarbine

1860. Single shot, lifting breech-block. Hammer fired. Thumb leveralongside hammer releases breech-block.

Cartridge: .6-52 Spencer.Length: 38.0in (965mm).Weight: 8lb 2oz (3.63kg).Barrel: 20.0in (508mm), 4 grooves, rh.M/v: cc 900 fps (274 m/s).

Carbine1860. As above model, but some minor manufacturing changes.Details: the same.

Whitney 1873 Rifle (Mexico)

Rolling block single shot mechanism similar to the Remington.Cartridge: 11.5 x 57R Spanish Remington.Length: 50.5in (1282mm).Weight: 9lb 8oz (4.3kg).Barrel: 35.0in (889mm), 4 grooves, rh.M/v: 450 fps (442 m/s).

1873 CarbineRolling block single shot, action as rifle but shorter.Cartridge: 11.15 x 58R Spanish Remington.Length: 36.0in (1282mm).Weight: 7lb 3oz (3.26kg).Barrel: 20.5in (521mm), 4 grooves, rh.M/v: 1312 fps (400 m/s).

Winchester M1873 Musket

Well-known 1873 lever-action for a musket has same butt and breechmechanism, central hammer and trigger-guard lever as any otherWinchester lever-action, but a longer barrel.

Cartridge: .4-40 Winchester.Length: 48.3in (1227mm).Weight: 9lb 8oz (4.3.3kg).Barrel: 30.0in (762mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 17-round tube.M/v: 1300 fps (396 m/s).

M1895 MusketVariation of the M1895 Browning-designed lever-action carbine, but has a

box magazine ahead of the trigger guard. Russia bought over 200,000in 1915–1917; many of them were taken to Spain in 1936–1937.


Cartridge: 7.62 x 54M Russian.Length: 43.2in (1097mm).Weight: 7lb 9oz (3.4kg).Barrel: 24.0in (610mm), 6 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round box.M/v: 2810 fps (856 m/s).

US Carbine I1941. Semi-automatic, gas operated, rotating bolt. Box magazine, flip

aperture back sight.Cartridge: .30 U.S. Carbine.Length: 35.6in (904mm).Weight: 5lb 3oz (2.35kg).Barrel: 18.0in (457mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 15- or 30-round box.M/v: 1970 fps (600 m/s).

US Carbine M1AI1941. As M1, but with a pistol grip and metal folding stock.Cartridge: .30 U.S. Carbine.Length, butt extended: 35.563in (905mm).Weight: 5lb 9oz (2.5kg).Barrel: 18.0in (457mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 15- or 30-round box.M/v: 1970 fps (600 m/s).

US Carbine M21941. M1 modification giving selective fire capability.Cartridge: .30 U.S. Carbine.Length: 35.6in (904mm).Weight: 5lb 3oz (2.4kg).Barrel: 18.0in (457mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5- or 30-round box.M/v: 1970 fps (600 m/s).Cyclic rate: 750 rpm.

US Carbine M31942. M2 specially adapted to mount an infrared “Sniperscope” lamp

and sight.

YUGOSLAVIA

M70BI1960s. Copy of AKM. Has a grenade sight on the gas port, which, when

raised, redirects the gas flow for grenade launching.

430 APPENDIX B: YUGOSLAVIA

M70AB21980s. Copy of AKM-S.

M76 Sniping Rifle1976. The AK with a long barrel and wooden fixed butt, chambered for

the 7.92 Mauser cartridge, iron sights and a mount for optical orelectro-optical sights, semi-automatic only, small straight magazine.


M77B11977. Long-barrelled AK, straight magazine. Chambered for NAT O

standard 7.62 x 51mm cartridge. Intended for use as an infantry rifle.Cartridge: 7.62 x 51mm NATO.Length: 38.97in (990mm).Weight: 7lb 8oz (3.4kg).Barrel: 16.34in (415mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 20-round box.M/v: 2887 fps (880 m/s).Rate of fire: 700 rpm.

M80 Chambered for the 5.56mm cartridge1980. Very similar to AK-47.Cartridge: 5.56 x 45MLength: 38.97in (990mm).Weight: 7lb 9oz (3.5kg).Barrel: 18.11in (460mm), 6 grooves.Magazine: 30-round box.M/v: 3182 fps (970 m/s).Rate of fire: 750 rpm.

M80A1980. Folding-butt M80.

M85 1986. Copy of the Russian AKS-74U, chambered for the 5.56 x 45M car-tridge. Folding stock.

Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm M193.Length, butt extended: 31.1in (790mm).Length, butt folded: 22.4in (570mm).Weight: 7lb 1oz (3.2kg).Barrel: 12.4in (315mm), 6 grooves, rh.

APPENDIX B: YUGOSLAVIA 431

Magazine: 20- or 30-round box.M/v: 2592 fps (790 m/s).Rate of fire: 700 rpm.

Model 1948 A copy of the German Kar. 98k.Cartridge: 7.92 x 57mm Mauser.Length: 42.90in (1089mm).Weight: 8lb 0oz (3.9.3kg).Barrel: 23.3in (592mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 5-round integral box.M/v: 2600 fps (792 m/s).

Zastava ArmsM59 Rifle

1959. Exact copy of the Simonov SKS made under license in Yugoslavia.Details: as for that rifle.

M59/66 Rifle1967. Yugoslav-manufactured and improved Model 59; integral grenade

launcher. Cartridge: 7.62 x 39mm Soviet 1943.Length: 44.1in (1120mm).Weight: 9lb (4.10kg).Barrel: 24.3in (618mm), 4 grooves, rh.Magazine: 10-round box.M/v: 2410 fps (735 m/s).

432 APPENDIX B: YUGOSLAVIA

G L O S S A R Y

accuracy The ability of a weapon to hit the target at the point aimed at;lessens with range and is dependent upon the caliber, power of the car-tridge fired, the weapon used and its sighting system (telescopic sightsoffer greater accuracy at longer ranges), climatic influences, and theuser.

AC P Automatic Colt Pistol (.45 ACP or .38 ACP). Originally designatedcartridges for weapons chambered in these calibers.

a c t i o n The mechanism of a firearm whereby it is loaded, fired, and un-loaded. This may be a simple lock mechanism (such as the flintlock) ormore complex, such as a bolt or an SLR action. The bolt/SLR actionsare self-contained and contain within them the firing pin and spring andthe spent cartridge extractor.

AP Armor piercing.AP/T Armor-piercing tracer; a type of ammunition.aperture sight A rear sight with a small circular hole through which the

foresight is centered when aiming. Succeeded notch and V rear sightsthat were less easy to use for the rifleman.

assault rifle A small arm that uses a rifle-type round that is smaller andlighter than a rifle but larger than an SMG. Usually has selective fireand almost always fires a lower-energy round than a true rifle.

a u t o m a t i c The firing of a succession of rounds when the trigger is helddown. Often used to fire a burst.

back sight The rearmost sight on a rifle, also known as the rear sight. Orig-inally no more than a V or U with no range gradations, it later becamevery complex with graduated sights for firing at ranges from 200 yards to2,800 yards.

back thrust The pressure exerted on the breech block/bolt head by the car-tridge case when fired.

ball The original name for a lead ball fired by a musket or by early rifles.Cylindrical in shape and solid.

ball cartridge A military full-metal jacket composite round.ball powder A nitrocellulose propellant that is manufactured as small balls

of compressed powder, sometimes also known as granular powder,

433

which is in the form of grains of powder. Often produces more chamberand barrel deposits than tubular propellant. Gives less chamber pressurebut increases muzzle pressure.

ball round A jacketed bullet normally lead cored; it may contain someother metal parts.

ballistic coefficient A number indicating the efficiency of a bullet in over-coming resistance of air and other obstacles in its trajectory.

ballistics The science of projectiles. Now divided into interior, muzzle, ex-terior, and terminal and wound ballistics.

ballistite A smokeless propellant used mainly to propel a grenade or simi-lar weapon from the muzzle of a weapon. It is more powerful than blankpowder and tends to burn longer.

barrel The tube that directs the projectile. May be rifled or smoothbore. Itextends from the fore end of the chamber to the muzzle.

barrel life The expected lifetime of a barrel, normally expressed in sec-onds or at most minutes; tells the user how many rounds he may expectto fire at sustainable accuracy by the division of barrel life by barrelt i m e .

barrel time The time taken for a bullet to travel from the instant it starts tomove out of the neck of the case into the chamber to the moment itleaves the muzzle. This is on the order of .0009 of a second, plus orminus .0002 in modern weapons.

beaten zone An area on the ground into which a succession of bullets firedfrom a weapon will fall. Used at longer ranges for interdiction fire byplatoons or even companies up to World War I in particular. Supersededby machine gun fire.

bent A recess, normally in the breech block or the firing pin housing, intowhich the sear fits. When engaged, the firing pin or the breech block isprevented from moving, normally forward.

bipod A two-legged support placed under a weapon to support its weight inorder to allow more accurate shooting. Often seen on sniper rifles.

blank A cartridge or shell, without a projectile, intended to produce a noisewhen fired. The propellant is normally of a fast-burning variety to com-pensate for lack of bullet resistance.

boat tail The tapered rear end of a bullet. The form of the bullet allows abetter ballistic flight with less tail drag from air.

bolt The rotating mechanical device used in the nineteenth and twentiethcenturies to load and unload a rifle. Consisted of the bolt lever, the boltitself, the firing pin, firing pin spring, sear, and extractor. Still in use to-day in some military rifles, especially for sniper use. In the assault rifle itis the component that holds and supports the base of the round while itis being chambered, fired, or extracted (see breech block).

bolt action Any rifle using a rotary bolt.bore The hole running down the length of the barrel through which the

bullet is projected.

434 GLOSSARY

breech That part of the rifle that is open to allow the introduction of car-tridges to load or reload the weapon, or closed when the rifle is eithersafe or loaded and ready to fire. It is located immediately behind thechamber. Sometimes the term is used to signify the chamber, but this isstrictly inaccurate.

breech block Normally this component houses the bolt, adds mass to therecoiling parts, and provides the bent recess.

breech loader Any weapon that is loaded at the breech, or rear, end ratherthan at the muzzle, or front, end.

breech pressure The internal breech pressure exerted by the cartridge onthe bolt face when fired. Not to be confused with chamber pressure.

bullet drop (fall) The drop caused in a bullet in flight due to gravity.bulleted blank A training cartridge used in automatic weapons. The bullet

is made of soft wood to allow gas pressure to build up to operate theweapon but disintegrates very rapidly after leaving the muzzle. Stilllethal at short ranges.

burst A specific number of rounds fired sequentially on one application ofthe trigger. Some assault rifles have a burst-control mechanism allowingthem to fire, say, three rounds at one time. The Heckler & Koch G11caseless round rifle fires three-round bursts at a much higher rate of firethan normal.

caliber The nominal internal diameter of the bore, measured from land toland, or the nominal diameter of the projectile. Today caliber is ex-pressed as the first part of the whole cartridge description, so the7.62mm x 51mm NATO cartridge has a caliber of 7.62mm and a car-tridge total length of 51mm.

cannelure A groove on the rear body of a bullet normally used to ensure agood grip by the cartridge case after crimping.

cap The portion of the base of the round that contains the primer com-pound.

carbine This is usually a rifle that has been cut down both in length of bar-rel and in weight in order to make it easier to carry (U.S. tradition has itthat a carbine has a barrel length of 22 inches or less). Originally in-tended for use by cavalry, carbines were also issued to gun crews. InWorld War II and subsequently, carbines were issued to all front-linetroops who were not riflemen, such as drivers, officers, radiomen, andso on.

cartridge Originally a paper container for the powder, which also served aswadding. Nowadays it signifies the complete assembly of primer, case,propellant, and bullet that goes to make a round of ammunition, thecomposite round.

case The container component of a cartridge that is filled with the propel-lant and has the primer fitted to it.

caseless ammunition Ammunition that has no outer material to containand protect the propellant. Used in the Heckler & Koch G11 rifle. As

GLOSSARY 435

436 GLOSSARY

yet, problems of weapon overheating are proving hard to solve, but thistype of ammunition will be seen in the future.

c e n t e r- fi r e The discovery of the center-fire principle led to the develop-ment of the bolt. The cartridge primer is located in the center of thebase of the cartridge case.

chamber The rear part of the barrel into which the cartridge is loaded andwhere it is fired.

chamber pressure The pressure created in the chamber by the expandinggases caused by firing the weapon. These gases force the bullet alongthe barrel and can be tapped to provide extraction and reloading energyin the breech block. Pressures reach 55,000 pounds per square inch ormore.

ch a r g e Another name for the propellant. Also, as a verb, to load, in antiquity.charge mass The amount of propellant contained in the cartridge case.

With different types of ammunition the charge mass varies (seeballistite).

closed bolt The time at which the bolt of a bolt-action rifle is completelyclosed, and the bolt is either cocked with a cartridge in the chamber orthe bolt is safe, with or without a cartridge in the chamber. Also, modernsemiautomatic and automatic weapons firing from a closed bolt have around in the chamber before the trigger is pressed.

c o ck Alternate old name for the hammer of a flintlock of percussionweapon. Nowadays it denotes the working part that strikes the firing pinwhen a weapon is fired.

cocking The process of making a weapon ready to fire, normally by movingthe working parts to the rear by means of a cocking handle.

compensator A muzzle brake whereby some of the propellant gases follow-ing the bullet are diverted to lessen the upward jump of the muzzle onfiring, especially in automatic or burst firing. Also seen on anti-materielrifles to reduce the recoil to a small extent.

cook off The firing of a round due to the chamber inducing enough heat inthe cartridge propellant to cause spontaneous combustion. See alsohangfire.

core The internal component of a bullet. Often lead, it is surrounded bythe jacket or bullet casing.

c r i m p The lip created at the neck of a cartridge used to hold the bulletfirmly in the case.

cyclic rate The number of rounds that a weapon will fire in 1 minute givena continuous supply of ammunition (also known as the rate of fire inthis text). It is a theoretical figure.

cylinder The rotating part of a revolver mechanism that houses the cham-bers holding the rounds.

Damascus (Damascene) barrel A barrel made by twisting two or morestrips of steel around a former and then hammer-welding together.Common on older weapons, particularly shotguns and expensive mili-tary firearms.

GLOSSARY 437

danger space/danger area The range from a weapon during which the tra-jectory of a bullet does not rise above the average height of the target.Also, the space around the bursting point of an exploding shell danger-ous to the target.

deflection Any external object or force causing a bullet to depart from itstrajectory causes deflection. Can be caused by wind, foliage, armor, orthe human body.

d i s c o n n e c t o r Part of the trigger mechanism of an automatic weapon toprevent the gun from being fired unless the action is fully closed, or toprevent the firing of more than one shot for each pull of the trigger.

dispersion The spread of bullets on a target; see group.d o u ble action The type of firing action whereby pulling the trigger not

only cocks but also fires the weapon. Applies only to revolvers and somepistols.

double base See propellant.drag Air resistance to the bullet in flight.drift Sideward movement of a bullet in flight due to the rotation caused by

the rifling. Usually compensated for in the zeroing of the sights of therifle.

Dum-Dum Correctly (but very rarely) a bullet made at the British Arsenalof that name in India; commonly a bullet that has its jacket cut, drilled,or deformed in such a way that the core of the bullet expands on hittingflesh to cause severe wounding. The same effect at short range can beachieved by reversing the bullet in the case before firing, but this cancause jamming.

effective range The range at which the average military rifleman may beexpected to hit a target with his first or perhaps second shot. Dependentupon the weapon and the firer. In musket days the range could be as lit-tle as 30 yards; today it can be taken to be a maximum of probably 300yards or less.

ejection After extraction, the method whereby the empty case or unusedround is thrown clear of the weapon.

ejector Normally a fixed stud in the bolt or breech block housing (the riflebody) that is hit by an extracted round on its base that causes the case tobe thrown away from the breech.

e l ev a t i o n The vertical adjustment in sights that allows firing at variousranges.

erosion The wearing-away of the bore by gas, chemical, or mechanical ac-tion. All barrels suffer from erosion when fired, and excessive erosiondegrades accuracy to such an extent that the weapon needs to be rebar-reled or discarded.

expanding bullet See Dum-Dum.ex t r a c t i o n The withdrawal of an empty case or unfired round from the

chamber.extractor The device fitted to the rear of the chamber in earlier weapons,

or integrally to the bolt, whereby the cartridge is gripped for extraction.

falling block Falling-block rifles have a breech block that moves up anddown, down on extraction and up after manual loading. Normally theyare pivoted at the rear to allow access to the chamber for reloading. TheMartini-Henry is such a rifle.

field of view What is seen through an optical/telescopic sight. The higherthe magnification, the smaller the field of view. Snipers generally workat 6x magnification to give good target viewing as well as a reasonablefield of view.

figure of merit A British measure of the dispersion of a batch of ammuni-tion. The smaller, the better. Ammunition needs to be able to hit the tar-get aimed at by an average shot. For snipers much more accurate ammu-nition is provided. The ammunition is tested for accuracy andconsistency at the manufacturing site.

firing pin The part of the firing mechanism of the weapon that strikes theprimer and causes the propellant to ignite.

flash hider/eliminator An attachment to the muzzle of a weapon thathides or eliminates the flame that exits the muzzle. In fact, in daylighttoday there is little or no flash (and no smoke with smokeless powder),but at night flash is still very evident even when the weapon is so fitted.On semiautomatic and automatic weapons breech flash is also apparentin the dark.

flash hole The hole in the base of the cartridge case through which theflame from the primer passes to ignite the main propellant charge.

fouling The deposits created within the chamber, barrel, body, piston hous-ing, and so on of the modern rifle, in the barrel and chamber in olderweapons, which can cause jamming, misfires, and other failures.Caused by the propellant failing to be completely consumed on firing,and often seen as a shower of sparks at the muzzle in older weapons.

f u r n i t u r e The parts of a weapon that make it comfortable to hold andcarry. The term derives from the fact that most early weapons used woodto form the butt (stock) and the fore end. The butt allows the weapon tobe fired from the shoulder; the fore end protects the firer’s hands fromexcessive heat from the barrel.

gain twist Rifling that increases its twist as it nears the muzzle. The sub-ject of experiments, particularly in the nineteenth century, that havenever proved any conclusive benefit.

gas The product of firing the propellant charge. The gases expand at a phe-nomenal rate and impart energy to the bullet to drive it along the barrel.

gas-operated Any weapon that uses tapped propellant gases to operate theloading/reloading cycle.

grain An old measure of weight, used in the precious metal industry. An av-erage ounce weight equals 437.5 grains.

Greenhill formula A formula developed by Sir Alfred Greenhill to deter-mine the correct rifling twist for stability.

groove Rifling consists of grooves and lands. The grooves are cut into the

438 GLOSSARY

barrel, and the lands are the metal left between the grooves. Caliber ismeasured between lands.

group The area into which a number of rounds aimed at the same point ar-rive. Grouping is a test for new riflemen to see how firmly they hold therifle and how good their weapon control is. A “floater” is an errantround. A small group is proof of good musketry, whereas a wide groupshows the opposite.

gun Any weapon that fires a projectile. Loosely applied to all manner ofweapons; a generic term.

g u n p o w d e r The earliest propellant, a mixture of charcoal, saltpeter, andsulfur. Also known as black powder from its color. Granular, very proneto dampness.

h a m m e r O r i g i n a l l y, the external hammer activated by the trigger thatstrikes the frizzen and causes a spark to ignite the powder in the pan;also, hits a percussion cap that fires the propellant charge in the cham-ber or delivers a blow to a firing pin.

hand gun A pistol, revolver, or other weapon capable of being fired whenheld in one or both hands. Nowadays it applies only to pistols and re-volvers, but formerly applied to rifles as well.

hangfire A greater delay than is expected between the striking of the capand the ignition of the propellant. The delay may be infinite (the primerdid not work, there is no main propellant, etc.) or of unspecified dura-tion. With rifles the normal drill is to expel the unfired cartridge as care-fully as possible and carry on firing. On the range, however, and in train-ing the rifle is often isolated for a specific time before extraction. It isvery noticeable when firing old-fashioned flintlocks.

headspace The distance between the breech face and the face of the bolt,between which is sandwiched the cartridge rim. Rimmed cartridges nor-mally extend behind the breech face to an extent, whereas rimless car-tridges can be held within the chamber.

i g n i t i o n The primer initiates ignition, and ignition takes place at about500°C.

ignition time The time that elapses between the firing pin striking theprimer and the bullet starting to move. Compare hangfire.

individual weapon An assault rifle or rifle, seldom required to engage atarget beyond 600 yards. Today battle ranges rarely exceed 300 yards ex-cept for snipers.

Ingalls tables Tables developed by Colonel J. M. Ingalls in the nineteenthcentury to calculate trajectory, velocity, and time of flight, in relation tocaliber, charge, and rifling.

jacket A casing that forms the outer covering of a bullet. Usually made ofcopper, steel, or gilding metal over a lead core. A full-metal jacket coversthe core completely, but in expanding bullets (unlawful militarily) thejacket is cut or removed at the tip of the bullet and allows the core tomushroom on impact, causing dreadful wounds.

GLOSSARY 439

jam A stoppage caused by an object becoming jammed within the workingparts of a rifle, or by fouling preventing the smooth operation of thoseparts. Jamming can be caused by sand, dust, rust, or foreign material aswell as by deformed rifle parts and faulty or malformed cartridges andcartridges that misfire. All military weapons training includes much in-struction on how to recognize jams and how to clear them.

jump The movement of the muzzle of a weapon due to the effect of thew e a p o n ’s initial recoil while the bullet is still in the barrel. Normallycaused by the firer.

keyhole An elongated hole made in a target by a yawing bullet that, due toinsufficient spin, arrives at the target sideways or partly so.

killing power A rather inaccurate term for the ability of a weapon or itsprojectile to effect lethal force on the target. Sometimes used by thosein awe of a particular weapon, such as Dirty Harry’s .44 Magnum.

lands The raised portion or ridges between the grooves in a rifled bore.lead The gap between the front of the chamber and the commencement of

the rifling (sometimes called the leade). Also, a term meaning to aim infront of a moving target by a specific amount.

light machine gun (L M G) An automatic weapon portable by one man,normally with a bipod, changeable barrel, firing from an open bolt, ca-pable of more sustained fire than a rifle, out to the range required by asection (600 yards).

light support weapon (L S W) Normally a rifle with a longer and some-times heavier barrel, fitted with a bipod for the same tasks as an LMG,but with less need for sustained fire. Such weapons have been found tobe more trouble than they are generally worth, especially if magazinefed. The British Army has at last seen that the Minimi LMG is a far bet-ter weapon at section level than the very unreliable LSW, which is basedon the SA80 system.

line of fire An imaginary straight line continuing down the axis of the borewhen the weapon is fired. Also signifies the area in front of a weaponthat is visible to the firer and in which he can visually obtain and engagetargets.

line of sight A straight line from the weapon sight to the target, which is avisual, but not a ballistic, line (see trajectory).

lock time The time between the release of the sear and the detonation ofthe cap. Not to be confused with hangfire.

lot number Applies to ammunition. A code number that identifies a partic-ular quantity of ammunition when it is manufactured. Special ammuni-tion (such as that issued for sniping) is always well identified.

machine gun A firearm capable of sustained automatic fire, normally froma bipod or tripod, and belt fed.

machine pistol What is now known as a submachine gun or pistol-caliberweapon designed for close ranges. Previously also applied to weaponssuch as the Mauser pistol when fitted with a stock.

440 GLOSSARY

m a g nu m A term implying a cartridge loaded with a greater propellantcharge, giving higher-than-normal velocity.

m a x i mum range The range at which a bullet is no longer effective inwounding.

mean point of impact (MPI) The center of a group of shots; see group.medium machine gun (MMG) A crew-served automatic weapon, not as

portable as an LMG, normally fired from some form of mounting, beltfed, and with good sustained fire capacity and a greater useful range,perhaps even out to 2000 yards.

medium support weapon (MSW) Similar to an MMG.misfire The failure of a round to fire properly or completely. Often caused

by faulty primers, misfires rarely occur due to propellant failure.mouth The opening at the front end of a cartridge that is formed at the

neck.muzzle brake An attachment secured to the muzzle of a gun and using the

propellant gases to cut down the recoil. Compare with compensator.muzzle energy The kinetic energy of a round on exit from the muzzle.

High muzzle energies mean longer ranges and increased penetration ofbullets (i.e., increased killing power).

muzzle loader Any weapon that is loaded via the muzzle.muzzle velocity The speed at which a bullet leaves the muzzle of the rifle,

measured in feet per second (fps) or meters per second (m/s).neck The front portion of a bottleneck cartridge case that is reduced in di-

ameter and into which the bullet fits. See also c a n n e l u r e, rim, a n dcartridge.

nitrocellulose The base for modern propellant powders made from cottonimpregnated with sulfuric and nitric acid.

obturation The sealing at the breech end of a barrel to prevent any rear-ward escape of high-pressure gas. An obturator is a seal for this purpose,and in the Chassepôt rifle the obturator was made of cork, which had avery short life.

open bolt Weapons that fire with an open bolt or breech, have the workingparts held to the rear before firing thus ensuring that no round is in thechamber until the trigger is pressed, at which point the working partsmove forward to chamber the round.

pin-fire Composite cartridges that are hammer fired. The hammer strikesan integral pin in the cartridge that in turn strikes the internal primer.

pistol Used to denote semiautomatic as opposed to revolver handguns. Of-ten used in error to denote the latter.

pitch The angle of the rifling helix to the bore axis.powder See gunpowder.primary extraction The initial rearward movement of the empty case in or-

der to unseat it from the chamber. Caused by the gases in the barreland/or by a short rearward movement of the bolt. Extraction follows.

primer An easily initiated explosive to be found in the cap of a cartridge.

GLOSSARY 441

There are two main types, the Berdan and the Boxer. May also be heldin the rim (rimfire cartridges) in small-bore cartridges.

projectile Any object fired by a gun. A bullet becomes a projectile at themoment it leaves the barrel.

propellant The charge used to propel the bullet along the barrel and itstrajectory.

range The distance (normally in yards or meters) between rifle and target.rate of fire The practical number of rounds that can be fired from a given

weapon. In this text used to denote the cyclic rate of fire.rate of twist The distance moved down the barrel for the bullet to make

one complete revolution.receiver The metal part of the gun that houses the breech and firing mech-

anisms, sometimes called the frame. Also called the breech on earlierweapons.

r e c o i l The rearward movement of the gun due to the energy created onfiring.

recoil-operated A firearm that uses part of the recoil energy to reload andrecock itself.

revolver A repeating handgun having a number of chambers in a rotatingcylinder that are indexed around by pulling the trigger. Most revolversindex, then fire, a very few vice versa. A single-action revolver is one inwhich the hammer must be cocked manually before the trigger can re-lease it.

rifle A long-barreled, rifled weapon, fired from the shoulder, used for accu-rate shooting to 600 yards or more. Rifles are still found that are bolt op-erated, but they are few and far between, mainly reserved for snipingwork. Today the AK-47 is perhaps the most recognizable rifle in theworld, closely followed (in proliferation) by the Heckler & Koch G3 andthe U.S. M16.

rifling The system of grooves cut into a barrel (or today formed by ham-mering or pressing cold steel) that spin the bullet so that it maintains itsstability in flight.

rim The part of a round of ammunition that allows the extraction of thatround from a chamber. A cartridge may be rimmed (have a rim that is ofwider diameter than the base of the cartridge), rimless (the rim beingcut into the cartridge base, reinforced for this purpose), or semi-rimmed(a mixture of the two techniques). Modern military cartridges are allrimless, as this ensures better feeding with semiautomatic and auto-matic weapons.

SA Acronym for small arm or single action.sear A catch in the firing mechanism of a gun that engages in a bent in the

breech block or restrains the firing pin, thus inhibiting firing until thetrigger is pulled.

self-loading A firearm that automatically extracts, ejects, and reloads an-other cartridge ready for firing. Also known as auto-loading. The term

442 GLOSSARY

also applies to self-loading rifles, assault rifles, machine guns, subma-chine guns, and machine pistols.

semiautomatic The same as self-loading but single shot only.S F Acronym for sustained fire, or continuous machine gun fire from a tripod.shoulder The tapered portion of a cartridge case, between the body of the

case and the neck holding the bullet.sighting in See zeroing.sights The means of aiming the weapon. Normally a rear (back) sight and a

fore (front) sight combine to increase accuracy. Sights may be rudimen-tary (V and blade), complex (adjustable apertures rear and fore), or amixture of the two. Aperture rear sights are standard but are being sup-planted by single-point optical sights (where the firer sees an arrow orother indicator in the sight tube). Sighting systems are becoming moreand more complex, but more dependent upon batteries, which must be adisadvantage. Optical sights are of value, but only if they give an ade-quate field of view.

single action Normally, in a revolver, the weapon must be manually cockedbefore it can be fired.

SLR Self-loading rifle.small arm Generally a weapon that is portable, firing a flat-trajectory pro-

jectile of 12.7mm or less. Also includes anti-materiel weapons of largercaliber, as these weapons now go up to around 20mm caliber.

s m o keless powder Discovered in 1832, perfected in 1884, it is neithersmokeless nor a powder, but actually a solid nitrocellulose monopropel-lant with or without oxidizing and/or fuel plasticizers.

submachine gun (SMG) This is a term seldom used today, having been re-placed by personal defense weapon (PDW) but covering a weapon be-tween a handgun and a rifle.

terminal velocity The velocity of the bullet at the end of its flight.time of flight The time taken from leaving the muzzle to the end of its

flight.t r a j e c t o ry The parabolic flight of a bullet or projectile from leaving the

muzzle to the end of its flight. Due to gravitational and other effects, abullet cannot describe a line of flight that is exactly the same as the lineof sight. It actually travels above the line of sight in a parabola until itreaches the actual aiming point (as opposed to the firer’s perceived aim-ing point, which may be completely different). When the bullet’s path toits aiming point is below the average height of a man, it is said to createa danger zone.

trigger The part of the firing mechanism pulled or squeezed that releasesthe hammer or firing pin.

tumble (tumbling) The effect of bad design in bullets can cause them totumble. This causes inaccuracy but can also cause very serious wounds.

vibration Small but rapid, rhythmic vibrations in barrels on firing; occurswhile the bullet is in the barrel.

GLOSSARY 443

w h i p The sudden movement at the moment of emergence of the bulletfrom the barrel. Often caused by incorrect barrel length in relation to ri-fling.

windage Allowance for wind when aiming. Also, in muzzle loaders particu-larly, gaps between ball and barrel wall allowing propellant gases to es-cape past the ball on firing.

yaw The angle between the tangent to the trajectory and the longitudinalaxis of the projectile at its center of gravity. Often produced by bad bul-let design.

zero/zeroing The adjustment of the sights so as to ensure that bullet im-pact is on the point of aim.

444 GLOSSARY

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

Allen, W. G. B. Pistols, Rifles and Machineguns. EUP, London, 1953.An important contribution to the science of war. Major Allen looks atthe principles governing the operation and use of military small arms inthe period 1939 to the 1950s, with historical material to explain the de-velopment of these weapons.

Allsop, D., et al. Military Small Arms. Brassey’s, London, 1997.This is a technical book dealing with the design and operation of mili-tary small arms. It contains a lot of important diagrams explaining all as-pects of the subject, including ammunition and ammunition magazinesand belts. It also shows very clearly how weapons work.

Allsop, D. F., and M. A. To o m e y. Small Arms—General Design. B r a s s e y ’sLand Warfare Series No. 6. Brassey’s, London, 1999.

This book contains a wealth of detail on how and why weapons are de-signed. It is a valuable complement to the previous volume, both ofwhich are part of Brassey’s Land Warfare into the 21st Century series.

Army Field Forces Board, Fort Benning. Report of Joint Test of United Statesand United Kingdom Lightweight Rifles. Typescript copy, 1950.

The joint tests in 1950 led eventually to the United States’ adopting thetotally inappropriate and useless M14 in place of the M1 Garand, and tothe British adopting the SLR instead of the promising 7mm EM-2. Thisreport has the details of the tests and the results and conclusions. A tbest these tests were an uneasy compromise, especially with the UnitedStates being controlled by Colonel René Studler, of doubtful ability.

Ball, Robert W. D. Mauser Military Rifles of the Wo r l d . Krause Publica-tions, Iola, WI, 2000.

This is essentially a list book but contains a wealth of detail on the coun-tries that adopted the Mauser designs. There are numerous good colorphotographs of the weapons.

445

Barnes, Frank C., M. L. McPherson (eds.). Cartridges of the World. KrausePublications, Iola, WI, 1965.

This is a comprehensive treatment of civil and military cartridges, andhas a good section on military cartridges.

Bergsteffel, Alois. “Die Repetier-Frage.” Chronica 20.An article on the repeater rifle question, first published in the nine-teenth century. It summarizes developments up to the 1890s and hassome good line drawings.

Bilby, Joseph G. Civil War Firearms. Combined Books, Conshohocken, PA,1996.

A good book on the subject, bringing out the enormous range ofweapons used by both sides in the U.S. Civil War. There are also manycomments on tactics and operations.

Blair, Claude. “A Further Note on the Early History of the Wheel-Lock.”Journal of the Arms and Armour Society 4, no. 9: 187, 1976.

This is a good article giving further details of the wheel lock and its his-tory.

B l a i r, Claude, ed. Po l l a r d ’s History of Fi r e a r m s . MacMillan, New York, 1983.This is a book that no self-respecting historian of firearms should bewithout. It is full of the sort of detail needed, and is exceptionally well il-lustrated with line drawings and photographs.

Bosworth, N. A Treatize on the Rifle. Redfield, New York, 1846.Important because it covers manufacturing methods in the period be-fore the U.S. Civil Wa r, and also poses a few questions about thesemethods. Good background material.

Cline, Walter M. The Muzzle-Loading Rifle. Standard Printing and Pub-lishing, Huntington, WV, 1942.

An examination of the muzzle-loading rifles of the nineteenth century inthe United States. Of no great significance to a military study, but hassome value in its comments about the U.S. tradition of carryingfirearms.

Cole, Ralph D., and W. C. Howells. The Thirty-Seventh Division in theWorld War 1917–1918. 37th Division Veterans Association, Columbus,OH, 1926, pp. 387ff.

This history includes an important comment on the Springfield 1903 rifle.

Council of the NRA (UK). Automatic Rifles, and Report on the Trials of Au-tomatic Rifles. NRA, 1904.

446 BIBLIOGRAPHY

These papers relate to the semiautomatic competition that was carriedout between 1904 and 1906 in the United Kingdom, and also gives theresults of the tests on the various rifles submitted for the competition.

Daw, George H. Daw’s Gun Patents. G. H. Daw, London, 1864.

Deane, J. Deane’s Manual of the History and Science of Fire-Arms. Long-man, Brown, Green, Longmans and Roberts, London, 1858.

This is a delightful history of the development of firearms and should beread for pleasure, although there are certain sections on chemistry thatare very valuable.

D u g e l b y, T. B. E M - 2 Concept and Design. Collector Grade Publications,Toronto, ON, 1980.

A very good examination of this significant weapon and its development.

———. Modern Military Bull-Pup Rifles. Collector Grade Publications,Toronto, ON, 1984.

A listing of modern bullpup rifles that is superficial, but does containsome interesting photographs.

Ezell, Edward Clinton. The AK-47 Story. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA,1986.

The story behind the development of the famous rifle, includingKalashnikov himself, the way he thought out the principles of theweapon, and how he then got the rifle into manufacture. It is a funda-mental book.

———. The Great Rifle Controversy. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA ,1984.

This is a book that must be read to understand the problems of the U.S.Army in its search for a new semiautomatic rifle after World War II. Theauthor pulls no punches, is straight down the line on the M14 fiasco,and has little time for the 600 yarders, who argued against the small-caliber cartridge that Armalite was proposing. Compulsory reading.

Fremantle, T. F. The Book of the Rifle. Longmans Green, London, 1901.An early but extremely important work that looks at the rifle at the turnof the twentieth century. There is a very valuable section on military ri-fles, and much of the history of the development of military firearms isincluded and well illustrated.

Fuller, Claude E. The Rifled Musket. Bonanza Books, New York, 1958.A good series of line drawings complements a detailed book on earlyU.S. rifled muskets.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 447

German General Staff. “Merkblatt Anleitung zur Ausbildung und den Ein-satz von Scarfschützen.” Official Mil Publication, OKH, 1943.

This article covers the K98k telescope-version sniper rifle and is a tech-nical manual.

Gould, A. C. Modern American Rifles. Bradlee Whidden, Boston, 1892.A book of lesser importance, covering sporting and some militaryweapons around the turn of the century.

Greener, W. W. The Gun and Its Development. Reprint. New Orchard Edi-tions, Poole, Dorset, UK, 1988.

Another of the “must have” books on rifles. A complete examination ofcivilian and military weapons, with important background informationand a wealth of line drawings to illustrate the points made by the author.

Hallahan, William H. Misfire. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1994.This book complements Ezell’s Great Rifle Controversy, but goes muchfurther back. The descriptions of the corruption and sheer inefficiencyat Springfield A r m o r y, and the machinations in the nineteenth andtwentieth centuries in the arms business in the United States, defy be-lief. This first-class book reads well and easily, but is a warning of thingsthat are probably still happening: the interests of firearms manufactur-ers who are suppliers and their underhanded methods to keep their con-tracts make chilling reading on both sides of the Atlantic.

Hartink, A. E. Encyclopedia of Rifles and Carbines. Rebo, Lisse, TheNetherlands, 1997.

Another listings book, of no great significance, but with good photo-graphs.

Hayward, J. F. The Art of the Gunmaker. 2 vols. Barrie and Rockliffe, Lon-don, 1963.

A first-rate academic study of gun makers in Europe from the fifteenthc e n t u r y. Perhaps a little dry for the gun-nut, it is nevertheless of realvalue in tying in the weapons and those who created them.

H. M. Government Committee Reports—Ordnance Select Committee Re-ports 1864–1865.

The official report on the breech-loading trials and the arguments thatsurrounded them in the UK from 1864 to 1866. Interestingly shows thatthere was no serious intention of providing British troops with the mostmodern weapons, but rather just to appear to be doing something con-structive!

Hicks, James E. Notes on French Ordnance. Private publication, 1938.A series of notes on various French guns and rifles.

448 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hobart, F. W. A. Jane’s Infantry Weapons. Jane’s Yearbooks, London, 1975.The first edition of a seminal work. This book is at the heart of any his-tory of small arms from the mid-1920s to 1975 and includes all the de-tails one could wish for, as well as many illustrations and line drawings.Later editions do not have the very important historical material of thisvolume, which was the first of the series.

Hogg, Ian V. The Greenhill Military Small Arms Data Book. Greenhill, Lon-don, 1999.

A first-class assemblage of data by a master who really knew weaponry.His tables are of particular importance, and the data on the weapons isof great value.

———. The World’s Sniping Rifles. Greenhill Books, London, 1998.A short compilation that is not significant, but has some good photo-graphs.

House of Commons (UK). Defense Committee Report. The SA80 Rifle andLight Support Weapon. HMSO, 1993.

The argument about the SA80 and official reaction to the many re-ported faults and failings of the weapon. For many years the BritishArmy was issued a second-rate weapon, which was only sorted out afterHeckler & Koch modified it significantly in recent years. It says little onthe surface, but begs the question as to whether British Aerospace hadany real interest in making the weapon one that British soldiers couldtrust.

Huon, Jean. Military Rifle and Machine Gun Cartridges. Ironside Interna-tional, Alexandria, VA, 1988.

Another cartridge book that contains an in-depth treatment by caliber ofthe military cartridges.

Hutton, M. N. Geoffrey. “Small-Caliber Ammunition: The Way of the Fu-ture for NATO.” Military Review (October 1979): 26ff.

A discussion by a serving officer of the Canadian Army on the small-cal-iber cartridge and its significance to the military at the time when thewrangling over the Armalite weapons was at its height.

Kahn, Lessing A., et al. A Study of Ineffective Soldier Performance underFire in Korea, 1951. U.S. Operations Research Office, 1954.

An analysis of North Korean and Chinese soldiers’ reactions under fire,and a sideline on which weapon systems were operated effectively byUnited Nations troops.

Knapp, Brian. “Breech Loading Rifle Competition 1867.” Parts 1 and 2.Guns, Weapons, and Militaria, 1996.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 449

Two articles on the facts of the competition, covered elsewhere in muchgreater detail.

Korn, R. H. Mauser Gewehre und Mauser Patente. Akademische Druck undVerlagsanstalt, Graz, Austria, 1971.

An academic treatment of the early Mauser patents.

L a w, Richard D. Backbone of the Wehrmacht—The German K98k Rifle,1934–1945. Collector Grade Pubs., Cobourg, Canada, 1998.

Exhaustive treatment of the German Army short rifle (shorter than theoriginal Gew 98, anyway). The sheer depth of the treatment is reward-ing. A first-class book, as are most of the Collector Grade publications.

Long, Duncan. AK-47 The Complete Kalashnikov Fa m i l y. Paladin Press,Boulder, CO, 1988.

A good paperback account of the development and service of this ex-tremely well-known if not notorious rifle.

Lugs, Jaroslav. Firearms Past and Present. 2 vols. Grenville, London, 1973.Two books invaluable in any firearms library. Volume 1 contains the textof a detailed history of the development of firearms, including revolvers,pistols, rifles, submachine guns, and machine guns. Volume 2 containsfirst-class line drawings and photographs to illustrate the text. Thesestand alongside Pollard’s History of Firearms and rank on a par with thatbook.

Majendie, V. D. “Military Breech-Loading Small Arms.” Journal of theRoyal United Service Institution, 1867, pp. 2ff.

An interesting look at the situation in Europe after the Crimean Wa r,containing an important supplement to Schön’s analysis in Mordecai.

Marchington, James, ed. The Encyclopedia of Handheld We a p o n s .Brassey’s, London, 2002.

One more of the “list” books that seem to be available from so manypublishers.

Marshall, S. L. A. Men against Fire. Peter Smith, Gloucester, MA, 1978.This book has come in for so much criticism, yet the main thesis seemsquite tenable. Not many men in battle do more than perhaps make anoise with their individual weapon, and some just hide. The reason forthe criticism seems to be that Marshall wrote the unpalatable: he arguedthat most men under fire do not do the John Wayne/Sylvester Stallonething, but take cover and stay out of harm’s way, without firing their ownrifle. Logic suggests that this is true for most men, so why should Amer-icans be different? It is no reflection upon courage, but rather an obser-vation that in a firefight most men are paralyzed by enemy fire and want

450 BIBLIOGRAPHY

to survive. It is worth reading despite the criticisms levelled against it,and the conclusions require thought rather than outright dismissal.

Marshall, William P. “On the Principal Construction of Breech-LoadingMechanisms for Small Arms.” Proceedings of the Institution of MechanicalEngineers, 1871, pp. 92ff.

More analytical writing from the Institute of Mechanical Engineers,who have much interest to the military historian in their P r o c e e d i n g s .Much can be gained by scanning the index of these publications, andthe drawings in this article are very clear and useful.

Mordecai, Alfred. Report of the Military Commission to Europe. U.S. Houseof Representatives, 1861.

A fundamental source of information on the armament industry’s statein 1860. Mordecai traveled extensively in Europe and visited the manu-facturers in all the European countries. His report is of great impor-tance in seeing what was going on at the time. Appended is Schön’sreport on small arms, part of which is reprinted in this book as Appen-dix A.

Moss, G. M., D. W. Leeming, and C. L. Fa r r a r. Military Ballistics.Brassey’s, London, 1995.

A scientific, but not incomprehensible, treatment of ballistics. Valuablein understanding recoil, feed mechanisms, and interior and exterior bal-listics of the bullet.

Myatt, F. The Illustrated Encyclopedia of 19th Century Firearms. CrescentBooks, New York, 1979.

Major Myatt’s work covers the development of firearms during the pe-riod of the greatest improvements—from flintlock to bolt-actionweapons. Well illustrated with some good colour cut-way drawings.

Norton, Charles B. American Inventions and Improvements in Breech-Loading Small Arms etc. Chapin and Gould, Needham Heighs, MA, 1880.

As the title says, the book deals with excellent line drawings to illustratethe text.

Officers of the Ordnance Department, U.S. Army. Small Arms for MilitaryService. Nicholson, Washington, DC, 1859.

Contains exhaustive detail on tests carried out from 1853 to 1855 toestablish the best weapon for use by the U.S. A r m y. Many ballistict a b l e s .

Pegler, Martin. Powder and Ball Small Arms. Crowood Press, Marlborough,UK, 1998.

A short but effectively illustrated history of the firearm in the age of

BIBLIOGRAPHY 451

powder and ball by an acknowledged world-class expert, Martin Pegler,curator of firearms at Royal Armouries in England.

Petrillo, Alan M. The Lee Enfield Number 4 Rifles. Excalibur Publications,Tucson, AZ, 2001.

Details of the No. 4 Lee-Enfield Rifle, which came into British serviceduring World War II and continued until 1958, when it was replaced bythe SLR. Very fine illustrations.

Purdon, Charles J. The Snider-Enfield. Runge Press, Ottawa, ON, 1990.A short but good treatment of the Snider version of the Enfield rifle,with some good plates.

Reynolds, E. G. B. The Lee-Enfield Rifle. Herbert Jenkins, London, 1960.A detailed and very good book on the Lee-Enfields that served theBritish Army so well. Top-class three-dimensional drawings complementa good book.

Rinker, Robert A. Understanding Firearm Ballistics. Mulberry House Pub-lishing, Apache Junction, AZ, 2001.

Roads, C. H. The British Soldier’s Firearm. Herbert Jenkins, London, 1964.A well-written analysis of the development from the British 1851 pat-tern musket to the experimental weapons of the 1860s, and includingWestley Richards weapons issued to the cavalry.

Ross, Steven T. From Flintlock to Rifle—Infantry Tactics 1740–1866.Frank Cass, London, 1996.

A change from the standard text in this bibliography, but this book cen-ters on the tactics, particularly of line and skirmish, and the changesforced on the infantry by the arrival of the rifle on the battlefield.

Royal Military College of Science. “The Small Calibre Concept.” Chapter12 of Principles of Infantry Weapons, Shrivenham, Swindon, RMCS, 1968.

A paper on the whole idea of reducing the service caliber to 5.56mmfrom well over 7mm. Of importance because of its source: the BritishMilitary College of Science at Shrivenham.

Rywell, Martin. Sharps Rifle. Pioneer Press, Union City, TN, 1979.A good book on the Sharps rifle, which deals with the subject very well.

Scoffern, J. Projectile Weapons of War and Explosive Compounds. L o n g-mans, Brown, Green and Longmans, London, 1858.

Scoffern writes about the science behind rifles and cannon, and alsolooks at the chemistry. Gives a good picture of the state of the art 150years ago in Europe.

452 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Senich, Peter R. The German Assault Rifle, 1935–1945. Paladin Press,Boulder, CO, 1987.

A complete coverage of the German assault rifles that appeared towardthe end of World War II. Senich deals with all the important facts andthe book is a good complement to Hitler’s Garands and other texts deal-ing with these firearms.

Sharpe, Phillip B. The Rifle in A m e r i c a . Funk and Wagnalls, New Yo r k ,1946.

A good overall look at U.S. rifles that comments on sporting as well asmilitary weapons.

Skennerton, Ian. Special Service Lee-Enfields: Commando and Auto Mod-els. Small Arms Identification Series, no. 13. Privately published by the au-thor, 2001.

This pamphlet covers the modified Lee-Enfields, including the short-ened semiautomatic and self-loading version experimented with duringWorld War II in particular.

Smith, W. H. B. Basic Manual of Military Small A r m s . Military ServicePublishing, Harrisburg, PA, 1943.

The first of the now famous books by W. H. B. Smith, this was first pub-lished in 1942 to enable enemy weapons to be used by U.S. soldiers. Itis a really enjoyable “how to” book.

———. Small Arms of the World. Stackpole, Harrisburg, PA, 1943–1962and later.

This book is often referred to as the “bible” of firearms; its depth andcompass make it deserving of such an accolade, and early editions arepreferred over later ones that were sometimes printed on low-quality pa-per. Covers just about everything up to the era of the M16, the Kalash-nikov, and early EM and IW rifles.

Smith, W. H. B., and Joseph E. Smith. The Book of Rifles. Stackpole, Har-risburg, PA, 1948.

A concentration of material from the above text, well worth reading forthe concentrated nature of the information.

Smith, Walter H. B., Mannlicher Rifles and Pistols. Military Service Pub-lishing, Harrisburg, PA, 1948.

More from Smith, this time on the Mannlicher rifles that were rightlyfamous as sporting weapons.

Smith, Winston. The Sharps Rifle. William Morrow and Company, NewYork, 1943.

Another good treatment of the famous Sharps. Well illustrated.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 453

454 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Stevens, R. Blake, and Edward C. Ezell. The Black Rifle. Collector GradePubs., Cobourg, Canada, 1994.

The story of the development of and opposition to the M16 rifle, whichreplaced the completely useless M14 after only four years of service.This rifle is still in service and is perhaps almost as recognizable as theAK-47. A really detailed book that proves that the opposition to thisweapon was not above trickery and cheating.

Temple, B. A., and I. D. Skennerton. A Treatise on the British Military Mar-tini. Private publication by the authors, Burbank, Australia, 1983.

The Martini-Henry rifle was issued to the British Army to replace theSnider and was then itself replaced by the first of the Lee designs. A sin-gle-shot rifle at the time German and France were already using bolt ac-tions, which shows how slow British military thought progressed in thenineteenth century.

Thompson, A. L. “The Sturmgewehr 44 Assault Rifle.” Military Review(September 1992): 84ff.

An analysis of the German assault weapon that so impressed observerstoward the end of World War II. Germany might have been near to be-ing beaten but could still come up with new and good ideas.

Thorburn, A. W. “SA80 A2: The Weapon of Choice as the General ServiceWeapon for Use by UK Armed Forces.” Army Doctrine and Training News,no. 18 (Winter 2002/2003): 2ff.

An apology for the underperforming SA80 and a propaganda note in fa-vor of the A2 version. The original had been a questionable weapon, of-ten unwilling to perform, and which should not have been issued totroops until its reliability was beyond doubt—especially in the minds ofthose who had to use it. It took Heckler & Koch to reinvent itself free ofBritish Aerospace and take on a reevaluation of the weapon before itcould be put right. Whatever the Ministry of Defense has to say, it ques-tions the ability of British industry to design and perfect weapons.

Treadwell, T. D. Metallic Cartridges. Government Printing Office, Wa s h-ington, DC, 1873.

A detailed inspection of the metallic cartridge and its various types, withmany line drawings to clarify a good text.

United States Army. Silencers: Principles and Evaluation. Frankford Arse-nal (Report R-1896), 1968.

An official look at the “sound modifier” or silencer, rarely used on mili-tary rifles but rather on low-velocity pistols and SMGs.

Unknown. “The Sjögren Automatic Military Rifle.” E n g i n e e r i n g (25 De-cember 1908): 38ff.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 455

An article about this rifle that Engineering published when automatic ri-fle designs were beginning to appear with some frequency.

Van Rensselaer, Stephen. American Fi r e a r m s . Century House, Wa t k i n sGlen, NY, 1947.

A comprehensive listing of rifle manufacturers and patentees in theUnited States to 1945.

Wallack, L. R. American Rifle Design and Performance. Winchester Press,New York, 1977.

Concerned with civilian rifles, the book nevertheless has a lot of infor-mation on rifle components and cartridges that is of general application.

Walter, John. The Greenhill Dictionary of Guns and Gunmakers. Greenhill,London, 2001.

A really good compendium of significant weapons and the makers ofweapons, with much historical information. Of great value to any re-searcher.

Walter, John. Modern Military Rifles. Greenhill, London, 2001.A pocket book with details of many modern military rifles, but with nohistorical content of real value.

War Office. Reports on Breech-Loading Arms 1868. Eyre and Spottiswood,London, HMSO, 1868.

Two reports relating to the trials carried out for the British Army withbreech-loading weapons that led to the adoption of the Martini-Henryrifle.

———. Textbook of Small Arms 1929. HMSO, London, 1929.A first-class textbook on the history and development of military smallarms, particularly but not exclusively issued to British and Europeanarmies. Covers all significant weapons up to 1928.

We a v e r, W. Darrin. H i t l e r ’s Garands. Collector Grade Pubs., Cobourg,Canada, 2001.

Another of the excellent Collector Grade series, this volume deals withthe G41 and G43 SLRs developed by the Germans to increase infantryfirepower on the battlefield.

Whelan, Townsend. Small Arms Design, vol. 1. Wolfe Publishing, Tucson,AZ, 1940.

An excellent work, it contains an important chapter on ammunition thatis comprehensive and invaluable.

Wilsey, Robert. The Italian Vetterli System. Unpublished manuscript, 2004.

A manuscript that the author kindly allowed me to read before publica-tion, it covers the early Vetterli bolt-action rifles produced by the Italians.

Winant, Lewis. Early Percussion Fi r e a r m s . Bonanza Books, New Yo r k ,1959.

Of particular value because the author writes in detail about muzzle-loading and breech-loading percussion systems as well as Forsyth’s in-vention of the percussion cap. Well illustrated.

Wood, J. B. The Gun Digest Book of Firearms A s s e m b l y / D i s a s s e m b l y. D B IBooks, Northbrook, IL, 1991.

This series of books covers many weapons and how to strip and assem-ble them. Only really of value in the United States owing to restrictiveEuropean gun-control laws, but the book shows the components ofmany firearms that have been issued to military personnel.

456 BIBLIOGRAPHY

I N D E X

457

AB Svenska Vapen ochAmmunitionsfabriken, 135

Abel, Sir Frederick, 96Aberdeen Proving Ground, 118Adolphus, Gustavus, 27Afanas’yev, N. N., 150n. 50Aim, 7, 8AK47 rifle, xii, 38, 40, 122, 140, 227, 232,

235–236, 235 (figure), 249, 252, 254AK74 rifle, 140, 151n. 51AKM rifle, 140, 151n. 51AKSU rifle, 151n. 51Albini, Augusto, 50, 62n. 16Albini and Braendlin rifle, 50–51, 50

(figure), 186, 186 (figure)test, 57

Ammunitionin Crimean War, Mordecai report,

79–84, 80 (figure)expenditure, 115–116, 118shortages, 16technology, 118See also Bullets; Cartridges

Angelucci, Angelo, 89n. 12AR-5 rifle, 39AR-10 rifle, 39, 241, 241 (figure)AR-15 rifle, 39, 239, 252Archers, 84

and flight stability, 14and long bow, 146

Armalite Division, Fairchild Engine andAirplane Corporation, 39

Arquebus, 7Arrows, as weapons that fired, 3Artillery, 7

and “empty battlefield,” xiivs. long bow, xiivs. machine gun, 146–147

Assault rifle, 37–38. See also specific modelsAustria

infantry weapons in Crimean Wa r, 81–82rifle as military weapon in, 88

Austrian Army, and percussion system, 70Austro-Prussian War, 93Automatic priming systems, 67–68, 68

Bacon, Roger, 2–3Baker, Ezekiel, 21–22, 86Baker ball, 164, 164 (figure)Baker rifle, 21–22, 87Baltic Lock, 18n. 26Bartley and Sillom system, 181–182,

181 (figure)Bavaria, rifle as military weapon in, 88Bayliss system, 183, 183 (figure)Beaufoy, Colonel, 86Beaver, John, 27Beck, Johannes, 99Beck needle rifle, 99Belted bullets, 22, 40n. 6Benét, Stephen V., 103Benson and Pappenburg system, 184,

184 (figure)Berdan, Hiram, 30–31, 185

Berdan system, 37, 185, 185 (figure)Berselli, Domenico, 71Berselli system, 71Berukov, I. I., 137Bethel Burton rifle, 95, 176, 176 (figure)Birmingham Small Arms Company, 96Bismarck, Otto von, 93“Bite the bullet,” 15Black Berthold, 3Blast furnace, introduction of, 1Blunt, Stanhope E., 104Bode, Major, 97Bolt-action rifle, 91–113

British Army, 95–99caliber reduction, 95–96, 97–98cartridge, 97Danish Army, 105French, 102–103German, 99–102invention, 91magazine-type, 103–106, 113Norwegian Army, 105trigger mechanism, 98 (figure)United States, 103–113World War I, 110, 113See also Repeating bolt-action rifle;

Rifle; specific modelsBott, Sergeant, 56Bow, 1. See also Long bowBoxer, Edward Mounier, 31, 33, 41n. 26Boxer primer system, 37Braendlin, Francis Augustus, 50–51,

62n. 16Braendlin and Albini rifle. See Albini and

Braendlin rifleBrass-headed cartridge, 29Brauning, Karl A., 135Breech-loading carbines, 30Breech-loading rifle, 32, 33–35, 43–61,

171–172, 171 (figure)British Army, 47–57Revolutionary War, American, 43–45safety, 43“special ammunition,” 76See also Rifle; specific models

British Aerospace, 245British Army

bolt-action rifle, 95–99breech-loading rifle, 47–57percussion system, 69–70See also Great Britain

British Intermediate Cartridge, 151n. 53British Royal Society, 116British School of Infantry Practice, 84British Small Arms Committee, 95British War Office, 22, 40n. 10, 88“Brown Bess” weapon, 88Browning automatic rifle, 125, 126Brunswick rifle, 16, 22, 24, 40n.10,

40n. 13, 83, 88, 89Buffington, Adelbert, 107Bullet molds, 19–20

design, 20soapstone, 20

Bulletscylindrical, 23–25cylindro-conoidal, 20, 24–26, 32, 69development, 32–33expanding, 22–23, 26fouling, 22ogival, 32windage, 22–25See also Lead ball; Minié bullet; Musket

ball; specific bulletsBullpup design, xiiBurnside cartridge, 33Burton, Bethell, 50, 52Burton rifle, 51–52, 51 (figure), 204,

204 (figure), 209 (figure), 210test, 57

Caliber, 95–96, 97–98, 132–133, 142. See also Cartridge

Cambridge, Duke of, 59Cannons, 3

first appearance of, 16n. 3and nation-states, 1

Carbines, 22, 40n. 10, 88. See also specificcarbines

Carl Axel Theodor Sjogren design, 135

458 INDEX

Carter, Henry, 206Carter and Edwards system, 206, 206

(figure)Cartridge SA Ball Magazine Rifle Mark I,

96Cartridges, 15–16

brass-headed, 29case, 37, 37 (figure)center-fire, 35–36combustible, 29expanding, 34linen, 28military, 31–33, 37–39paper, 27–28percussion cap, 29pin-fire, 29, 35reloading, 28rim-fire, 35, 41n. 24self-consuming, 27, 32standardization, 39, 141–144, 243test, 37test report, 33–37World War II design, 37–40See also Caliber; Composite cartridge;

specific cartridgesCary, Lucian, 142–143Cavalry, 7Center-fire cartridge, 35–36Chassepôt rifle, 48, 93–94, 93 (figure), 99,

147cartridge, 30 (figure)

Chaumette, Isaac de la, 43, 62n. 2China

cannons, first appearance of, 16n. 3firearms, first appearance of, 1, 16n. 3and gunpowder, origin of, 2, 16n. 3

Churchill, Winston, 130, 143Civil War, U.S., 41n. 24, 73, 77n. 13, 165,

169, 174Clothyard arrow, 7Colt, Samuel, 27Colt M16, with M203 grenade launcher,

252, 252 (figure)Colt revolver, 74Combustible cartridge, 29

Composite cartridge, 27–31, 28 (figure),33

invention, 71, 116metallic, 29, 31–32, 48as “special ammunition,” 74–76

Consol ignition system, 89n. 6Continuous fulminate primer strips,

67–68Cooper system, 194, 194 (figure)

Snider-type, 188 (figure), 189Copper priming cap, 67, 76n. 5Cordite technology, 99–100Council of Florence, 3Crimean War

infantry weapons and ammunition,Mordecai report, 79–84, 80 (figure)

Criminal classes, and firearms, 10–11,17n. 19

Crossbows, 1. See also Long bowCrozier, William, 107–109, 220Cuba, Spanish rule in, 106–107Cumberland, Duke of, 86Curtis, Tony, 77n. 14Custer, George, 73, 103Cylindrical bullets, 23–25Cylindro-conoidal bullets, 20, 24–25, 32,

69Czech ZH-29 SLR, 117

Danish Army, bolt-action rifle, 105Davis, Jefferson, 79Daw, George Henry, 30, 33, 41n. 26,

69–70De Nobilitatibus, Sapientiis et Prudentiis

Regum (On the Duties of a King;Milimete), 5

“Dead fire guns,” 11, 17n. 21Degtyarev, Vasily Alekseyevich, 134–137,

140Degtyarev machine gun, 134Degtyarev SLR Model 1930, 137Delvigne, Gustave, 22, 32, 40n. 7Delvigne system, 22, 22 (figure), 26,

40n. 1, 82Demin, V. S., 150n. 50

INDEX 459

Deutsche Waffen und Munitionsfabrik(DWM), 109

Díaz, Porfirio, 117Dine system, 190, 190 (figure)Dragunov SVD, 151n. 51Dreyse, Johann Nikolaus von, 29Dreyse needle rifle, 91–93, 92 (figure), 99,

177–178, 177 (figure)cartridge, 29, 30 (figure), 91, 93description, 91–92firing method, 92–93loading, 92

Dreyse rifle, 84Dunclift, A. W., 142DuPont powder, 108Durs Egg, 62n. 4, 161Duryea, Dan, 77n. 14DWM. See Deutsche Waffen und

Munitionsfabrik

East India Company, 24, 40n. 13Edward III, 4, 5Edwards, George W., 206Egg, Joseph, 67Elizarov, N. M., 122EM rifle, 128, 130EM1 rifle, 39EM2 rifle, 39, 128, 130, 133, 141–143,

144, 145, 242, 245“Empty battlefield,” xiiEnfield L85A1 rifle, 245–246, 245

(figure). See also SA80 rifleEnfield musket, 47, 83Enfield rifle, 39, 87, 110, 111–113, 242,

242 (figure)cartridge, 39Pattern 14, 111

English Pattern 1842 musket, 25English Royal Chamber

and royal armory and arsenal, 4English Wardrobe Accounts, 19, 39n. 1Espinar, Alonso Martinez de, 86Europe, and gunpowder, origin of, 2Expanding bullet, 22–23

self-expanding, 26

Expanding cartridge, 34Ezell, Clinton, 130

Fabrique Nationale, 39–40Fairchild Engine and Airplane Corporation,

39FAL (Fusil Automatique Leger), 128, 243,

245Falschirmjaegergewehr 42, 229, 229

(figure)FAMAS rifle, 102, 238, 238 (figure)Farquhar-Hill, H. J., 217Farquhar-Hill SLR, 141, 217, 217 (figure)Federov, Vladimir Grigorevich, 134–137,

150n. 41Federov Avtomat rifle, 135, 136, 137, 218,

218 (figure)Ferguson, Patrick, 43, 61n. 4, 161, 162Ferguson rifle, xii, 43–45, 44 (figure),

160–161, 160 (figure), 162, 162(figure)

demonstration, 45Ferguson-type system, 207, 207 (figure)

Ferrara, Duke of, 10Firearms

and criminal classes, 10–11, 17n. 19definition of, 1–2earliest examples, 4–5earliest records, 4first appearance, 1, 16n. 3first manufacture, 4modern creation, 6reliability, 6before 1300s, 1–31300s–1400s, 3–81500s, 8–12ways of holding, 5written history, 3–4

“Firearms,” 16–17n. 6Firepower, and manpower, xiiFiring systems, 6–8

difficulties, 5–6See also specific systems

Flagler, Daniel W., 103–104, 106–107Flieger Selbstladerkarabiner: Airmen’s

460 INDEX

Self-Loading Carbine, Model 1915.See FSK-15

Flieger-Ballon-und Zeppelin Truppe Model16, 117

Flight stability, and archers, 14Flintlock system, 13–14, 13 (figure), 15,

65, 156, 156 (figure)cost, 15as synonymous for “snaphance,” 14

Flints, 15, 18n. 28suppliers, 15

Flobert, Nicholas, 30Flobert cartridge, 30Floyd, John B., 79FN FAL rifle, 130, 141, 143FN rifle, 143FN short rifle, 141FN SLR, 128, 129, 135Forsyth, Rev. Alexander John, 65–66

“On certain useful properties of theOxygenated Muriatic Acid,” 65

Forsyth scent bottle, 66, 66 (figure)Fosbery, G. V., 50, 200Fosbery rifle, 52, 200, 200 (figure)

test, 58France

bolt-action rifle, 102–103infantry weapons in Crimean War,

82–83rifle as military weapon in, 88

Franco-Prussian War, 89n. 5Frankford Arsenal, 34, 104Frizzen lock, 66FSK-15, 117Fulminate of mercury, 65–66Furniture of weapons, 14–15

G43 SLR, 123Gabbet-Fairfax rifle, 141Garand, John, 123, 124–125, 127, 149n.

19Garand M1 rifle, 114, 123, 127, 129, 131,

149n. 33, 151n. 52, 213, 222, 222(figure), 239, 239 (figure), 240

sniper rifle, 119, 223

Genschow, Gustave, 148n. 7Germany

bolt-action rifle, 99–102infantry weapons in Crimean War, 84rifle as military weapon in, 87–88self-loading rifle, 118–123wheel lock, 11

Goering, Hermann, 229Golden, William, 29Great Britain

infantry weapons in Crimean War,83–84

rifle as military weapon in, 88–89self-loading rifle, 141–145weapons design, xiiSee also British Army

Green, William, 49Green Brothers system, 191, 191 (figure)Greene, James Durrell, 193Greene rifle, 192 (figure), 193Greener, William W., 22, 40n. 10, 88Greener expanding bullet, 22–23,

23 (figure)accuracy test, 23windage, 23

Gulf War, 144Gunpowder, 2–3

mixture, 2origin, 2–3, 16n. 3

Gunpowder weapons, impact on society, xviGunsmith, and wheel lock, 9

Haenel firm, 119–122, 230Hall, John H., 46–47, 62n. 7Hall breech loader, 46–47, 46 (figure)

interchangeable parts, 46–47Hall (Donald L.) SLR report, 132–133Hallahan, William, 106Handguns, 3Hanson, John, 29Harper’s Ferry, 47Harquebus, 7Harrington-Richardson, 131Harrison system, 187, 187 (figure)Harry Potter books, and gunpowder, 2–3

INDEX 461

Hayha, Simo, 212Heckler and Koch, 27, 32, 245, 254, 255Heckler and Koch G11 rifle, 255, 255

(figure)Heckler and Koch G3A3 assault rifle, 254,

254 (figure)Heinemann SLR, 148n. 7Henry, Alexander, 50, 58–59, 62n. 18Henry, Benjamin Tyler, 62n. 18, 71–72, 74Henry rifle, 35, 41n. 32, 52, 53 (figure),

74–75, 180, 180 (figure)action, 75 (figure)description, 74lever action prototype, 173, 173 (figure)“special ammunition,” 74–75test, 58–59

Henry VIII, 19Herstal, 40Heurteloup, Baron, 40n. 11Hitler, Adolf, 121–122, 123, 234Holek, Vladimir, 117Hoover’s Gap, 73Hotchkiss bolt-action rifle, 103Howe, Sir William, 45Hudson, Rock, 77n. 14Hundred Years’ War, 4Hunt, Walter, 170

Ideal Caliber Panel, 142Imperial Guard ball, 82Infanterie-Gewehr M1871, 99Infanterie-Gewehr M1871/84, 99Infantry rifle

development, 2Infantry weapons

in Crimean War, Mordecai report, 79–84Infantryman

vs. knight, 1and new era of warfare, 7

Inventors, xii–xiiiand military contracts, xii

Inventor’s Collective, 137Iron sights, 257–258, 257 (figure), 260.

See also SightsItalian Lock, 18n. 26

Jacob, John, 24, 40n. 12Jacob cylindrical bullets, 24–26, 25

(figure)Jacob’s Horse, 40n. 12James I, 88Janson, Stefan, 141, 142Jennings volcanic rifle, 170, 170 (figure)Jorgenson, Erik, 105Joslyn, Benjamin Franklin, 50Joslyn/Newby rifle, 54

test, 58

Kalashnikov, Mikhail Timofeyevich, 99,122, 136, 139–140, 150n. 41, 150n. 50

Kar 98k, 113, 228Karabiner 43, 123Kent-Lemon, Noel, 141, 142Kerr, James, 196Kerr, John, 196Kerr system, 196, 196 (figure)Khar’kov, V. A., 150n. 50Knights, 3, 7

demise of, 1Kolesnikov rifle, 150n. 47Konalov rifle, 150n. 47Kongsberg Armory, 105Korean War, 149n. 33Kotter, Augustus, 85Krag, Ole, 105Krag-Jorgenson bolt-action rifle, 103, 105,

105 (figure), 106–107, 109Mauser patent infringement, 109test, 107

Krupin, V. V., 150n. 50Krutsch system, 197, 197 (figure)Kryakushkin, A. D., 150n. 50Kubík, M., 11Kuznetsov, A. I., 137

L1A1 SLR, 143, 243, 245Lagatz weapon, 71Lancaster, Charles William, 27, 30, 59,

84Lancaster system, 84

462 INDEX

Landgraf of Hess, 87–88Landsknecht stocks, 8Lead ball, 19, 40n. 2. See also Musket ballLebel rifle, 102–103, 102 (figure)

cartridge, 103Lee, James P., 94Lee bolt-action magazine rifle, 94, 95–96,

95 (figure), 97 (figure), 103with Bethel Burton magazine, 95cartridge, 96test, 94

Lee-Enfield Mark I rifle, 96, 97 (figure)Lee-Enfield rifle, 100, 113Lee-Enfield Rifle No. 1, 146, 216Lee-Enfield Rifle No. 4(T), 214,

214 (figure)Lee-Metford rifle, 96, 97 (figure)Lee-Speed rifle, 96, 97 (figure)Leetch system, 198, 198 (figure)Lefauchaux, Casimir, 29Lefauchaux rifle, 35Leonardo da Vinci, 10Lever-action repeating rifle, 71–76

design description, 72invention, 71as sporting rifle, 71See also Rifle; specific models

Linen cartridge, 28Little Bighorn, Battle of, 103Loading methods, 7, 8

development, 15–16, 18n. 29Local warfare weapon, rifle as, 146–147Long bow

vs. artillery, xiivs. machine gun, xiias modern battlefield weapon, xi–xiivs. rifle, xi–xii, 146See also Bow

Lorenzoni, Michael, 71Lorenzoni system, 71, 158 (figure), 159Loshult gun, 5Louis XIII, 88Louis XIV, 12Louis XV, 16“Lounge” rifle, 30

M1E5 rifle, 223M14 rifle, 39, 130, 131–133, 136, 142,

143, 147, 239, 239 (figure), 240, 240 (figure), 243

M16 rifle, xii, 39, 133, 140, 145, 147,151n. 52, 229, 239, 241, 243, 245,249–250, 249 (figure), 254

instructions for use, 249with M203 grenade launcher, 252,

252 (figure)in police service, 256, 256 (figure)

M16A2 rifle, 249–250, 249 (figure)M16A4 carbine/Colt commando rifle, 253,

253 (figure)M74 rifle, 140MacArthur, Douglas, 127, 148n. 12Machine carbine, 119–120Machinegun, 115, 116, 123–124

vs. artillery, 146–147and “empty battlefield,” xiivs. long bow, xiivs. rifle, 146–147, 257–258

Magazineinvention, 116tube magazines, 36, 41n. 32

Manchuria, 117Mann, Anthony, 77n. 14Mannlicher, Ferdinand von, 101–102,

117Mannlicher rotary magazine system,

100 (figure)Mannlicher short recoil SLR, 116Mannlicher sporting rifle, 102Manpower, and firepower, xiiManton, Joseph, 67Marshall, S. L. A., 132Martini, Freidrich von, 50Martini rifle, 54–55, 54 (figure)

test, 58, 59Martini-Henry rifle, 59–61, 95, 147,

171–172, 171 (figure)cartridge, 36, 36 (figure)

Mary Rose (vessel), 20Matchlock system, 7, 8 (figure),

8 (figure), 10, 15, 154, 154 (figure)

INDEX 463

Mauser, Peter Paul, 99, 108–109patent suit against U.S. government,

101, 108–109Mauser bolt-action rifle, 99–101, 100

(figure), 104, 106–107, 109, 111, 113Mauser cartridge, 101, 114n. 7

charger-loaded, 100, 114n. 6Mauser G35 SLR, 117Mauser G41(M) SLR, 118Mauser G41 SLR, 121, 226, 226 (figure)

sniper telescope, 228, 228 (figure)Mauser G43 SLR, 119Mauser Gew 98, 100, 103, 113, 146, 213Mauser Gew 98k, 118, 211, 211 (figure)Mauser Waffenfabrik, 114n. 8, 226Maxim, Hiram, 96, 104, 116, 146Maximilian I, 10, 14, 18n. 27, 88Maynard, Edward, 67, 68Maynard tape primer, 28, 68, 81, 166–167,

166 (figure)Sharps-fitted, 168, 168 (figure)

McKinley, William, 108McNamara, Robert S., 131Mechanical firing, 6Mensuration, 19Merrill, James H., 195Merrill system, 195, 195 (figure)Merz company, 120Metallic cartridge, 29, 31–32, 48Metallurgy, 19Metford, William E., 59, 87, 95–96Mexican Army, self-loading rifle, 116MG42 SLR, 118, 121, 226Midvale Steel and Ordnance Co., 111Mikhailovsky Artillery School, 134Miles, Nelson A., 106Milimete, Walter de

De Nobilitatibus, Sapientiis et PrudentiisRegum (On the Duties of a King), 5

Milimete gun, 5Military

cartridges, 31–33, 37–40contracts, and inventors, xiitechnology, and impact on society, xvand wheel lock, 11–12

Military development, and socialdevelopment, 1

Military rifle, 22, 88, 89vs. long bow, xi–xii, 146

Minié, Claude-Étienne, 23, 26, 32, 165Minié bullet, 20, 26–27, 27 (figure), 32,

48, 69, 80, 82–83, 84, 89n. 8, 165,165 (figure)

windage, 23See also Bullets

“Miquelet” Lock, 18n. 26MK42(H) SLR, 120MK42(W) SLR, 120, 121MK42 SLR, 120–123Model 1841 muzzle-loading rifle, 47Model 1916 Avtomat, 135Mondragon, Manuel, 116Mondragon rifle, 117“Mont Storm” rifle, 52Mordecai, Alfred

infantry weapons and ammunition inCrimean War report, 79–84, 80(figure), 89n. 1

Mordecai report, 79–84, 80 (figure)and Schöne report, 89n. 1

Morse, George W., 30Morse cartridge, 33–34Moscow Proletarian Rifle Division, 137Mosin, S. I., 134Mosin-Nagant Model 1891 rifle, 135, 137,

150n. 39Mosin-Nagant rifle, 134, 212, 212 (figure)

cartridge, 137MP40 SLR, 118MP43 SLR, 121–123, 148n. 10, 230MP43/1 SLR, 122MP44 rifle, 123, 230, 231, 231 (figure)MP44/StG, 118Multi-shot musket system, 157, 157 (figure)Musket ball

accuracy, 21bullet molds, 19–20design, 20firing, 21first reference, 19

464 INDEX

loading, 20original, 19powder, 21range, 21reloading, 21trajectory, 20windage, 21, 40n. 5See also Bullets

Muskets, 16, 88Muzzle-loading rifle, 48

accuracy, 43

Napoleon I, 89n. 10, 160Napoleon III, 89n. 10Napoleonic Wars, xii, 160Nation-states, and cannons, 1NATO. See North Atlantic Treaty

OrganizationNeedham system, 201, 201 (figure)Needle rifle, 29, 81, 89n. 5, 147Nessler ball, 79–80, 83Netherlands Lock, 18n. 26New York Times, 104Newby, Edwin Henry, 54Nobel firm, 96Norris, Samuel, 99North, Simeon, 47North Atlantic Treaty Organization

(NATO), xii, 39–40, 130cartridge standardization, 141–144, 243

Norwegian Armybolt-action rifle, 105

Ogival bullets, 32“On certain useful properties of the

Oxygenated Muriatic Acid” (Forsyth),65

OPERATION BARBAROSSA, 118OPERATION GRANBY, 144OPERATION TELIC, 145Optical sights, 260. See also SightsOwen Jones magazine rifle, 95

Pan cover, 8Paper cartridge, 27–28

Paper tapes of percussion powder, 67Pauly, Johannes Samuel, 29, 66–67,

76n. 4Pauly breech-loading system, 67 (figure)Peabody, Henry O., 50Peabody rifle, 55–56, 56 (figure)

test, 58Pedersen, John D., 124, 125Pedersen device, 220, 220 (figure)Pedersen rifle, 145, 149n. 21, 219, 219

(figure)Pedersen SLR, 124–126Peeter ball, 26–27Pellets, 19People’s rifle, 234, 234 (figure)Percussion caps, 29, 165, 165 (figure)Percussion musket, 81Percussion system, 65–70

Austrian Army, 70British Army, 69–70

Persian Gulf War, 145Petrarch, 17n. 9Petronel, 85, 89n. 5Pig Board tests, 125, 149n. 23Pikes, 1Pin-fire cartridge, 29, 35PK machine gun, 151n. 51PKM machine gun, 151n. 51PKS machine gun, 151n. 51PKT machine gun, 151n. 51Polte firm, 118Poncharra, Lieutenant Colonel, 23Pottet, Clement, 29Powder, smokeless, 103–104Powder flask, 19–20Prince, Frederick, 203Prince system, 202 (figure), 203Pritchet Ball, 83–84Prussia, infantry weapons in Crimean War,

81Prussian needle rifle, 147Pushin, V. N., 150n. 50

Recoil, 7, 8Reloading methods, 7, 8, 16

INDEX 465

Remington, Samuel, 50Remington and Sons, 57, 99Remington Arms Co., 111, 112Remington Arms-Union Metallic Cartridge

Co., 111, 112Remington rifle, 56 (figure), 57

test, 58Remington Special, 39Repeating bolt-action rifle, 94–95

cartridge, 94magazine design, 94See also Bolt-action rifle; specific models

Retreat from Mons, 146Revolution, Mexican, 117Revolution, Russian, 135Revolutionary War, American

breech-loading rifle, 43–45, 88Rheinmetall, 148n. 7, 229Rhenish-Westphalische Sprengstoff,

148n. 7Richards, Westley, 59Rifle

as infantry weapon, 146–147as local warfare weapon, 146–147vs. long bow, 146vs. machine gun, 146–147, 257–258as military weapon, 87–89reliability, 147World War I shortage, 109–113See also Bolt-action rifle; Breech-loading

rifle; Lever-action repeating rifle; Self-loading rifle

“Rifle,” 17n. 6Rifle No. 9, Mark 1, 242Rifling, 14

first appearance, 85, 89n. 12forms, 86fouling, 86history, 84–87invention, 85muzzle, 163, 163 (figure)straight vs. spiral, 85–87, 89n. 13turns, 86–87wadding or patching, 86

Rigby firm, 59

Rimfire cartridge, 35, 41n. 24Ripley, James, 74, 77n. 13, 77n. 15,

77n. 17Rock Island Arsenal, 109–110Roosevelt, Teddy, 107–108, 109Roshchepei, Yakov Ustinovich, 150n. 39Roshchepei rifle, 133–134Rounds, number carried, 16Royal armory and arsenal, 4Royal Artillery, 31Royal Engineers, 27Royal Small Arms Factory, 96, 141RPKS74 rifle, 151n. 51Rubin, Eduard, 97Rupert, Prince, 116Russell report, self-loading rifle, 132Russia

infantry weapons in Crimean War,79–80

rifle as military weapon in, 88self-loading rifle, 133–140weapons design, xii

Russo-Finnish war of 1939–1940, 135Russo-Japanese war of 1905, 150n. 44

SA80 rifle, 133, 140, 144–145, 147, 242,245–246, 245 (figure), 254

Schleswig-Holstein War, 81Schmeisser, Hugo, 119, 121Schmeisser, Louis, 119Schneider cartridge, 33Schöne report, 89n. 1Schweizerische Industrie-Gesellschaft

(SIG), 117Scinde Horse, 40n. 12Scotland, 19Scott, Walter, 205Scott system, 205, 205 (figure)Sear lock, 7–8Sears system, 199, 199 (figure)Self-consuming cartridge, 27–28, 32Self-expanding bullet, 26Self-loading rifle (SLR), 102, 113–114,

115–147action, 247–248, 247 (figure)

466 INDEX

British, 141–145caliber, 132–133cartridge, 118–119, 122, 123–125,

135–137, 139, 140, 141–144, 148n.16, 149n. 18, 149n. 19, 150n. 44,151n. 53, 243

development, 116–118German, 118–123Hall report, 132–133invention, 116–117locked-breech recoil system, 116mechanical recoil system, 116Mexican Army, 116Pig Board tests, 125, 149n. 23Russell report, 132Russian, 133–140standardization, 128–131, 141–142, 243test, 126, 128–129, 142United States, 123–131World War I, 117See also Rifle; specific models

Self-spanning wheel lock, 11Semi-automatic rifle, 101–102. See also

Self-loading rifleSemi-automatic Rifle Board, 125Semin, B. V., 122Service rifle, 125Sestroretsk Weapons Factory, 134Sharps, Christian, 27Sharps 1848 rifle, 35Sharps carbine, 34, 73, 83Sharps lever-action carbine

Maynard tape primer fitted, 168, 168(figure)

Sharps rifle, 34Sharps system, 28–29Shaw, Joshua, 67, 76n. 5Sidorenko, Ivan, 212SIG. See Schweizerische Industrie-

GesellschaftSight Unit Small Arms Trilux (SUSAT)

sight, 144Sights, 115, 144

development, 7, 8, 14iron, 257–258, 257 (figure)

iron vs. optical, 260single point, 259 (figure), 260

Simonov, Sergei Gavrilovich, 134, 137,139, 140, 150n. 41, 227

Simonov Automatic Rifle Model 1936,137–138

Single point sights, 259 (figure), 260. Seealso Sights

SKS rifle, 227, 227 (figure)SKS45 carbine, 139–140SKT 40 carbine, 221Slow match firing, 6SLR. See Self-loading rifleSmall Arms Committee, 96Smith, Horace, 30Smith, Philip, 95Smoothbore muskets, 81–82Snaphance, 12–13, 12 (figure), 18n. 24

“flintlock” as synonymous for, 14Snider, Jacob, 30, 47Snider ball, 164, 164 (figure)Snider cartridge, 33, 36Snider conversion rifle, 30, 31, 47–49Snider rifle-musket, 33Sniper telescope rifle, 119, 215 (figure),

216, 223, 228, 228 (figure)Snipers, xii, 216Soapstone, bullet molds, 20Social development, and military

development, 1Spanish Lock, 18n. 26“Special ammunition,” 74–76Speed, Joseph J., 96Spencer, Christopher M., 45, 71Spencer carbine, 73, 77n. 13Spencer lever-action repeating rifle, 71–73,

77n. 13, 103, 169, 169 (figure)action, 72 (figure)design description, 72

Spencer rifle, 35, 41n. 32Spiral rifling, 85–87, 89n. 13Sporting rifle

lever-action repeating, 71and wheel lock, 10, 11

Spring lock, 7–8

INDEX 467

Springfield Armoury, 35, 47, 69, 71,103–106, 109–110, 116, 123, 126,131, 142, 151n. 54, 219

Springfield Model 1842 percussion rifle,68–69

Springfield Model 1901 rifle, 108Springfield Model 1903 bolt-action rifle,

103, 108–109, 108 (figure), 109–113,116, 146, 149n. 21, 213, 213 (figure),220, 223

DuPont powder, 108Mauser patent infringement, 101,

108–109semiautomatic, 124sniper rifle, 113

Standing armies, 17n. 14Stanislaus, Charles Louis, 67–68, 76n. 6Steel bow, 1. See also Long bowStewart, James, 77n. 14Steyr assault rifle, 251, 251 (figure)StG 44 rifle, 37, 121–123, 122, 141, 230,

232–233, 232 (figure)Stocks, 7, 8“Stone guns,” 11Stoner, Eugene, 39, 41n. 35, 132–133Straight rifling, 85–87, 89n. 13Stuart, Jeb, 73Studler, René, 128, 130, 133, 141–142StuG77 rifle, 251Submachine gun, 119–120Sudayev, A. I., 140SVT 38 rifle, 221SVT 40 rifle, 221, 221 (figure)Swedish National Historical Museum, 5Switzerland, infantry weapons, 79

T25 SLR, 128, 130, 142T44 SLR, 130T47 SLR, 130Talcott, G., 76n. 5Tamisier, Captain, 32Textbook of Small Arms 1929, 116Thirty Years’ War, 16Thompson, A. L., 122Thornton, William, 46, 62n. 7

Thorpe, Stanley, 141Thouvenin, Louis E. de, 23Thouvenin tige rifle, 81, 82Thouvenin’s tige, 23, 24 (figure)Timmerhans, Colonel, 83Tokarev, Fedor Vasil’evich, 135, 136, 150n.

43, 221Tokarev, Nikolai Fedorovich, 221Tokarev rifle, 136, 137, 221, 221 (figure)Torgau, Battle of, 16Touch hole, 8Tower of London, 4Townshend, Lord, 44–45Treadwell, T. D.

cartridge test report, 33–37Truman, Harry, 130Tube magazines, 36, 41n. 32Turkish Army, 116Turning bolt, 125, 149n. 20

Under-hammer system, 67–68, 68United States

bolt-action rifle, 103–113bolt-action rifle, magazine-type,

103–106breech-loading rifle, 43–45rifle as military weapon in, 88self-loading rifle, 123–131weapons design, xiiSee also Civil War, U.S.; Revolutionary

War, American; Vietnam War; WorldWar I; World War II

Uraznov, D. V., 137U.S. government

Mauser patent infringement, 101,108–109

U.S. Infantry Board, 39U.S. Ordnance Department, 79, 94, 126,

130

VG1-5 rifle, 234, 234 (figure)Vickers automatic rifle, 219Vietnam War, 39, 132Vojenské historické muzeum (the Military

Museum), 11

468 INDEX

Volcanic Arms Company, 74Volcanic Repeating Firearms Company,

170Volcanic rifle, 72, 170, 170 (figure)Volition Ball, 170Volsgewehr rifle, 234, 234 (figure)

Waffenamt (Weapons Office of theGerman High Command), 119–120

Walker, Money, and Little, 94Walther, Carl, 117, 120Walther A115 SLR, 118Walther manufacturing, 117, 120, 226,

230Walther SLR, 117–118

prototype, 230, 230 (figure)War of 1812, xiiWarfare, and infantryman, 7Weapons

and blast furnace, introduction of, 1evolution, xvimpact on society, xvirifle as infantry, 146–147

Weapons of mass destruction (WMD)impact on society, xvi

Weapons technologyimpact on society, xv

Welsh archers, 7Wesson, Daniel B., 30Westley Richards firm, 59Westley Richards rifle, 60–61, 179, 179

(figure)Wheel lock system, 9–12, 9 (figure),

11–12, 11 (figure), 155, 155 (figure)accidental ignition, 12cost, 15description, 9–10German, 11

and gunsmith, 9invention, 10, 17n. 19self-spanning, 11social repercussion, 10–11as sporting gun, 10, 11

Whitworth, Sir Joseph, 27, 59, 87Wilder’s First Mounted Rifle, 73Wilkins, William, 76n. 5William III, 88Winchester ‘73 (film), 77n. 14Winchester carbine, 224, 224 (figure)Winchester M1A1 carbine, 225, 225

(figure)Winchester M1873, 77n. 14Winchester Repeating Arms Co., 111, 112Winchester rifle, 41n. 32, 74, 106, 116,

131, 174–175, 174 (figure)action, 75 (figure)

Windagebullets, 22–25Greener’s expanding bullet, 23Minié bullets, 23musket balls, 21, 40n. 5

Winters, Shelley, 77n. 14WMD. See Weapons of mass destructionWola, Stalowa, 141World War I, 150n. 44

bolt-action rifle, 110, 113rifle shortage, 109–113self-loading rifle, 117

World War IIbolt-action rifle, 110, 113cartridge design, 37–40self-loading rifle, 118–123

Württemberg State Arsenal, 99

XL 65 E5 assault rifle, 41n. 34

INDEX 469

A B O U T T H E A U T H O R

D AVID WESTWOOD, PhD, is CEO and managing director of MilitaryLibrary Research Service Ltd., Derbyshire, England, and a freelance mili-tary historian concentrating on the German Army from 1933 to 1945. Hehas published a number of works on the organization of the German Armyand on the campaign in Russia, as well as a history of the German Type VIIU-Boat.

470

Documents

Rifles an Illustrated History of Their Impact