RIFLES

Other Titles in ABC-CLIO’s

WEAPONS AND WA R FARE SERIES

Spencer 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

RIFLES

AN ILLUSTRATED HISTORY OF THEIR IMPACT

David We s t w o o d

Santa Barbara, California

Denver, Colorado

Oxford, England

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 Data

Westwood, 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—dc22

2004028931

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

f or 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

Acknowledgments

xiii

Introduction to Encyclopedias of Weapons and Warfare Series,

Spencer C. Tucker

ch ap ter on e

mi lit ar ies in th e four tee n th cen t ury

What Is a Firearm?

The Sixteenth Century

The Snaphance

The Flintlock

ch ap te r t wo

b al l, bull et , p owd er, an d ca rtr idge:

t h e de ve lop me n t o f t h e p rop ell an t

an d th e pr oject il e

The Musket Ball

The Minié Ball

The Composite Cartridge

The Modern Military Cartridge

Major Treadwell’s Report

vii

ch a pt er th re e

b ree ch -loa din g r ifl es

The Breech Loader and the British Army

The Albini and Braendlin

The Burton Rifles

Major Fosbery’s Rifle

The Henry Rifle

The Joslyn/Newby Rifle

The Martini Rifle

The Peabody Rifle

The Remington Rifle

The Tests

The Result

The Martini-Henry Service Rifle

c ha pt er four

t h e p ercu ss ion s y st em

The Percussion System in the British Army

Lever-Action Repeating Rifles

ch ap ter fi ve

rif les a n d a mm un it ion in 1 85 5

The History of Rifling

The Rifle as a Military Weapon

ch ap te r s ix

th e bol t-a ct ion ri fl e

The Repeating Bolt-Action Rifle

Lee and the British

The Mauser Rifle and Other German Makes

The French Lebel

102

The United States and the Bolt-Action Rifle

103

Conclusion

113

viii

CONTENTS

ch ap te r s ev en

se lf- l oad in g ri fle s

115

German SLR Development during World War II

118

U.S. Self-Loading Rifles

123

The M14 Rifle

131

New Rifle, New Caliber

132

Russian SLR Developments

133

The British Army and the SLR

141

Conclusion

146

S ign i fica n t Ri fle s an d Rif le S y st em s

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

P R E F A C E

Th i s b o o k w i l l s ho w

how the infantry rifle first appeared and

why. 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 that
in its formative years the military rifle was far less effective than the
long 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 fact
only one rifle with this potential springs to mind, and that is the very
earliest of the successful designs: Colonel Ferguson’s rifle of 1775.
Had British troops been armed with this weapon, the length of the
Napoleonic Wars might well have been curtailed and the War of
1812 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. If
you had more men, then you had greater firepower. The corollary to
this was that with massed ranks of men all they had to do was take a
rudimentary 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 were
now living below ground level, emerging only to attack or to move
around in daily tasks. The rifle was of little real significance in such
conditions, except for the trained sniper. Snipers have a reputation
of being deadly men whose activities involve underhanded methods
of warfare; in fact they merely use the terrain in which they are op-
erating to their advantage and they exercise a skill in marksmanship
of which the average soldier is incapable.

Modern rifles demonstrate a number of characteristics that are

perhaps indicative of the nations issuing them to their troops. The
British, 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 efforts
of some officials to bar this weapon from consideration are ques-
tionable. The Russians, however, came up with a really good design
and 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 to
have suffered are the PBI, the “Poor bloody infantry,” who get all
sorts of crazy ideas foisted on them, often in the hope that they
might work really well.

The history of the development of the rifle is peopled with many

inventors who just wanted a military contract, but also with men of
ideas whose inventive nature brought about significant improve-
ments. Rather than name them here, the reader is invited to go into
the 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 hav e a nu mb e r o f p e opl e

to mention whose names cannot be

recorded: to all of them (they know who they are) my sincere
thanks. 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 of
whom provided me with time and the opportunity to work in their
collections.

Royal Armouries are based in Leeds, and their collections are sec-

ond to none in worldwide terms. The Weapons Collection of the
Small 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, Ros

Westwood, and two springer spaniels, Glinka and Puta, who often
only 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 W A R F A R E S E R I E S

We apo ns b ot h fa sc i nat e and r e pe l.

They are used to kill and

maim individuals and to destroy states and societies, and occasion-
ally whole civilizations, and with these the greatest of man’s cultural
and artistic accomplishments. Throughout history tools of war have
been the instruments of conquest, invasion, and enslavement, but
they have also been used to check evil and to maintain peace.

Weapons have evolved over time to become both more lethal and

more complex. For the greater part of man’s existence, combat was
fought at the length of an arm or at such short range as to represent
no real difference; battle was fought within line of sight and seldom
lasted more than the hours of daylight of a single day. Thus individ-
ual weapons that began with the rock and the club proceeded
through the sling and boomerang, bow and arrow, sword and axe, to
gunpowder weapons of the rifle and machine gun of the late nine-
teenth century. Study of the evolution of these weapons tells us
much about human ingenuity, the technology of the time, and the
societies 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 been
beaten into swords; the tank, for example, evolved from the agricul-
tural caterpillar tractor. Occasionally, the process is reversed and
military technology has impacted society in a positive way. Thus
modern civilian medicine has greatly benefitted from advances to
save soldiers’ lives, and weapons technology has impacted such ar-
eas as civilian transportation or atomic power.

Weapons can have a profound impact on society. Gunpowder

weapons, for example, were an important factor in ending the era of
the armed knight and the Feudal Age. They installed a kind of rough
democracy on the battlefield, making “all men alike tall.” We can
only 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, while
discussing its historical, social, and political contexts. This is fol-
lowed by a heavily illustrated section that is arranged more or less
along chronological lines that provides more precise information on
at least 80 key variants of that particular weapons system. Each vol-
ume contains a glossary of terms, a bibliography of leading books on
that particular subject, and an index.

Individual volumes in the series, each written by a specialist in

that particular area of expertise, are as follows:

Ancient Weapons
Medieval Weapons
Pistols
Rifles
Machine Guns
Artillery
Tanks
Battleships
Cruisers and Battle Cruisers
Aircraft Carriers
Submarines
Military Aircraft, Origins to 1918
Military Aircraft, 1919–1945
Military Aircraft in the Jet Age
Helicopters
Ballistic Missiles
Air Defense
Destroyers

We hope that this series will be of wide interest to specialists, re-

searchers, and even general readers.

Spencer C. Tucker

Series Editor

xvi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

xvi

SERIES INTRODUCTION

RIFLES

C H A P T E R 1

Militaries in the

Fourteenth Century

Foo t s old ie r s du ri n g th e M id dl e A g e s

used pikes, bows, and

crossbows. Industry took a great step forward with the appearance
of the blast furnace; steel was now available for the manufacture of
weapons as well as plowshares. Crossbows benefited with steel
bows, giving them a range of about 400 yards.

The firearm had al-

ready made an appearance in China, and the technology was slowly
becoming known in the West. Added to this was the discovery of
gunpowder, 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 only
groups able to afford such highly expensive weapons. Add to this the
fact that the firearm was eventually to lead to the demise of the
knight on the battlefield in favor of the much cheaper-to-arm in-
fantryman; thus military development is a much more important
factor in social development than it is often credited for.

WHAT IS A FIREARM?

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

use to kill each other).”

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 of

course gunpowder, which seems to have originated in the thirteenth
century. There are a number of discussions on the subject and it is
valuable at the outset to understand what is meant within the
framework of this work by the term “firearm.” A firearm is one that
uses 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 that
is 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 the
weapon all assembled together in one unit.

There are a number of very significant stages in the development

of the infantry rifle, which begin in the days before rifling was
invented, 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 suggestion

that the Hindu (Gentoo) Laws of 300

. mentioned it, but this has

been discounted. The Chinese probably were the first to use gun-
powder, but as a pyrotechnic (to “frighten the horses”) rather than
as a propellant. The real origin seems to have been in the mid-1200s
in Europe, as a result of Arabic alchemical experiments, books relat-
ing to which appeared, via Spain, at that time.

However, once more

the Arabs did not use the mixture as a propellant; it seems that this
doubtful honor is due to the Europeans, who were almost certainly
the 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 texture
of the component materials. What was important was that when
confined and fired, it almost instantaneously produced a large
amount of gas, which was harnessed eventually in the barrels of
weapons so that a projectile could be forced out of the barrel at the
chosen target.

Rather like the flashes and bangs caused by wands in the magical

adventures of Harry Potter, when gunpowder was first seen, it too
was 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.”

However, here Roger Bacon is

referring to a pyrotechnic, or a propellant for rockets, not a propel-

RIFLES

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

The history of firearms and gunpowder is full of apocryphal tales

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

It seems clear that the first written evidence of guns is that of the

edict of the Council of Florence of 11 February 1326. This ordered
that two officials were to be appointed to make iron bullets (or ar-
rows) and metal cannons for Republican defenses. As earlier
weapons, from which the gun was to take over, fired arrows, the ini-
tial concept seems to have been to make weapons using gunpowder
to fire arrows. This would achieve a twofold improvement in
weaponry: the projectile would be propelled faster and further, and
it would be accompanied by a morale-affecting flash and bang. This
latter factor would have been particularly effective on the battlefield
against cavalry, whose horses would have been spooked by the light
and sound of the detonation.

The development of the firearm

follows on from that of cannons.

Cannons were big and unwieldy, but they had the advantage that
they could use the new propellant without too great a risk of rupture
from the forces generated on detonation. But ingenuity soon led to
handguns (guns that were handheld, not the modern pistol-type
weapon) on the same principle, although the artistic representations
left to us today stretch credulity when the weapons and men are
shown together. There can be no doubt that firearms were used by
infantry, for the simple reason that they could not (at the time) be
fired effectively from horseback, and mounted knights were unlikely
to take the personal risks involved in firing such new and apparently
dangerous weapons. Further, such weapons were not covered by the
code of chivalry and so were left to the lower orders.

The written history of firearms grows in strength from about

1340; various artistic impressions are also to be found, but they are
often questionable by virtue of the fact that artists create what they
see, not necessarily what is there, and, unlike a modern video cam-

MILITARIES IN THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY

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 the
English Royal Chamber that controlled the royal armory and arsenal
in 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.

Guns held in the

Tower 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 the
Hundred Years War; also to be sent were “storage chests, large and
small lead pellets, pieces of lead for making pellets, and barrels of
powder, saltpetre and sulphur.” Another order was for 912 pounds of
saltpeter and 886 pounds of sulfur, so it is certain that cannons
were part of the military armory at the time. Possibly handguns were
also issued, and there is one reference to “hand engines called
guns.”

The manufacture of firearms appears to have been commonplace

by the mid-1300s,

and by 1373/1375 there is a record of a payment

made for attaching handles to eight guns “ad modum pycoys” or “in
the 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 the
accounts, although the arrows were a far cry from the wood and
feather long bow projectiles, now being metal with iron fletching.
Whatever the obscurity of these early documents, certainty comes in
the writ of 7 November 1388 that refers to “three small cannon
called handguns.”

At what exact moment in the fourteenth century the first firearms

were 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 the
maximum fighting range on the battlefield. The archery arm had
had great effect for centuries, but shooting was about to undergo a
quantum 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 still
issued as a last-ditch weapon to turn the rifle back into a pike, when
attackers, by skill at field craft, can come into body-contact range.

Many of the earliest examples of firearms have been lost—either

just plain lost, destroyed, rusted away, forgotten, or otherwise disap-

RIFLES

peared, and the firearms historian today is limited in physical exam-
ples and restricted by artistic depictions of the weapons. The
Swedish National Historical Museum in Stockholm has an example
of a very early weapon, the Loshult gun. This is similar in external
appearance to the famous Milimete gun, illustrated in the treatise
De Nobilitatibus, Sapientiis et Prudentiis Regum (On the Duties of a
King), 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 the

firearm 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 that
the muzzle pointed upward. In all cases woodwork had appeared
that enabled the barrel to be controlled and a rudimentary attempt
at aiming made. It should be remembered that the firearm at this
earliest stage of its development was still something of a novelty, and
was more useful in frightening horses than in killing men.

One of the difficulties facing the operator of these very primitive

handguns was firing it. The barrel was loaded with a set amount of
black powder, and the projectile poured (if shot) or loaded on top of
the propellant. A trail of gunpowder was then laid to lead from the

MILITARIES IN THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY

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 a
slow match (developed by artillerymen) was applied to the powder
trail, 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,”

the

weapon 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 even
chance of any explosion at all, and the gunman would be flattened
by the opposition without mercy.

Reliability is a theme we will return to time and again throughout

this book. No matter how horrifying and devastating a weapon may
prove 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 the
men who have to carry it in battle. History is full of weapons that
just could not do their job when it came to the test of action, either
because they were too weakly constructed, were not properly de-
signed, were worn out or broken, or were far too complex in design
to be continually functional in the one place where all these faults
spell death to the user: the battlefield.

Once the idea of handguns was seen to be of some value, the next

task for the gunmakers and designers was to devise a way of firing
the weapon mechanically, rather than with an easily lost or extin-
guished handheld slow match. The problem they faced was that
they had to continue to employ the slow match, as no other ignition
system had yet been invented. Thus the matchlock was born. The
earliest 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 of
the slow match to contact with the touch hole. He could now use
both hands to control his weapon and maintain his aim, and only
one finger was needed to fire. As Claude Blair points out, this was
“an economy of effort that has not been improved on to date.”

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 a
firing mechanism. The sighting method was still rudimentary, with
perhaps only a barleycorn foresight and no rear sight, but the basics
of 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 and
more 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

RIFLES

period. There were no such things as standing armies, rather the
gatherings of servants of kings and nobles who took the field either
for conquest or defense.

The higher the man’s social standing, the

better equipped he was. Knights, at the top of the tree, held sway on
the battlefield for a long period, until the Welsh archers in English
service at Crécy showed what a clothyard arrow could do to armed
mounted men. The revolution in military affairs caused by this de-
feat of the French knights came about at the same time as the
firearm 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 of
warfare would dawn. However, firearms were still extremely slow to
load and reload, difficult to aim, prone to the effects of weather (un-
like cutting weapons and arrows)—in short, a lot needed to be done
before the firearm was to become the only infantry weapon.

The first important development had been the mechanical means

of firing the weapon. A second development was the realization that
the wooden stock, originally no more than an extension behind the
firearm for convenience, could be adapted to allow the firer to place
the rear end of the wood against his shoulder. This meant that the
recoil of the weapon could be better controlled; previously there was
no resistance to the recoil, and the firearm could and would move
uncontrollably on discharge. The idea probably originated with the
fitting of a hook fitted to weapons used for wall defense. To control
recoil this hook was placed over a wall or other firm point, so that
recoil did not throw the weapon about too much, which otherwise
led to spoiling the aim and almost certainly to a degree of wariness
among gunners who were using the piece.

The development in the firearm field was to take the stock or butt

of the weapon and not merely make it suitable for fitting into the
firer’s shoulder but to bend the angle of the stock so that the barrel
lay 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 little
later in the timeline.

The invention of the matchlock led to refinements, and soon the

sear lock appeared. In this system a spring was introduced to the
lock; the spring was linked to the cock and was under pressure while
the weapon was loaded and cocked, ready to fire. When the trigger
was pressed the spring forced the cock and its slow match into con-
tact with the touch hole and the weapon fired. The first matchlock
illustration is in a German manuscript of 1411.

1 5

The spring lock

appears around 1470, and searlock mechanisms survived until the

MILITARIES IN THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY

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

So toward the end of the fifteenth century the firearm could be

fired by one finger, could be carried loaded and ready to fire, and the
stock was developing toward the modern form. The weapon could
be sighted along the barrel and aimed with some degree of accuracy
as rear sights were introduced, and recoil was contained by the
firer’s body through his shoulder. There is documentary evidence of
these new stocks,

1 6

which were often called Landsknecht stocks

(Landsknecht Kolbe) due to the frequency with which they are seen
in illustrations of the Landsknechts, the mercenary infantry of the
sixteenth century.

THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY

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

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 spring

when 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, especially
among the social superiors who were threatened by this new arm
and, by inference, those who wielded it. However, the sixteenth cen-
tury brought the invention of the first really mechanical firing
method, whereby simple pressure on the trigger set in motion a
chain of events that caused the weapon to fire. This was the wheel
lock.

The introduction of the wheel lock brought with it an increase in

the stature of the gunsmith. Previously he was regarded merely as
someone who could forge metal and make tubes with it, to build the
barrels of the earlier firearms. Now he began to attract the status of
a clock maker, a far higher calling than heretofore. He became an
engineer in miniature, not just the wielder of a large hammer.

The wheel lock works in the same way as a Zippo lighter. A piece

of iron pyrite (the flint) creates sparks by being in contact with a
wheel that is forced to rotate mechanically. The sparks created take
the place of the match in the matchlock, and the weapon is fired.
The illustration above shows the principle by which it worked. To
set 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 chain
was under tension from the spring so that when the trigger was
pressed, the spring forced the chain to rotate the wheel. This in turn
caused the serrated wheel to strike sparks from the flint to fire the
weapon.

The illustration shows a typical wheel lock and the following one

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

MILITARIES IN THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY

The Wheel Lock Principle. Courtesy of David Westwood.

with powder, wadding, and ball from the muzzle. Once this has been
rammed down the weapon is ready to prime. To do this the lock
chain has to be wound round the wheel with a key applied to the
spindle of the wheel. Once the chain is tight the cock is moved to its
cocked position as it is linked directly to the wheel. Then the pan is
primed. To fire the weapon the trigger is pressed. The chain is
pulled 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 the

end of the fifteenth century, probably by Leonardo da Vinci. Draw-
ings in his manuscripts

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 is
that although Leonardo may have invented the principle, putting it
into practical working order was done by the Nuremberg clock
maker Johann Kiefuss (or Kühfuss). In any event, in 1507 an Italian
cardinal was sent to Germany to obtain “a gun of the type that ig-
nites with stone.”

A more primitive example of the same principle

is to be seen in the Monk’s gun, which has a pull slide to activate
the metal-against-flint operating system.

Perhaps the most important social repercussion of the invention

of the wheel lock was due to its high cost. This meant that clients
with money were needed to patronize and buy it from the gun-
smiths who made it. This meant the growing middle class and the
aristocracy were the only people with the money to buy such a de-
vice; in turn, they were more interested in hunting and shooting
and would certainly not stand in a firing line in time of war. So it
was that soldiers in the field were, for the most part, left with
matchlocks, while their betters were engaged in the chase with far
better equipment.

Another social effect was that with the invention of the wheel

lock, weapons could be carried about the person, concealed from
the 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 s

were not only improving, but the criminal classes were arming
themselves, which the emperor was not prepared to allow. The same
problem 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.”

RIFLES

The wheel lock survived throughout the period from 1540 to

1600, 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, whose
wheel-lock sporting guns are still to be seen today in many Euro-
pean museums and collections. Interestingly, one improvement that
did not catch on, despite its obvious value, was the self-spanning
wheel lock. In this mechanism, the action of pulling back the cock
also caused the chain to be pulled round the wheel, thus removing
the need for the separate action of winding the wheel with a key. It
seems that the complexity of the device was beyond most gun-
smiths, and few examples were made, or indeed survive. There is an
example of this action, made by M. Kubík, which was in the Vo j e n-
ské Historické Muzeum (the Military Museum) in Prague in
1 9 5 6 .

2 1

Military use of weapons fitted with wheel-lock mechanisms was

strictly limited. Cost was one factor, and the complexity of the
mechanism was the other. Swedish infantry were issued wheel-lock
muskets in 1620,

and troops in the reign of Louis XIV of France

MILITARIES IN THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY

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 the
weapon was dropped, and the weapon was actually prohibited for
the 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 problem
was overcome about the middle of the sixteenth century with the
snaphance mechanism.

THE SNAPHANCE

This development appeared in 1547

2 3

and was certainly a firing

mechanism using flint and steel, but one in which the flint strikes
the steel and is not worked on by a rotating wheel. The origins of the
system are not clear, but the principle of operation clearly opens the
way for the flintlock to come. Various weapons survive fitted with
snaphance (or snaphaunce) locks, which were so simple that mili-

RIFLES

The snaphance. This simplified mechanism was a great step forward in firearms

design, yet gets little mention. Essentially, when the cock is pulled back, it compresses

the 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 the

cock 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 the

separately 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 was
far lower than the equivalent wheel lock. The mechanism was so
simple that it needed few, if any, repairs, which recommended it to
both 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 the
snaphance, and because it was such a successful design, a number
of derivatives were evolved. However, it is important to look at the
basic design to see how it worked.

The essentials of the mechanism are the same as those for the

snaphance, but there are a few refinements. The most important
change is that the steel and the pan cover are made in one piece.
When the cock flies forward under spring pressure the flint scrapes
down the face of the steel to make the sparks, and at the same time
the pressure of the flint against the steel forces the steel back
enough to uncover the pan. This enables the spark to get to the
priming powder and fire the weapon.

The use of the term “flintlock” as synonymous for “snaphance” is

not a real error, for both mechanisms use the same principle to fire a

MILITARIES IN THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY

The Flintlock. Courtesy of David Westwood.

weapon. Flint is scraped on steel to produce a spark. However, the
standard term “flintlock” became current quickly and was in vogue
by 1683,

2 4

although strict adherence to the definition that a

snaphance 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 flintlock
existed,

but they need not concern the narrative now, for it is time

to look at other developments that had arrived during the history of
the firearm up to the arrival of the flintlock.

Gunmakers are inventive people, and even in the days of the

wheel lock they had noticed that archers had a trick or two up their
sleeves worth thinking about. One of these tricks was to fletch an
arrow so that in the air it would rotate about its longitudinal axis
and thereby gain stability in flight. It seems possible that rifling was
first introduced to firearms at the end of the fifteenth century, and
there is a questionable earlier example in colonial America: Emperor
Maximilian’s rifle of between 1498 and 1508.

Rifling consists of cutting away the interior of the barrel of a

firearm so as to form spiral grooves upon its surface. The aim of this
exercise is, as the bullet goes down the barrel under the impulse of
the propellant, to put spin onto the bullet when it emerges into the
air beyond the muzzle. The spin preserves the longitudinal axis of the
bullet and thereby achieves more accurate fire. With a round musket
ball, however, especially when deformed by ramming from the muz-
zle, the practicality of this is debatable. Later, when bullets were
loaded at the breech and forced by gas pressure to expand at the rear
and so engage with the rifling, rifling began to have a real effect, es-
pecially after the conoidal bullet was invented. In sporting and target
weapons 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 when
it is spinning about after emergence from the muzzle.

Sights had developed, too, and now both a front sight and rear

sight were fitted, but they were fixed sights that did no more than
concentrate the attention of the musketeer toward his target. The
fact that musketry targets in battle were probably no more than 50
yards away at this time really negates the value of these sights, but
they may have had some morale-raising effect.

The furniture of weapons, the woodwork surrounding the barrel

and fitted to the rear of the lock and the end of the barrel, was now
recognized as very important to the firer. Barrel furniture saved
hands from getting burned, and the butt and small of the butt en-

RIFLES

abled recoil to be absorbed and the right hand to have a firm grip so
that the forefinger could operate the trigger. By the time of arrival of
the flintlock musket, firearms had assumed the general shape of
twentieth-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 the

military scene of the flintlock meant that he was at last free of the
matchlock forever and had a reasonably reliable lock with which to
fire his weapon in battle. The cost of the flintlock in comparison
with the wheel lock meant that armies could reequip en masse, and
weapons could even be retrofitted with the flintlock, although this
seems not to have been necessary. Quartermasters now had to pro-
vide flints in large quantities, after they had established where to
buy them.

The flints used

were received from the quarries covered with a

thick layer of lime clay, which had to be washed off. Once dry, the
knapping process produced a flint for use, with its top edge a sharp
point and the bottom edge shaped like a chisel. Flints were usable
for about fifty shots, after which they were thrown away. The French
got their flints from the Département Cher in central France, and
they were prized in both Europe and the United States. In England
quarries near Brandon in Suffolk supplied flints, while in A u s t r i a
flints were bought from Transylvania, the Tyrol, and Italy.

The method of loading the weapon also developed in the lifetime

of the firearm. The first method had been simple: pour powder into
the muzzle, load a ball with a patch and ram it down, put a little
powder into the pan, and the weapon was ready. Wheel-lock users in
the English civil war of the 1650s had improved methods: wooden
cartridges were preloaded with the right amount of powder, the plug
was taken off the cartridge, the powder poured as before, the ball
loaded, and all was ready. Then came the paper composite in the last
thirty years of the seventeenth century. The ball and powder were
contained in a paper twist, and the musketeer bit off the bottom of
the cartridge (hence the well-known phrase “bite the bullet”). This
exposed the powder, a small amount of which was poured into the
pan, 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 with
a 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 it
was burned along with the powder when the weapon was fired.

MILITARIES IN THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY

One task for the infantryman with a smoothbore musket was that

he had to make his own cartridges. King Louis XV in 1738 ordered
that the cartridge paper had to be unsized paper and contain a
charge of 9 grains (5 drams) of powder and a ball of 28 grains (just
under 1 ounce). This procedure had been used for many decades to
make up each cartridge and had been basically unaltered since the
days of the matchlock.

Interestingly, each man was limited in the number of rounds he

was allowed to carry, despite the fact that he made his own. Fusiliers
in the French Army during the Thirty Years’ War carried 18 rounds,
the Prussian Imperial Infantry had 40 rounds in 1684, while the
French infantry had 10. Prussian Imperial Dragoons had 24 rounds
in 1740. This shortage of ammunition led to battle shortages, and at
Mollwitz in 1741 the Prussian infantry had to get spare ammunition
from the pouches of the dead and wounded. At the Battle of Torgau
both sides ran out of ammunition, and even during the Napoleonic
Wars there were still ammunition shortages.

It has already been noted that as fouling built up in the barrels of

the muskets, it became more difficult to reload. One way in which it
was thought this could be alleviated was by cutting two grooves
down the barrel in a straight line, so that fouling would be concen-
trated away from the main barrel, allowing better reloading; this was
the principle of the Brunswick rifle. Unfortunately it was only par-
tially successful.

ENDNOTES

1. Frances Gies and Joseph Gies, Cathedral, Forge, and Water Wheel

Technology 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 that
the 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 de

Nullitate Magiae, circa 1257.

5. Gies and Gies, Cathedral, p. 247.
6. The term “firearm” will be used in the text to signify handheld

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 as
any other kind of arms. So quick and ingenious are the minds of men in
learning 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, War
and 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 a
wheel lock from about 1540 in the Real Armeria, Madrid.

18. C. Blair and J. F. Hayward, “Die Rechnungs-bücher des Kardinals

Ippolito 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 of
their 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 to

fire them.

21. References like this that carry the epithet “was in . . .” are caused by

the many changes that have happened in Europe since the beginning of
the twentieth century. Their significance is that the author has traced the
existence 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, Turin

1890, p. 421, where the author quotes a Florentine ordinance of 1547

MILITARIES IN THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY

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 the
muzzle cannot be proved to go the length of the barrel, leaving this piece as
dubiously the first rifle.

27. The flint was silex pyromachus and was bought from quarries in

round or oval pieces. They had to be left to dry out slowly, otherwise they
became brittle, and they were then knapped to form them for fitting to
flintlocks. 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, and

barrel 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 the
musket, however, it was significant, especially as there was no way of
cleaning 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 paper
into a trapezium 6mm x 12mm x 15cm. Then take a round stick 19cm long
and 16mm in diameter, one end of which has a cavity large enough to take
one-third of the ball. Lay the stick with the ball on the end on the paper so
that the ball rests 13cm from the main base. Then wrap the paper round
the stick, holding the ball in place, and with the right hand finish wrapping
the cartridge. Remove the stick and place the cartridge in a bronze cylinder
in one of a row of hemispherical cavities. Pour the powder into the cases
using a funnel, and shake to settle the powder. Close with a double twist.
See Jean Boudriot, Armes à Feu Françaises, Modèles d’Ordonnance, in the
series Modèles Reglementaires, 1717–1836, Paris, 1961–1963.

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.

One can assume musket balls were meant. The original mus-

ket ball was a spherical lead ball in approximately the caliber of the
weapon that fired it. Both metallurgy and mensuration were some-
what crude arts in the fourteenth century, but it seems that ball was
usually made slightly smaller than weapon caliber to allow easy
loading.

The lead balls were made by melting lead (and its impurities) and

then pouring the molten lead into molds. This process could be
done almost anywhere there was a fire, because lead has a low melt-
ing point.

Bullet molds are first mentioned in the English

Wardrobe Accounts (records of state) in circa 1375, and the molds
mentioned were made of brass. In 1497 a list of military stores sent
to 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 accompanied

by a bullet mold (and powder flask), and in 1512 a merchant sup-

plied 420 handguns with 420 “botelles [powder flasks] and moldes
for the same.” Recovered items from the wreck of the Mary Rose in-
cluded a few bullet molds made of soapstone, a soft, easily carved
stone that was resistant to heat. Each mold consisted of a block of
soapstone 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 removed
from the shot produced.

Later molds were made with two hinged arms, which closed to

form the mold. In the seventeenth century molds were still normally
made to cast one shot, but one example

from France molded four

shots at once. Sprue or flashing cutters also became standard on
bullet molds to cut away extruded lead that formed at the joints of
the 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 the
production 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 round

ball 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 as
wind, range, and propellant power: they were really nothing more
than high-speed stones. The balls were loaded with a patch wrapped
around them. This was to fill the gap between the barrel wall and
the slightly undersized ball. The ball was undersized for one good
reason: if made to barrel size, only the first round would load easily;
thereafter, fouling would make the process more difficult, and after
two or three shots the weapon would be unusable. Some attempts
were made to reduce fouling by waxing bullets, or soaking patches
in wax, but unless the whole patch was completely consumed on fir-
ing (and most of the time even paper wadding was not burned out
either), fouling was certain to occur.

Patches were designed to be squeezed between ball and barrel on

loading, allowing the ball to pass down the barrel easily, and patches
were often greased or lubricated to make this even easier. They also
had the advantage that once the weapon was loaded, the ball would
not roll out of the barrel if the weapon was pointed downward.

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 when
muzzle-loading black-powder (another generally accepted term for
gunpowder) weapons were fired. Problems could arise, of course, if
the patch was too large or of the wrong material, which could make
it impossible to load the weapon. Loading in general often became a
great problem, and one report noted that “the force required to ram
down the ball being so great as to render a man’s hand too unsteady
for accurate shooting.”

The flaming patch could in itself be a dan-

ger if weapons were fired at times of drought, as the patch would set
fire to vegetation when it came out of the muzzle.

One of the problems that faced the makers of muzzle-loading

weapons was accuracy. The round bullet had to be made and loaded
perfectly to ensure a true trajectory, but if the ball was in contact
with the barrel on one side as it passed up to the muzzle, the shot
would be affected in the same way as a golfer hooks or pulls his
shot. It was understood that the fit of ball to barrel had to be exact if
accuracy was to follow, but this was negated by the requirement that
a military weapon had to be extremely easy to load and reload, even
when there was fouling present in the barrel.

The military muzzle-loading rifle initially suffered from the basic

problem that even a rifled weapon could not fundamentally increase
the accuracy of a round ball, although it could improve its range.
Some weapons under testing actually exhibited less accuracy when
rifled than the contemporary smoothbores they were intended to re-
place. Reloading was a much more difficult task with rifling adding
to the resistance in the barrel. Hammers were issued to help the ri-
fleman to reload his weapon, with the obvious result of damage to
the barrel from the rammer when repeatedly hit by this tool, and to
the 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 the
rifling when fired. This cut down on windage

initially but led to

problems of accuracy with what was a deformed ball, which would
behave erratically once it emerged from the muzzle. The answer was
a 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 expand
to fit the rifling when the weapon was fired.

Ezekiel Baker’s rifle was the first issued to the British Army after

tests in 1800 when his rifle beat all European and U.S. makes of-

BALL, BULLET, POWDER, AND CARTRIDGE

fered for testing. However, his rifle fired a round ball and was super-
seded in 1835 by the Brunswick rifle. The Brunswick attempted to
overcome fouling problems by having only two grooves and a belted
bullet.

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,

whose carabine à tige appeared in

1842. The original design appeared in 1826.

The barrel rear had a

subcaliber chamber in which the propellant charge lay. The spheri-
cal ball was then rammed down onto the shoulders of the powder
chamber. This deformed the bullet that cut windage but still left the
problem of the external ballistics of a deformed projectile.

The answer lay in a bullet that was easy to load but that expanded

on firing so that it was gripped by the rifling not merely on a random
part 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 longer

than the weapon caliber, with a flat end and a perforation nearly all
the way through it. In the perforation was fitted a cast-metal plug
with a head like a round-topped button. It could be loaded with the
plug above or below the ball, because the pressure or acceleration
were both sufficient to push the plug into the ball, expand it, and
make it a sure fit in the rifling. Greener’s trick had been to make an

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 it
would expand, no matter which
way it was loaded into the weapon.

Accuracy was tested in A u g u s t

1835 at Tynemouth in England.
The report on the test confirmed
the value of this invention and
added that the bullet allowed rifles
to be loaded as easily as muskets,
yet range and accuracy were as for
a rifle. When bullets were recov-
ered after the test, they were seen
to have rifling groove marks firmly
engraved into their surfaces, proof
that they had been successfully
forced to fill the whole barrel, and
not just to skate lightly over the ri-
fling lands or expand completely
into the grooves.

However, this idea was rejected by the War Office on the grounds

that the bullet was compound.

H o w e v e r, the British government

awarded Captain C. E. Minié of the French Army £20,000 for virtu-
ally the same invention, which was adopted.

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 sabot
was smashed by the rammer and the idea was rejected.

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 of
the barrel, around which the powder charge could lie. This breech
plug had its axis parallel to the bore and could be adjusted in length
so that it created a chamber just big enough for the powder charge.
The bullet was then rammed down onto this tige, or anvil, where it
expanded. Once again, the problem was that although there was
some engagement in the rifling, it was not enough, and the bullet’s
flight in the air was erratic. Nevertheless, this system was proved to
expand the bullet more effectively than Delvigne’s method, and the
French Army adopted it in 1846.

BALL, BULLET, POWDER, AND CARTRIDGE

Greener’s Expanding Bullet

Courtesy of David Westwood.

By 1845 Lieutenant Colonel

John Jacob of the Indian Army

had built for himself a rifle range
with targets at up to 2,000 yards.
He was experimenting with rifles
made by his London gunmakers
to his own specifications, firing
cylindro-conoidal bullets with
four studs on the sides to fit a
f o u r-groove rifling system. His
bullets were effective out to
2,000 yards, and he even de-
signed an explosive bullet for the
weapon. However, the East India
government rejected his pro-
posal,

but he nevertheless went

ahead and formed his own regi-
ment equipped with his rifle.

In 1853 Jacob began what

were near official trials of his
own rifle. He paid for everything
himself and sent reports when he
felt like it to the British govern-
ment offices in Bombay. Jacob
had spent many years getting to
this stage, and his main aim was
to do away with the belted ball
and two-grooved barrel of the
Brunswick rifle. He wanted eas-
ier loading in a four-grooved bar-
rel firing a double-belted ball. He
found that the results of the first
firings exceeded his expectations,
and in 1846 he put his idea to
the government of India. The predictable result was rejection, on
the grounds that the British Army at home used the Brunswick, and
“what was good enough for the royal army

1 4

was good enough for

the Hon. East India Company.”

Jacob was not to be deterred, however, and went on to design a

bullet 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.

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, and
a contemporary report said that “at ranges from 300 to 1,200 yards,
the flight of the shell

was always point foremost, and the elevation

at extreme range inconsiderable.”

Jacobs continued with his exper-

iments (no doubt his area of India was free of native uprising at the
time), and he went on testing until “he found that his bullets were
effective up to 2,000 yards range, with a penetration of four inches
in hard Indian brick, nearly like stone; and almost twelve inches at
1,000 yards. He now saw, beyond all question, that he had obtained
both the scientific and the practical data for a first class military
arm.”

What Jacobs had done was to produce a very special rifle, which

fired a bullet that allowed no windage whatever. This was perhaps
the finest weapon of its time but was little suited to military use in
general 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 to
manufacture, but the results in 1858 showed that it was accurate in
the extreme, and, fired at 500 yards, of 36 rounds fired “32 were
hits, 4 were bull’s eyes, 2 on the edge of the bull’s eye, and about a
dozen clustered within six inches of it.”

In 1845 and thereafter, the British Army was still issuing the En-

glish Pattern 1842 musket. Testing at Chatham showed that this
smoothbore musket failed to hit a target at all at 250 yards, and even
at 150 yards only 50 percent hits were achieved. Even after this

BALL, BULLET, POWDER, AND CARTRIDGE

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.

RIFLES

test,

however, such was the conservative nature of the British es-

tablishment (including the War Office) that the Select Committee
of the House of Commons was assured that the maximum range of
the musket was between 1,600 and 1,800 yards, although no men-
tion was made of accuracy. Some of the military was aware of the
need for change, and continental Europe and the United States
were all testing rifles with a view to changing over completely from
the smoothbore musket.

THE MINIÉ BALL

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

Despite the obvious advantages of the

Minié bullet, the French reversed their
1849 decision to adopt the Minié in favor of another, rather ineffec-
tive, design. The Belgians opted for the Peeter ball, another odd
concoction. Indeed, there were so many different ideas and designs
floating around in Europe at the time that Hans Busk wrote in
1860:

There is, amongst other things, much discrepancy of opinion on the
question of calibre, librating, as it does, between the Swiss as the
smallest (0.41in), and the Swedish or largest, which is .74-inch. In
the 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 military

weapons; but the majority of those most in favour do not exceed three

The Minié Ball.

Courtesy of David Westwood.

BALL, BULLET, POWDER, AND CARTRIDGE

or four grooves. The number most generally adopted is f o u r ; r i f l e s
with eight are the next most numerous. With respect to the shape of
the grooves there is great want of uniformity. In some countries as in
England, America and Switzerland, the rifles have neither t i g e n o r
chamber, 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.

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 in
1825. Charles Lancaster also took some interest in this idea, and he
was ordered to supply carbines with this style of rifling to the Royal
Engineers in 1855. Hexagonal or pentagonal rifling, in which the
barrel was of the selected cross section and twisted along its length,
achieved a short period of interest in the 1850s. A rifle designed in
this way by Sir Joseph Whitworth outshot the service weapon of the
day and was still hitting targets at 2,000 yards, a range at which the
Enfield could offer no competition; range was still the important
factor in selecting weapons for almost all countries. The bullet was a
hexagonal hard lead bullet designed to screw into the barrel when
loaded.

In the mid-1860s all these efforts were superseded by the appear-

ance of the first military breech loaders. The next bullet problems
arose for a different reason, and the way to the composite cartridge
was open.

THE COMPOSITE CARTRIDGE

The idea of the all-in-one cartridge was not a new one, even in the
1850s, for Gustavus Adolphus, king of Sweden, had already issued
orders in the early 1600s that his army was to carry shot and powder
wrapped together in a cartridge. Two hundred years later men were
still biting off the paper to pour the powder, then ramming paper
and ball into the barrel.

One development, which originated in the United States and was

later emulated by Heckler and Koch in the late twentieth century,
was the self-consuming cartridge. A number of inventors, including
Samuel Colt and Christian Sharps, laid claim to the idea, but no
matter who had the idea first, it was a good one. If the whole of the
powder envelope was consumed at firing, no residue would be left to
add to the fouling of the barrel. The paper wrapper for the cartridge

was therefore soaked in nitrates, making it very combustible. The
whole cartridge was dropped into the muzzle (or the chamber of
breech loaders) and then rammed with rod (or finger). Only ignition
was now needed for the whole item to be consumed. The one prob-
lem was the perennial one: paper cartridges were easily damaged. To
solve this Sharps came up with the linen cartridge, fired from the
Sharps breech-loading rifles and carbines. The cartridge was loaded
whole into the breech, and on closing the breech block, it then cut
into the rear of the cartridge, exposing the propellant powder. To
avoid powder spillage the muzzle needed to be lowered, but this was
not difficult. When so loaded, the Maynard tape primer provided in-
stant ignition, and so the process of reloading was much simpler and

RIFLES

Early Cartridge Cases. Courtesy of David Westwood.

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

The composite cartridge could not have appeared without two

things: there was a need for a compact primer, and metallurgy and
engineering needed to be able to produce an effective cartridge
case. The first problem had been answered with the invention of the
percussion cap, which was easily redesigned to form the primer in
cartridges. The drawing of brass, perfected by the mid-nineteenth
century, solved the other problem, although there were many stop-
gap products that performed adequately if not magnificently. This
allowed manufacturers to make a cartridge of metal that combined
i g n i t e r, propellant, and bullet in one unit; this in turn led to im-
proved mechanical reloading systems.

Combustible paper cartridges had been in use for some time and

were first made as a complete item by Johannes Samuel Pauly, who
invented the brass-headed cartridge. Unfortunately the primer in
Pauly’s original design was too easily knocked out by handling, and
the cartridge itself was too vulnerable to the elements, but the first
step had been taken toward the composite metal cartridge. By 1829
Clement Pottet had invented his metallic cartridge, which had a
base depression for a fulminate primer, but this was not perfected
until 1855, when Pottet introduced threading into the primer
pocket to allow the primer to be screwed into the cartridge.

In the meantime, however, to eliminate problems in handling and

from the effects of the weather, cartridge designers tried to put the
primer within the body of the cartridge itself, and Casimir Lefau-
chaux

patented his pin-fire cartridge in 1832. This cartridge was

fired by means of the hammer striking a pin set into the cartridge at
the base and was arranged on being struck to come into contact
with 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 the
pin, so that there was firm resistance from cartridge and breech
when the pin was struck.

Although this type of cartridge survived in use until quite late, it

was superseded by that of Johann Nikolaus (von) Dreyse, who not
only invented the needle gun but also the cartridge to go in it. This
was the Dreyse cartridge, in which the primer was fixed at the base
of the bullet, ahead of the propellant charge. The “needle” of the ri-
fle was in fact the firing pin, which had to penetrate the propellant
charge completely before it could fire the cartridge. At almost the
opposite end of this concept was that of John Hanson and William
Golden, who applied for a patent for a cartridge in 1841 with no

BALL, BULLET, POWDER, AND CARTRIDGE

RIFLES

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

However, once more in France, a new idea surfaced, in which the

primer covered the whole base. This was the Flobert cartridge of
1849 (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 so
that there was a distinct rim around the base of the cartridge, within
which was contained the primer. This was the first improvement, to
which they then added a propellant charge, lacking in the Flobert
design, which was, however, entirely suitable for civilian fair ground
and so-called “lounge” rifles. This was an exceptional advance, but
had the fault that the strength of the hammer hitting the rim had to
be great enough to compress the cartridge case metal to explode the
primer. For this reason military high-power cartridges could not be
made this way,

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 cartridge

with 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 by
George Henry Daw of London and became the type of cartridge
used in the first British general service breech loader, the aptly
named Snider rifle, invented by the American Jacob Snider and
adopted by the British Army for a short period from 1867.

The threads of cartridge design and rifle loading systems were

drawing closer at this period, with all modern military thought being
devoted to the breech-loading weapon and a suitable cartridge to
fire in it. Cartridges of a sort were available, but the primer problem
was twofold: it was not always securely fixed and it was a one-shot-
only concept, in that primers could not be reloaded. Further, brass
cases were expensive, which meant that government treasuries were
happier with weapons that did not leave large amounts of wasted
brass on ranges or battlefields.

The final step was taken by Charles William Lancaster of En-

gland, who produced a drawn metal cartridge,

followed by George

W. Morse of the United States (who offered a breech loading car-
bine to the U.S. Army in 1857, which was underpowered by firing a
primer-only cartridge), and then almost simultaneously by Colonel

Hiram Berdan of the United States (who resigned his commission in
1846 to concentrate on firearms design) and Edward Mounier
Boxer (commissioned into the Royal Artillery in 1849, and forced to
resign from the British Army in 1869 after legal wrangles over his
patents). The latter pair of officers designed primers for center-fire
cartridges with internal “anvils” and soft outer faces, between which
was the fulminate igniter. The firing pin struck and dented the outer
face 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 appearance
of drawn metal cases and center-fire primers with reliability made
the dream of the rifle designers a certainty: at last they could be sure
that gases would not escape to the rear on firing, because the car-
tridge case would act as its own obturator. Further, soldiers could
now be given complete cartridges to load into their rifles, removing
forever the need for separate powder and ball, wadding, and ram-
ming. Each individual cartridge just needed to be put into the
weapon, and it was ready to use.

Designs for composite metallic cartridges in the hundreds came

to the patent offices of both Britain and the United States. All were
based on this one principle, which was the containment within one
unit of primer, propellant, and bullet, and it is at this stage that pres-
ent-day cartridge design stands, with one exception: although aban-

BALL, BULLET, POWDER, AND CARTRIDGE

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 by
the powder, which was entirely consumed at firing, removing the
need 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 in

the last 200 years and has passed from round lead ball to much
more complex designs that incorporate a metal jacket around a
heavier core. The way to the modern bullet was as fraught as that to
the 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 the
French Army. In 1841 he announced his development of the cylin-
dro-conoidal bullet with a hollow base, which was to be fired in his
own design of rifle, the pillar-breech, publicized in 1842. After these
inventions had been proved to work to an extent, Captain Claude-
Étienne Minié took the bullet further, producing it in the ogival
form for which he became famous. The Minié ball needed no tige; it
was designed to expand under the pressure of the propellant gases
on firing and to enlarge itself to fit into the grooves of the rifling
very quickly. To aid expansion, Minié balls were often fitted with
base plugs, which were forced into the base of the bullet on firing,
thus aiding bullet expansion. Experiments in various countries
proved that the separate plug often damaged the bullet in the
process, 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 was
better arranged at the front, making the bullet far more effective. To
concentrate 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 bullet
waist. 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 is
heavy and easily molded. The development that bullet and cartridge
men 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 their
actions or so complicated that they would never stand the test of ac-

RIFLES

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

One of these was the Snider rifle-musket and its cartridge, one of

the first composite cartridges ever successful in the field. The
Snider cartridge was basically designed by George Henry Daw of
London; 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 created
the actual cartridge, using his own primer design.

Ten years earlier in the United States a fundamental advance in

the manufacture of cartridges had occurred when Morse’s and
Burnside’s cartridges were produced for rifles of their own design.
Burnside’s cartridge was, as can be seen from the drawing on page
30, conical in shape and designed to be loaded from the front of a
hinged breech; it was not a composite cartridge, however, in that it
was fired by the flame from a percussion cap directed through the
hole at its base into the propellant charge. The drawing of Morse’s
cartridge shows it to have been a true composite cartridge, with a
c e n t e r-fire primer and anvil. The cartridge was not a military
design,

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 wrote
a valuable report on the subject (as noted above). In the preamble to
the report the author gives the reason why breech-loading weapons
were not issued to the U.S. Army in the 1850s:

Considerable attention was given to the subject and production of
breech-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 mounted
troops; one that was safe and more readily manipulated in the saddle
than the muzzle loading rifle or musket with swivelled or separate
ramrods, and provided with a cartridge not requiring so great a num-
ber of motions in loading and firing.

BALL, BULLET, POWDER, AND CARTRIDGE

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 properly
solved. The Sharps rifle and carbine were “most excellently well-
made weapons, and believed by many military authorities to be the

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 edge
that slid across the rear of the breech to cut into the cartridge, ex-
posing the propellant to the fire from the percussion cap. Needless
to say, the perfection of the cutoff afforded by the rear of the breech
did not always prevent leakages of flame, especially when the
weapon 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-loading
arms for troops of all services met with almost no encouragement
among military men, and it was not until as late as after the battle of
Gettysburgh that it became popular and prevailed in the service. This
prejudice once overcome, by what may be fairly termed an entire rev-
olution of the character of the arms and ammunition, the new breech
loaders became rapidly popular, and gained many advocates through-
out the A r m y, where their great superiority to the old muzzle-loaders is
now universally recognised and assured. The use of some effective
breech loaders and magazine arms

3 0

had, for some time, popularised

them 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-loading
arms from the battlefield at Gettysburg . . . [which] were found to be
nearly all loaded; some with one, two, three, four, six, and even as many
as twenty rounds of cartridges in the barrel. (emphasis added)

This was good enough reason, it was felt, to provide the soldier with
a weapon that could not be loaded twice or more without first firing
the 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, with
its rim-fire cartridge, and the Henry had a good reputation, too, and
despite the report, little was done for nearly three decades. Ammu-
nition, however, benefited from the need for breech-loading
weapons, 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 the

cartridge. This had been done in rim-fire cartridges (as with the
Spencer), in pin-fire cartridges (the Lefauchaux), and then the cen-
ter-fire cartridge, of which more designs were appearing seemingly

BALL, BULLET, POWDER, AND CARTRIDGE

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

The advantages of a cartridge in which the primer was firmly set

in the center of the base, and which did not protrude below the flat
surface of the base, would be of tremendous value to the military.
Other advantages were “sure explosion when struck by the point of
the firing-pin; less fulminate and less strain on the head of the car-
tridge; greater security in handling and using under all exigencies of
s e r v i c e . ”

3 1

Naturally all cartridges considered for service were put

through innumerable tests, which Treadwell described in some
detail:

These cartridges have been subjected to the severest tests to demon-
strate their capability to resist all accidents, such as smashing up the
boxes of ammunition, and even firing into them with bullets. Only
the 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 the
risk attending its carriage is almost nothing. Its greatly superior qual-

RIFLES

Boxer and Berdan Primer
Systems. Courtesy of
David Westwood.

Boxer

ity to resist exposure of climate, moisture &c., has also been proven
by such severe tests that it may be asserted to be practically water-
proof. A central and direct blow on the point primed is an essential
and highly important feature of the center-primed cartridge; its gen-
eral adoption, and the adaptation of all breech-loading service small
arms 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 of
the preceding cartridge.

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 differences
between the two types of primer are not dissimilar at first glance,
but the fundamental differences are that the Boxer anvil is inserted
between cap and cartridge, whereas the Berdan primer is formed
from the cartridge case metal itself. When struck, the flame from
the primer flashes through the vents, igniting the main propellant
charge.

From this point on, very little has been done to improve the basic

form of the cartridge. The rim has various forms, and up to the end
of World War II, both rimmed (particularly the British .303-inch ri-
fle and light machine gun ammunition) and rimless (the German
7.92mm and the U.S. .30-inch round especially) were in use. Since
then, the advent of the assault rifle and self-loading weapons, rim-
less cartridges have shot into the lead, because any form of rim
makes loading magazines correctly a matter of difficulty except in
the quietest of situations. Rimmed rounds have a tendency to jam in
the magazine, and are therefore no longer in vogue.

One development that has been of significance has been the

adoption 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

BALL, BULLET, POWDER, AND CARTRIDGE

The Martini-Henry Cartridge. The case is actually
compressed 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 to
allow 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 to
be a short- to medium-range rifle, capable of burst-firing when
needed, 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 (originally
3.5 grams), and the bullet weighed 8.1 grams (originally 12.8
grams). What this meant was that infantry had a rapid-firing
weapon that fired a lighter cartridge (in all senses: weight, muzzle
v e l o c i t y, and muzzle energy) but for which each man could carry
more ammunition, and at battle ranges (which were shortening for
the rifle all the time) he could lay down a curtain of fire against the
masses of the Russian infantry opposing him.

This led the Russians, never ones to let a good idea go to waste, to

design the AK range of assault rifles firing the 7.62mm x 39mm car-
tridge, the ideal cartridge for an assault weapon. This cartridge and
its user weapon are still available, and recent film from Iraq has
shown the AK47 is alive and well and being used there, as well as by
many other nations throughout the world, which is unsurprising re-
a l l y, because it is probably the best assault infantry weapon ever
made (see Chapter 7).

For many years U.S. ordnance and military men considered that

the only cartridge that they wanted (as opposed to what they
needed) was the trusty .30-06,

the caliber .30 full-bore long-range

rifle cartridge. However, British designers were looking hard at the
German idea and came up with the 7mm (0.280-inch) rifle. British
military thought had realized that long-range shooting was a thing of
the past on the modern battlefield, except for snipers and medium
machine guns. The battlefield of the infantryman extended now only
to about 300 yards around him. Further, the massed infantry of for-
mer battles had to be replaced by small, very mobile units that had
little combined firepower except for the machine gun that each sec-
tion (squad) carried with it. This meant that more ammunition
needed to be available to every infantryman of the battlefield, and
the ammunition needed to incapacitate the enemy, not necessarily
kill him stone dead with one shot.

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

RIFLES

munition, so the British led the way with smaller-caliber cartridges.
The British 7mm Enfield rifles were a direct result of German work
and first appeared in 1947. The British Army tried cartridges in .25-
inch, .27-inch, .30-inch, and .33-inch sizes but eventually selected
an Enfield design for a .270-inch (7mm x 46). This was then dis-
carded in favor of the .280-inch (7mm) Enfield cartridge, around
which the revolutionary bullpup design sometimes known as the
EM1 and later EM2 were designed.

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 the
U.S. Air Force, the AR-5. This fired a .223-inch (5.56mm) cartridge
and was intended for pilots who might need a rifle for survival after
parachuting 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. The
U.S. Air Force did not adopt the weapon, but the idea was born.

Armalite and Stoner then offered their AR-10 rifle for evaluation

by the Infantry Board of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
( N ATO) 7.62mm. It was immediately recognized as a departure
from standard, being made partly of aluminum alloy and fiberglass
and weighing seven pounds. However, it failed to be accepted
against what became the M14 rifle, although its promise was great.
Stoner also had reservations about the 7.62mm x 51mm NAT O
round that, he claimed,

was too powerful to be used in a rifle fir-

ing at full automatic.

In comparatively little time Stoner then took a concentrated look

at the .22-inch caliber and designed his own slightly enhanced ver-
sion for his rifle. The recalibered rifle now became the AR-15, and
when the U.S. Army adopted it as its issue service rifle, it took its
place in the ordnance catalog at the next available number as the
M16. The caliber was seen by many of the military as so small as to
be of little value to the infantryman on the battlefield, just as many
arguments had ranged against the .280-inch British weapons. The
test, in Vietnam in particular, seems to prove that the cartridge per-
formed well, although there are still some doubts about the stopping
power 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 cartridge
rejected 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

BALL, BULLET, POWDER, AND CARTRIDGE

Nationale at Herstal in Belgium), the former Soviet states

still use

the AK47 with its shortened round, and the rest of the world uses
either these cartridges or the old 7.62mm NATO round. Va r i o u s
other old calibers are to be seen in odd places, but the main
weapons 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) Crown
and are to be found in the British Museum and the British Public Record
Office.

2. The melting point of lead in its pure form is 327°C. Chambers Science

and 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 initially
there 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 the
ball affected its accuracy significantly.

6. A belted bullet has a circumferential ring of lead that fits into the two

grooves on the Brunswick at the muzzle, and when it is rammed the belt
stays in the grooves.

7. Delvigne was a former French Army officer who became a ballistics

expert. His first weapon was a cap-lock carbine (1827), a cylindro-conoidal
bullet (1841), and the Carabine À Tige (1842). His work paved the way for
Claude-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 became

detached from the bullet. Report of Major Walcott who conducted the
tests (and see note 6 above). Quoted in Blair.

10. Like many instances in the nineteenth century the matter became

one in dispute, and members of Parliament took up Greener’s case, eventu-
ally getting him £1,000, which was acknowledged as for “the first public
suggestion 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-

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’s

Horse. Jacob was later promoted to the rank of general.

13. On the fallacious ground that “the Brunswick, being considered

good 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 is
valid 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 and
improved 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 not

thoroughly experimented with at the time or introduced into service. Its
merits over paper or similar ammunition are apparent, the chief, perhaps,
being that it was designed as a self-primed cartridge, had a flanged head for
extracting 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

BALL, BULLET, POWDER, AND CARTRIDGE

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

33. For an example of this cartridge, see the photo of the Garand M1 in

the “Significant Rifles and Rifle Systems” section.

34. Also known as the XL 65 E5 Assault Rifle, now redesigned, and later

developed 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 was
too powerful to control in automatic firing.

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

States.

RIFLES

C H A P T E R 3

Breech-Loading Rifles

O n e fu n d am e n t al pr o b l e m

affected the muzzle-loading rifles:

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

One of the first breech-loading weapons that saw military service

was the Ferguson rifle. This was designed by Captain Patrick Fergu-
son of the 70th Regiment (Surrey Regiment).

In March 1776 he

took out a patent in London for a flintlock screw-plug breech-load-
ing rifle.

Ferguson acknowledged his debt to Chaumette but incor-

porated in his design certain modifications that were intended to
overcome the fouling problem that had bedeviled the design up to
that point. He introduced a smooth section cut across the threads
that faced the chamber when the weapon was loaded and closed, he
had 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, in

that one turn of the trigger guard opened the mechanism to the full
extent. The soldier then put a ball into the hole on top of the rifle
and let gravity feed it to the forward part of the chamber. He then
poured powder in to charge the weapon and simply rewound the

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

The Ferguson rifle was a remarkable piece of engineering in that

the matched screw threads of the male (the rotating plug) and the
female (the breech hole) were mated exceptionally well, making the
action extremely smooth to operate. The example (by Durs Egg)
held in the Weapons Collection of the Small Arms School Corps (at
the 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 rotating
lever action functions perfectly.

The weapon was a rifleman’s dream at the time, being easy to

load and fire and relatively easy to clean and maintain. It also has a
pleasing balance. It was a weapon that would have made the British
Army, had it adopted it wholesale, the leading force in rifle use and
would have served the army far better than the rag-tag of weapons
that were used in its stead.

Of course, before any weapon could be adopted, it needed to be

tested, and following a series of very favorable press reports,

h e

arranged 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,

and Lord Townshend was so impressed that he

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. This
took place in rain and wind on the marshes of Woolwich Wa r r e n
near London. The report of the event recorded that

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

1st He fired during four or five minutes at a target, at 200 yards

distant, 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 less
than half a minute fired with her as well as ever, without extracting
the ball.

He also hit the bull’s eye at 100 yards lying with his back on the

ground; and, notwithstanding the unequalness of the wind and wet-
ness of the weather, he only missed the target three times during the
whole course of the experiments.

With such results the Board of Ordnance felt confident in order-

ing that 100 Ferguson rifles be made, to arm a small detachment of
men 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 the
United 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. Fortunately
for 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 in
1780, and his rifle virtually died with him as an issue weapon of the
British Army. No doubt Christopher M. Spencer (see below) would
have 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, loaded
individually into the weapon, and some with pivoted chambers. The
difference lay in that the former weapons needed a supply of cham-
bers as well as cartridges to make them effective, whereas the latter
weapons just needed cartridges. This simpler and less logistically de-
pendent method was chosen by many armies,

mainly because of

BREECH-LOADING RIFLES

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

One of the earliest breech-loading service rifles to be issued was

the Hall breechloader. John H. Hall and William Thornton

took out

a joint patent in 1811 with a tip-up breech chamber. The difference
was that the Hall rifle had chamber and lock integrated in the
breech block.

Hall’s weapon did have its faults. Although the combined lock and

chamber made it more efficient than other weapons, there had been
no real effort to seal the junction between chamber and barrel, and
the weapon was disliked for the gas leakage. The Hall was adopted
in 1819 as the official U.S. Army rifle, and although the gas escape
persisted, the thing that really upset the soldiers was the hook catch
used to lock the chamber in position. This protruded below the
stock, dug into shoulders, and got caught in equipment.

The chamber of the Hall was made slightly larger in caliber than

the barrel, which meant complete sealing of ball within the rifling
on firing. Further, such a fit meant there was less cleaning involved,
as the ball swept the barrel of fouling quite effectively with every
shot. Another advantage was that the rifle could not be double
loaded, 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 military

was Hall’s proposal that parts should be interchangeable, making

RIFLES

Hall’s Breech Loader. The weapon is loaded via the front of the breech

block, 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; this
proposal of Hall’s meant less time to repair weapons—and therefore
less 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 the
tools needed to produce the interchangeable parts. Finally, in 1824
he finished the first 1,000 rifles, much later than expected.

In trials the new rifle did come up to expectations, and the Army

Board (a board set up by the British Army to evaluate entries in the
competition) reported that in tests carried out in 1818 and 1819
one of the Hall rifles was fired 7,186 times and a musket 7,061
times; the Hall proved superior in rate of fire and accuracy. One rea-
son for the improved accuracy was that the barrel caliber was .52
inch, 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 reamed
smooth 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 Colonel
Simeon North in Connecticut set up a factory that duplicated Hall’s
tooling. The rifles he made had parts interchangeable with the
H a r p e r ’s Ferry rifles. Nevertheless, despite this success and the
growing use of breech loaders in Europe, in the United States opin-
ion was turning against the Hall rifle, and Hall himself was in failing
health. By 1842 the Hall rifle was effectively withdrawn, to be re-
placed by a muzzle-loading rifle, the Model 1841. The decision was
due to prejudice against the somewhat ungainly appearance of the
weapon and the conservatism of senior officers and officials. The
fact still remains, however, that in the year that Prussia introduced
the 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 British
Army was no more than a conversion of the famous Enfield musket.
This was the Snider, a conversion system invented by Jacob Snider
of Baltimore, and was adopted officially in 1865 by the British. Pre-

BREECH-LOADING RIFLES

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

The Snider action was a simple side-hinged block, which could be

raised laterally to open the breech. A rearward pull on the block al-
lowed the empty case to be ejected. The use of metallic cartridges
was approved by this time in Britain, which the French had yet to
adopt (the Chassepôt rifle fired a paper cartridge). The metallic car-
tridge case solved a problem that had bedeviled the designers of
breech-loading weapons since the idea was first thought of, in that
all the gases were contained now by the base of the case, and a
blowback 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 to

the standard of the muzzle loader, the adoption of Colonel Boxer’s
cartridge in 1867 removed this problem. However, it was realized
from the outset that the Snider conversion was no more than an in-
terim solution, and a committee was formed by the War Office to
examine the breech-loading rifle. To ensure that all available gun-
makers were enthused to enter, prizes were offered to the winning
gun design and the best cartridge.

Earlier, in 1864, a subcommittee charged with looking at breech-

loading systems had tested Snider’s idea against eight other
weapons.

The report described Snider’s design:

The effective length of the barrel is reduced by about two inches, and
this 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, and
carrying its own detonating arrangement in the centre; the blow from
the hammer is communicated by means of a wire [sic] which passes
through the breech stopper. There is an arrangement for withdrawing
the old cartridge case.

Once the tests had reduced the original entries to the nine

weapons 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 one

test and lay third overall. But the appeal to the examiners was that
“this is a new system, and dispenses with the nipple and percussion

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 the
upper part of the Enfield barrel are cut away at the breech, and a
solid breech stopper working sideways on a hinge is placed in the
opening thus made. A piston [the ‘wire’ mentioned above] passes
through this stopper, and when the breech is closed one end of it re-
ceives a blow from the hammer and the other communicates it to
the 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 with
the fingers or by rotating the weapon.

When the final results were published, the Snider came in second

to a weapon prepared by William Green of London. Although the
Snider did not win the competition outright, it had one factor in its
favor that outweighed its defects: it fired a composite cartridge. The
committee commented:

The ultimate armament of the infantry with breech-loading weapons
is determined upon . . . [although] no converted arms can possess the
precision which will be easily attained in a new breech loader of
smaller gauge and quicker twist . . . [the Committee recommends]
that Mr. Snider be encouraged to pursue his experiments by the
promise 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.

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

The new committee eventually reported its finding only three

years later. On 22 October 1856 the War Office issued an invitation
to 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 . ”

There followed a list of basic service criteria, including a

weight and length limit

and a number of technical specifications

on recoil, accuracy, fouling, and penetration. However, caliber and
rifling 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.

BREECH-LOADING RIFLES

On 11 June 1867 the committee issued its first report.

1 4

No fewer

than 104 rifles had been submitted for their consideration, with
every inventor being invited to explain his design and then to fire the
weapon. The committee then divided the weapons into two classes,
classifying 37 as falling within the terms of the advertisement and
therefore eligible for the money prize, and a further 67 weapons that
failed to comply but that were still going to be looked at “on their
own 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 retained

for further testing, those submitted by Augusto Albini and Fr a n c i s
Augustus Braendlin, Major G. V. Fo s b e r y, Bethell Burton (two
weapons), 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 because

they 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 breech
block, which closes the breech, works on a hinge. . . . A piston, with

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 serves
to communicate to the cartridge the blow which it receives from a
bolt worked by the lock. This bolt, which thus fires the gun, at the
same time prevents the breech block from being blown open by an
accidentally unsound cartridge. The breech action is made on a shoe,
which afterwards receives the breech end of the rifle.

Braendlin

fired the rifle on two occasions and achieved a rate of

fire the second time of 12 rounds in one minute, one second.

The Burton Rifles

Rifle No. 1.—Has a cast steel barrel; it is adapted for the central-fire
Boxer cartridge. The breech block works on a hinge under the barrel
by 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 no
spring, but is withdrawn by the action of the breech.

The breech can be opened without raising the hammer, but the

hammer must be raised afterwards before it can be closed again.

BREECH-LOADING RIFLES

The Burton Rifle. Illustration enhanced from
W. 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. The
rifle 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 rounds
in about a minute.

Major Fosbery’s Rifle

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

There is a stud in the shoe that greatly facilitates the ejection of

the empty cartridge case. The lock is in the center of the stock, and is
of simple construction.

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

The Henry

Rifle

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

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

RIFLES

BREECH-LOADING 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 equally
well adapted for central-fire. The rifle is closed by a breech block
opening laterally on a hinge, which is hollowed out so as to fit over a
collar 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 by
the hammer of an ordinary side lock. The extractor is worked by a
screw thread on the hinge joint of the breech block.

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

The Martini Rifle

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

The rifle is closed by a breech block, which falls and rises on a

hinge, and is worked by a lever in the rear of the trigger guard. The
method of opening and closing the breech is similar to that of the
Peabody rifle (see below). The breech block contains a spiral spring
and piston for striking the cartridge. The action of opening the

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 the
cartridge, 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, it
was noted, “was not well acquainted with the manipulation of the
rifle.”

The Peabody Rifle

The rifle is adapted for a rim-fire metallic cartridge. An iron breech
frame closed at the sides unites the barrel with the stock. In this is
placed the breech block, working on a pivot fixed at the rear and
moved 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

BREECH-LOADING RIFLES

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 breech
is open. The extractor is in the form of a lever, which is moved by the
breech block, and throws the cartridge case clear of the rifle when
the breech is opened. The breech is secured by a lever affixed to the
lower side of the block, and worked with a spring which presses it
against a strong pin. The block carries a striker driven by the hammer
of a common side lock, which explodes the cartridge.

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

The Remington Rifle

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, designed
this 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 works
on a transverse pivot below the barrel, and is secured by the hammer
of a central lock, the hammer being also the tumbler of the lock.

Mr. Remington claims as advantages of this system, simplicity of

construction 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 in

40 seconds of .5-inch caliber cartridges.

THE TESTS

All these weapons were then subjected to a number of tests, perhaps
the most telling of which was the exposure test. For this, 100 rounds
were fired on four consecutive days, with the rifle being kept dirty
and 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 rifles
were as follows:

Albini and Braendlin: “The breech mechanism of this rifle worked
well throughout. On the last day much difficulty was found in placing
the cartridge in the chamber, owing to an accumulation of rust. The
interior of the lock and breech mechanism were in good working
order.”

Burton No. 1: “This rifle was in good working order. The interior

of 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 of
the spiral spring, or the wax which had accumulated at the end of the
piston. Either, or both, of which causes would lessen the striking
force. The breech mechanism was, otherwise, in good order; the spi-
ral spring had been completely protected from the weather, and the
sliding bolt worked perfectly well.”

Fosbery: “The breech mechanism worked well throughout, and

five shots were fired from the rifle after the fortnight’s exposure. On

BREECH-LOADING RIFLES

dismounting the lock it was found that the eye of the tumbler and the
swivel were broken. This breakage must have occurred when the last
shot 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 five
rounds. This jamming was apparently due to the cartridges bulging
after firing, consequent of their not fitting the chamber properly. The
rifle was not affected by the exposure. On taking it to pieces the wood
of the stock was found to be cracked near the breech tang.”

Martini: “The cartridges of this system repeatedly burst near the

rim, 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 the
breech mechanism could be taken to pieces it was found necessary to
soak the parts in oil.”

Peabody: “The cartridges of this system occasionally burst near the

rim, 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 extractor
being 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 to
escape at the breech. On dismounting the rifle a considerable
amount of rust was found below the hammer. In other respects the
breech mechanism was in good order.”

THE RESULT

The board were unanimous in declaring the Henry rifle to be the
best, although there were some accuracy problems (all the rifles
were lacking in the accuracy specified in the original invitation), but
the Henry rifle was only one of two that was capable of firing at
1,000 yards. So Alexander Henry received £600, but his rifle was
not adopted for issue. His action, however, was so striking that it

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 of

the 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 rifle
born. After troop trials and the issue of a bottle-necked cartridge,
the weapon was considered suitable for issue to troops in the spring
of 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 the
time 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 firmly
in European hands.

THE MARTINI-HENRY SERVICE RIFLE

The Martini-Henry rifle in .45-inch caliber (actually .443-inch) was
adopted for use by the British Army in 1871. At the same time an-
other weapon was available. The importance of this weapon was not
in its action but the fact that it “really would shoot straight.”

This

ability was a result of the work of William Ellis Metford, who was a
great barrel designer. He won the 1,000-yard Duke of Cambridge
shooting competition at Wimbledon with a rifle fitted with his own
barrel design. The rifling, the most important barrel factor, made
the prospect of delivering effective rifle fire at 1,000 yards a reality
rather than a dream. Despite this success, his own rifle was not
adopted in 1869 or 1871; the Martini-Henry was. Only later would
Metford 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 from
the breech face. At the same time an ejector forced the spent car-
tridge out of the breech, and the weapon was cocked. A new round
was then hand loaded into the breech, and lifting the trigger guard
closed the breech, when the weapon was ready to fire.

The original rifle was rifled according to Henry’s design, with

seven 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-

BREECH-LOADING RIFLES

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

The weapon, once adopted, was found to be singularly unsound

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

The Martini rifle was not really up to scratch according to

weapons experts at the time, and a report

said:

The breech-loading arrangements in this combination

were consid-

ered by practical men to be mechanically defective, although the bore
of the barrel, the turn of the rifling, and the weight of the bullet gave
the 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 to
be the best that had been suggested, and so far as the arm justifies
the decision of the committee. The faults said to exist in it were the
spiral striking spring,

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 not
be a mechanical credit to the country. Since the end of 1868 the
committee has been endeavouring to perfect the arm, and several
patterns 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 but

had not been adopted, was the subject of another analysis:

In the Westley Richards arrangement some valuable advantages are
gained. The lifting lever acting upon the free extremity of the breech
block is a better arrangement than lifting the block near its centre of
motion as in the Martini, since the wear will be less in consequence
of 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-

RIFLES

nient, and requires less change from the position of firing than is the
case with the Martini lock, where the lever is situate behind the trig-
ger guard. The position of this latter lever, too, is found to interfere
with 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 from
those regiments that were equipped with it. Two reports (12 July
1870 and 8 February 1871) were compiled of the responses, and the
comments included some criticisms of the wrapped cartridge, which
was prone to deformation. This problem was solved by issuing a full
metal cartridge. Extraction and ejection were sometimes a problem,
and one unit in Dublin wrote that “when the cartridges missed fire
the ramrod had to be used to get them out, the extractor not getting
sufficient bite of the case of the cartridge to move the weight of the
unfired 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 in
Portsmouth reported that

all the rifles had been dismounted by the armourer-serjeant to the
proper pull off. After remounting, rifle No. 5 went off twice without a
finger near the trigger or the firer ready to fire. In the second instance
when the breech was closed the lock was not at full cock, although in-
dicated by both indicator and trigger. After several attempts the lock
was 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 all

probability . . . they had not been remounted correctly.” The unwill-
ingness of officialdom to recognize that a weapon can have inherent
faults is not confined to small arms, but it is seen time and time
again with reference to weapons that individuals had to carry in bat-
tle, and upon the reliability of which a man’s life could depend. The
Martini-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 the
first 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.”

BREECH-LOADING RIFLES

2. Almost identical to an earlier design by Isaac de la Chaumette, a

French inventor. The La Chaumette had much success but was never is-
sued to troops (although some sources suggest it saw service with
Napoleon’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 his

specification. One of these may be the weapon now in the Small A r m s
School 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 operated

by loading with separate powder and ball.

7. Interestingly, Hallahan notes that Thornton was the Superintendent

of Patents. He forced Hall into sharing the patent by claiming to have al-
ready invented a similar mechanism. However, he may have improved upon
H a l l ’s original design; see Philip B. Sharpe, The Rifle in A m e r i c a . N e w
York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1947, p. 13.

8. Delays were caused by intransigence and the sheer inability of various

Americans to bury their differences for the common cause. This is a story
that is constantly repeated in ordnance circles, particularly with respect to
weapons 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, British

War 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 War
Office official publication.

15. Including “incomplete,” “a decided want of accuracy,” “the breech

block was blown violently open,” and “the breech could not be opened.”

16. Francis Augustus Braendlin, probably Belgian, patented this design

jointly 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 the

original 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

RIFLES

Comparative Merits of the Martini Rifle and the Westley Richards Rifle
and 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 Relative
Mechanical Advantages; Illustrated by Specimens of Breech-Loading Ri-
fles,” which appeared in Engineering on 5 May 1871.

BREECH-LOADING RIFLES

C H A P T E R 4

The Percussion System

The Re v e r e nd A le x and e r Jo hn Fo r s y t h ,

minister of Belhevie

in Aberdeenshire, Scotland, published a very important article in
July 1799 entitled “On certain useful properties of the Oxygenated
Muriatic Acid.”

Forsyth was typical of churchmen of the period, in

that his days were spent between caring for his parishioners and en-
joying himself. His particular sport was shooting; of an inquiring
mind, he had looked at the problems of the flintlock. He saw that
the flintlock depended upon the sometimes uncertain spark of flint
and steel, the effect of dampness on powder and priming and of
wind on priming, and the delay between pressing the trigger and the
discharge of the shot (from a sporting muzzle-loading gun). Added
to the delay was the jet of smoke and sometimes fire that emerged
from the barrel vent on firing, which could startle both firer and tar-
get equally.

These problems applied equally to troops in the field, and the

clouds of smoke that gathered around a firing line were notorious
for obscuring sight of the enemy on days when there was little or no
wind to disperse the smoke. Further, in the heat of battle it was only
too easy for a man to forget to prime his pan, or to have the priming
powder made inert by rain or even blown away from the pan as he
attempted to prime his weapon.

Forsyth was not the first to look at the properties of fulminate of

mercury, and an article in 1800

on the properties and preparation

of this important salt led the way to further examination of its use as
a propellant. The salt proved, however, too violent in its explosion
for the original purpose, and the idea was discarded. Forsyth, how-
ever, saw the possibility of using fulminate of mercury as an initiator

for the main propellant charge of gunpowder. He found that the
speed of combustion of the fulminate was such that the propellant
charge 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 fitted
a small revolving magazine containing the detonating powder to the
lockplate. To prime the Forsyth weapon the perfume bottle–shaped
magazine was rotated, by which means enough detonating powder
for one shot was placed in the path of the hammer when the maga-
zine was returned to its original position. The magazine held enough
fulminate of mercury for between twenty and thirty shots. Later ver-
sions of the lock had an automated system for priming the weapon.

The system was seen for what it was: a groundbreaking step in the

design of firearms, but the perfume-bottle concept was perhaps too

complicated for military use,
although many such fitted
weapons were sold to the
commercial market. What
was needed was a simple
method of preserving the
detonating powder in some
way that it could easily be
put between the hammer
and the vent in the breech,
so that the ignition process
could occur.

A number of inventors

came up with solutions, one
of whom was Johannes
Samuel Pauly (of Pa r i s ) ,

who made the detonator in
small balls with waterproof-
ing coatings. By 1812 he
was putting these small balls
into the rear end of car-
tridges to create the first
c e n t e r-fire cartridges. (Fo r
this development, and sub-

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 another
method was invented by English gunmaker Joseph Manton, who put
the 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 1814
and 1816, and a number of gunsmiths can be given a share in the
credit, for the simple reason that no one man can be definitely said
to have come up with the idea first. These were, in no order of
merit, Joseph Manton, Joseph Egg, and Captain Joshua Shaw.

Shaw certainly applied for a U.S. patent in 1814, but as he had

not been resident in the United States for the previous two years,
his application was refused. Originally made of iron and intended
for reloading (which was rapidly discarded as an idea), the caps were
made of pewter in 1815, and in 1816 the copper cap was developed.
This led the way for percussion weapons for military use, although
adoption 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

The Pauly Breech-Loading System.

Illustration enhanced from Military Smallarms, HMSO, London, 1929.

Stanislaus, Baron Heurteloup,

patented his muzzle-loading gun fit-

ted with a continuous tube of priming, cut by the hammer at the
moment 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 named
the Koptipteur. This, too, was fitted with tape priming, and it was
claimed there was enough in one strip of the tube to fire 70 rounds.
The British Army was interested but rejected the system after trials
in 1837 and again in 1842; some weapons were, however, pur-
chased by the French, Belgian, and Russian armies, but there is no
record 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 shot
had 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 the
system of priming was effective. The most effective of the systems
evolved at the time was the Maynard tape primer, invented by Ed-
ward P. Maynard, a dentist from Washington, D.C. He had begun
his career as a firearms designer with his mechanical primer feed fit-
ted to a Jenks breech-loading carbine in the 1840s. What he had
done was to enclose the priming compound in a continuous paper
strip, which was held in a small magazine actuated by the hammer.
As the hammer cocked, a fresh part of the primer strip was moved
into 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 Rifles

and Rifle Systems” section) “consisted of a roll of about 50 pellets
between layers of paper. These were very nicely made and while they
are very similar to the . . . rolled caps used in ‘cap pistols’ . . . the ma-
terial was constructed with a larger amount of priming materials
perfectly formed into little round ‘pills’ and sealed between two lay-
ers of varnished paper.”

A number of similar inventions appeared,

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

By 1845 the United States began to make its own caps rather

than obtain them from private manufacturers, and in the same year
Maynard sold the U.S. government the right to use his tape primer.
The first weapon so fitted was the Springfield Model 1842, which
was smoothbore, immediately followed by a rifled version, the
Model 1842 Percussion Rifle, made by rifling the barrel of earlier

RIFLES

smoothbore muskets. A large number of other weapons appeared in
1842, 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 .5
ounce, with a propellant weight of 4.9 grams of powder. The powder
and ball were issued as a unit, wrapped in paper, which merely had
to be torn by hand or, more often, by the teeth to release the powder
into the bore. The ball was then forced into the barrel and rammed
down to the powder. Within the paper packing intended to be dis-
carded, but often used as wadding, the bullet was wrapped in a
string-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 leading
to the issue of Minié-type bullets.

The percussion system bridged the gap between the flint/powder

system and the cartridge, and the percussion cap was the answer to
the problem of how to put powder, ball, and primer into one unit. So
the 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 experiments
in 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 percussion
cap 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 of
the flint lock, and the advantages were self-evident.

Then the safety of the caps for military purposes had next to be

considered. Upon this point Mr. Lovell, late of the Royal Arms Fac-
t o r y, Enfield, set about ascertaining what liberties could be taken
with them.

THE PERCUSSION SYSTEM

Here again some singular results were shown. Some of the compo-

sition for the caps was exploded in various ways, covered over with
and surrounded by gunpowder, without exploding the latter, although
blowing it away in all directions; had the explosion taken place
through the nipple into the breech of a gun, it would have been a very
different affair.

A tin box containing 500 caps had a hole made in the top, and one

of 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 was
repeatedly tried, but never more than three or four caps fired. A steel
hammer was next made red hot, and plunged into the box, right
among the caps, but it only flashed those where the iron actually
touched the fulminate composition. A few grains of gunpowder were
next introduced into the box and ignited, when the flame of the latter
blew off every cap instantly.

The same experiments have been gone through at Woolwich with

similar results, large quantities of caps—several thousands—have
been fired into with bullets from fire-arms, when it has been found
that only those actually hit by the shot have exploded. These experi-
ments were, therefore, considered conclusive with respect to the
portable safety of percussion caps.

The first government that adopted the percussion cap for the use

of the army was that of Austria. A man named Console, in the Arsenal
of Milan, discovered the mode of making and charging the caps in
one uniform style for soldier’s weapons. Experiment succeeded exper-
iment, and in 1840 the cap had entered the army. France followed in
1842, 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 use
of the soldier; an entire generation had passed away in that time.

The reason why I have taken so much time to explain these matters

is that I mean this little pamphlet to be something more than a mere
descriptive Trade Circular; to give points of information in connexion
with fire-arms that may be deemed useful and interesting at a distance.

After the explosive forces being ascertained, we are next directed

to their control and application to fire-arms, the resistance which the
projectile has to overcome in its flight, such resistance acting against
the propelling force. This naturally brings us to the laws of motion, a
course which the reader will see bears directly upon the nature of the
weapon to be used.

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 means
of hinged breech blocks or similar devices. However, in the United
States the lever-action repeating rifle was very popular among sport-
ing riflemen, and one particular lever action was adopted by the
U.S. Army. This was the Spencer rifle.

However, the history of the lever action is worthwhile telling, as is

the saga of the Spencer itself, which fell into the Springfield Armory
trap. Repeating lever-action weapons first appeared in the early
eighteenth century, and one version was the Lagatz weapon of circa
1700. This was in turn preceded by the Lorenzoni and Berselli sys-
tems of Italy.

Michael Lorenzoni of Florence and Domenico Berselli of

Bologna are both credited with the invention of a system

that had

two magazines, one for shot, the other for powder, each accessed in
turn by means of a rotary breech operated by an external lever (see
photo in “Significant Rifles and Rifles Systems” section). The ball
was picked up by the ball chamber and transferred to the breech by
gravity. Further rotation of the lever allowed powder into the powder
chamber that was once more brought to the breech by gravity. The
lever was then returned to the forward position, the pan primed, and
the weapon was ready to fire.

Other manufacturers and gunmakers followed this principle, but

the military was not interested because of the possible safety issue
caused by the chance of double-loading powder, which could cause
an explosion and injury to the user. The Lagatz weapon was more
complex than the Lorenzoni-Berselli, and for this reason alone it
was not considered by the armed forces to whom it was presented.

The real problem facing gunmakers was that separate actions

needed exact completion before the weapon was ready to fire. What
was needed was the composite cartridge, in which ball and powder
were 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 to

design systems that could contain magazines in which a number of
cartridges could be loaded; it also allowed them to create reloading
systems based on a mechanical rather than a physical method. This
led to Christopher M. Spencer designing the Spencer repeating rifle
(and carbine), and Tyler Henry, who had been involved in the design

THE PERCUSSION SYSTEM

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 was
issued in 1860,

and he described his design in the patent papers as

follows:

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

The Spencer had a tubular magazine in the butt, which was easily

removed for reloading. The trigger guard, as with the later famous
Winchester rifles, was the actuating lever. A semicircular breech
block was used. Once the cartridge in the chamber had been fired,
the trigger guard was pushed straight down, rotating the breech
block, at the same time extracting the spent cartridge case, which
was ejected as the trigger guard reached the end of its travel. This
action also cocked the rifle ready for reloading.

When the trigger guard was at its lowest position, the breech

block engaged with the rear of a cartridge from the magazine, and as
the trigger guard was pulled up to its original position, the cartridge
was forced into the breech of the weapon. With the rifle already
cocked, all the user had to do was aim and fire, then repeat the ac-
tion until the magazine was empty.

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 spectacularly

successful. At Hoover’s Gap on 24 June 1863 during the U.S. Civil
Wa r, a mounted brigade of Union infantry was moving toward the
gap to clear the area of advanced Confederate pickets. That these in-
fantry were mounted was one fundamental change in tactics; that
they 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 the
breech-loading rifle; see above) refused to supply Spencer rifles. The
troops had each spent $35 on their own rifles,

1 2

and the effect of

this 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 Spencer
lived up to its promise. In fact, although Wilder’s men were attacked
by Confederate rifled cannon, causing in all the loss of 51 killed and
wounded in the action, the Union troops caused the Confederates
to lose 156 men. Later, on 1 July 1863, a cavalry unit of 2,500 men
armed with Spencer carbines held up a Confederate force of 7,500
men for over an hour. The following day General George Custer and
his Fifth Michigan Cavalry halted General Jeb Stuart’s advance at
the Battle of Gettysburg with the fire of just 479 Spencer rifles.

Eventually the government bought 12,471 Spencer rifles, at an

average cost of $37.50. Tests showed that the rifle could fire 99 car-
tridges in 8 minutes, 20 seconds, with the magazine being reloaded
manually 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 seven
hits on target.

The Spencer carbine was a similar weapon, and the government

bought 94,196 of them, at an average cost of $25.50. The carbine
fired a special .56/56 cartridge. In all, during the Civil War the U.S.
government bought 58,238,924 Spencer cartridges, at an average
cost of 2.5 cents each. Despite the reputation they gained, the
Spencer rifles and carbines were never issued in large numbers to
Union troops.

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 units
could put down on the battlefield was out of all proportion to their
complement. Interestingly, in June 1868 records show that 4,875
Spencer rifles and carbines were on issue to troops, while no fewer
than 35,176 were in racks in the various arsenals. The rifle was then
replaced, amazingly, by the single-shot .50/70 Sharps carbine.

THE PERCUSSION SYSTEM

The best known of the lever-action rifles has to be the Winches-

ter, immortalized in film

and known to every schoolboy as well as

the Colt revolver. However, the action was designed by B. Ty l e r
Henry, who appeared at about the time the Volcanic Arms Company
ceased to exist. The Henry rifle is best described in a report by the
commanding officer of Washington Navy Yard to the chief of ord-
nance. He wrote:

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

The principal novelty in this gun is the magazine, and the manner

of loading from it. It consists of a tube, under the barrel, extending its
entire length, of sufficient diameter to admit the cartridges freely. A
section of this tube, near the muzzle, contains a spiral spring, to
throw the cartridges upon a carrier block in the rear. When the spring
is pressed into this section, it turns upon the axis of the bore, leaving
the magazine open for the introduction of cartridges, of which it
holds fifteen. Upon closing it, after filling, the spring throws a car-
tridge upon the carrier block, which, by a movement of the trigger
guard, is raised to a level with the chamber, the hammer by the same
movement being carried to a full cock. A reverse movement of the
guard, 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 the

rear. The hammer, upon falling, strikes a rod, or breech pin, upon the
front of which are two sharp points, which are driven into the rear of
the cartridge, thus exploding it . . . 187 shots were fired in 3 minutes,
36 seconds . . . 120 shots were fired at 328 feet; 270 shots were fired
at . . . 728 feet. It is fair to say to the inventor that these shots are not
a fair test of accuracy. . . . Fifteen shots were fired for accuracy at a
target 18 inches square, at 348 feet distance. Fourteen hit direct. . . .
The firing was then continued to test endurance, and so forth, up to
1040 shots, the gun not having been cleaned or repaired from the
first 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 fired

with great rapidity, and is not liable to get out of order.

The reply to this encomium was summarized by Brigadier Gen-

eral James Ripley, who wrote that the Henry rifle was “defective in
p r i n c i p l e ”

1 6

and added some personal objections to the weapon,

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 ordinary
cartridge or with powder and ball.”

The famous Winchester action is shown below:

The need for “special ammunition” was where the problem lay in

developing breech-loading rifles. Only fifty years before, powder and
ball were still being loaded separately; less than ten years later the
composite 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 originally
merely combined powder and ball to make reloading simpler; the ar-
rival of the fully composite metallic cartridge would lead the way to
mechanical operation of rifles—something impossible with paper or
cardboard cartridges.

THE PERCUSSION SYSTEM

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 the

primer was prone to falling off the cartridge, and the paper cartridge was
very liable to suffer from moisture and heat.

5. The first two were British gunmakers, the third an American from

Philadelphia. Shaw was certainly the originator of the percussion cap in
the United States, and he received written acknowledgement in the letter
from 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 had

the habit of “borrowing” ideas from others, particularly those of Leboeuf de
Valdehon, 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 to
Maynard 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 weapons
to the men. Ibid., p. 176.

13. Both sides in the U.S. Civil War were armed overwhelmingly with

breech-loading single-shot muskets or rifles. The refusal by General Ripley
to consider Spencer and other similar-action rifles was utterly negligent,
causing the deaths of thousands of men whose lives would have been
spared by the issue of the decisive repeating rifles. There can be little
doubt that if the North had had Spencer rifles and carbines, the South
would have surrendered far earlier than it did.

14. The film Winchester ’73, directed by Anthony Mann and starring

James Stewart, Shelley Winters, Dan Duryea, Tony Curtis, and Rock Hud-
son, appeared in 1970 and told the story of a Winchester Model 1873 that
passed 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

RIFLES

conservatism and reactionary nature resulted in the U.S. Army being de-
nied repeating rifles on the grounds that they consumed needless amounts
of 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 of
heavy rifle fire on the enemy.

16. Letter from Ripley to Secretary of Wa r, Simon Cameron, dated 9

December 1861, and quoted in Philip B. Sharpe, The Rifle in America, 2nd
ed. 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.

THE PERCUSSION SYSTEM

C H A P T E R 5

Rifles and Ammunition

in 1855

O n 30 Ma rc h 1 85 8,

Major Alfred Mordecai

of the U.S. Army Ord-

nance Department wrote to John B. Floyd, the secretary of war of
the United States. He had been charged by Floyd’s predecessor, Jef-
ferson Davis, with traveling to the Crimea and observing operations
there in the course of the Crimean War between Great Britain and
Russia. He noted that he had been unable to reach Sebastopol until
after the Russians had abandoned the city, but he submitted his re-
port

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, at
the time of the Crimean War. His report is important because of its
impartiality and the desire to present all known or available facts
about 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 shows
that even then the Swiss were preoccupied with secrecy.

The Russians, reported Mordecai,

seemed to have been copying

weapons made in other countries, and “The great body of infantry is
armed with the smooth-bore musket, being either a new percussion
musket or a flint-lock altered to percussion, according to the
method used in France and Belgium. . . . The usual ammunition for
the smooth-bore musket is the round ball; but of late much use has
been made of the Belgian projectile known as the ‘Nessler’ b a l l . ”

The Nessler ball was a short cylindro-conoidal ball, hollow at the
base as was the Minié pattern ball. The ball was said to be accurate
at 300 or even 400 yards and “is made in the usual way as for round
balls, 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. The
powder charge was loaded first, then ball and paper were loaded, the
paper being used as wadding to cut windage.

RIFLES

Part of Plate 21 included in the

Mordecai Report. From Alfred
Mordecai, Report of the Military
Commission to Europe, US House
of Representatives, 1856, Plate
21.

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. . . . The
ball used for these altered arms is of cylindro-conoidal form; also on
the Belgian system, with a projecting point in the cavity at the
b a s e . ”

H o w e v e r, some units were armed with French carbines à

tige, 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 the

types mentioned. As far as range was concerned, “We heard, in the
English camp, of a man having been killed (an accidental shot, no
doubt) by a rifle ball at 1,500 yards.” The effectiveness of the Minié-
type projectile was in no doubt, and this fatality shows how effective
the bullet was when compared with the minimal range of a rounded
ball of the same caliber.

Prussian line infantry (two battalions in each regiment) and the

Landwehr (Prussian border guards) were armed with smoothbore
muskets, altered to percussion firing. However, the “new percussion
musket” was a redesigned weapon, in which there was a conical
chambered breech and the firing nipple was displaced to the right so
that 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, despite

the efforts of the Prussians to keep the new technology secret. In
fact, said Mordecai, “it is described in several published books, and
specimens are to be had in Liège [sic], New York, and in many other
places.” 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 that
the 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 in
the Schleswig-Holstein War.”

However, “Its complicated structure

. . . seems to have prevented it from finding favour in any other
country.”

Thouvenin tige rifles were issued to Jäger regiments, equivalent to

the British rifle brigade, in that their duties including scouting in
front of the main body of troops and skirmishing, when their skills
as marksmen were founded upon accurate rifles. The weapons were
sighted to 600 yards, had a hair trigger, and the barrel had eight
grooves 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

percussion powder placed in a copper tube of such size that it can be
introduced into the vent of the flint musket.

Thus inserted, the

primer lies in the groove of an iron seat which is substituted for the
pan 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 the
battery spring; the percussion hammer, substituted for the flint cock,
strikes on the top of this cover, and causes a point that projects from
the cover of the pan to strike the tube of the percussion powder, and
thus fires the charge.

Some men, however,

were armed with rifles of the same caliber

as the musket but built on the Delvigne principle, having a chamber
of less diameter than the bore, upon the rim of which the ball
rested, to be expanded by a blow from a “heavy hammer.”

The Aus-

trians were rearming at this time, however, and the report notes that
rammers were concave at the head to fit the form of the ball, which
was obviously to try to avoid the deformation theretofore. Interest-
ingly, only noncommissioned officers and rear-rank men were to be
equipped with t i g e weapons, the other two ranks being equipped
with a standard weapon. The weapons were essentially percussion
muzzle-loading rifles, however, which many armies were attempting
to replace in the near future (see “Breech-Loading Rifles”).

There was little difference in French weapons; “the great body of

the infantry of the line are still armed with the simple percussion
musket, (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 tige
system.

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 . . . for
substituting some other method of expanding the ball. . . . For this
purpose 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 ball
to be used . . . without the “tige.”

The U.S. team had visited Vincennes and was shown three types

of balls (see illustration of Plate 21, figures 2, 7, and 8), one the
Minié ball proper, one an Imperial Guard ball, and the last by

RIFLES

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

Interestingly, the Emperor’s Palace Guard

was equipped with a

breech-loading rifle-carbine, with the seemingly small caliber of .36
inch. 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 small
to be effective, but the French had plans to adopt this caliber,
which, because of the greater length of the bullet, had very effective
ballistics. The French claimed an effective range for the weapon,
with a 180-grain bullet in an elongated form, of 600 yards, and a
maximum 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-grooved
gun, known as the “Brunswick rifle,” from which a round, belted ball
was fired. In 1851 a rifled musket was adopted and a considerable
number (28,000) of the arms were ordered for issue to the troops.
This musket was of the old caliber .702 inch; the barrel was rifled
with four grooves, having half a turn in the barrel. The ball adopted
was the Minié system, (Plate 21, Fig. 9,) having an iron cup in the
cavity of the base, but without the exterior grooves—weight 680
grains—charge of powder sixty-eight grains.

He went on to remark that

on account of the great weight of this arm and ammunition, and the
consequent difficulty of the soldiers carrying the requisite number of
sixty rounds, further experiments were made, with a view to adopting
a lighter caliber. For this purpose a commission of officers met at the
government 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 grooves
set 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),

RIFLES AND AMMUNITION IN 1855

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

A considerable number of the arms and cartridges were . . . issued to
the troops just before the assault on Sebastopol. . . . Partly, perhaps,
for want of proper instruction of the men in their use; partly, also, for
want 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 few
rounds, great difficulty occurred in loading.

As a result of this a new ball was issued, which was a Minié-type

ball but had a wooden plug in the base of the bullet instead of the
cup of sheet iron (see illustration of Plate 21, figure 11). Trials at
the British School of Infantry Practice at Hythe were said to be
“highly satisfactory,” but the troops in the field had not yet received
any of the new ammunition.

Mordecai also comments briefly on the Lancaster system, which

was 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 m
Lancaster of London,

1 1

and the barrel contained two grooves that

were smoothed out so that there were no edges between groove and
land. 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 had

occurred in Germany: Dreyse rifles had been issued to the Prussian
i n f a n t r y, and these rifles fired a form of composite cartridge and
were closed at the breech by means of a bolt action. The subsequent
invention 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 a
projectile in flight to improve accuracy was learned from the archers,
whose arrows were fletched in such a way as to impart spin to the
clothyard arrow. This was done by setting the flights at an angle so
that when the arrow flew, air pressure forced the shaft to rotate.

There is some doubt about exactly when rifling first appeared

1 2

RIFLES

and whether it was straight

or spiral rifling. However 1520 is one

date upon which some authorities are agreed. This was the year in
which Augustus Kotter of Nuremberg first produced a spiral-rifled
barrel. 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 rather

than English. The earliest reference in an English text is dated to
1594

in which there is the following passage relating to rifling:

How to make a pistol whose barrel is two feet in length to deliver a
bullet 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, hauing

eight gutters (grooves) somewhat deepe in the inside of the barrell,
and the bullet a thought bigger than the bore, and is rammed in at
the first three or four inches at the least, and after driuen downe with
the skowring stick, will deliver his bullet at such a distance.

The only question of the text is whether the rifling was spiral or

straight, but the striking results obtained would suggest spiral ri-
fling. The problem that went with rifling is also hinted at: getting
the bullet seated firmly at the breech of the weapon, which had to
be 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 with
grooves which generally make in the length of the barrel half a turn,
or one turn, or a turn and a half.”

This now raises another matter for the gunsmith, whose craft was

becoming more and more scientifically based, which was the rate of
turn of rifling and whether or not it related to the bullet or the bar-
rel. The solution was only arrived at considerably later. De Espinar
comments on the problem that the grooves can be shallow or deep,
and numerous or not, as follows: “These last [deep grooves with
wide bands, or lands, separating the grooves] are best; and to have a
greater or less number is a matter of taste . . . and similarly the
question of the gun containing a large or a small ball. . . . In using a
large bullet one can put more grooves for it, for in this there is no
fixed rule.” He goes on to note that loading a rifled weapon was
more exact than with a smoothbore because of the barrel resistance
in the former weapon. The ball was to be rammed down as hard as
possible onto the charge, the result of which was more barrel pres-

RIFLES AND AMMUNITION IN 1855

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

He also wrote in some detail of the type of wadding or patching

required, saying that a good wad or patch improved the ease of load-
ing, because the wads were waxed. De Espinar also mentions the
problem of fouling and comments that with a rifle one may get only
two shots before having to wash the barrel. This passage actually
mentions many of the problems to be overcome in shooting a rifled
weapon, 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 described
was to calculate the number of calibers of the weapon in which a
full single turn of the bullet would occur, and many early rifles have
a slow twist, some fifty to ninety calibers. Later rifles exhibit even
more gradual turns, and ones from the seventeenth century go up to
200 calibers. The form of rifling varied as well; depending on the
hardness and accuracy of the tools used, it could vary from a shal-
low hemispherical groove to rectangular deep grooves, and all was at
the time “according to taste.”

The rifle was slow to be adopted in England, particularly by the

armed forces, which is not surprising in view of the traditional con-
servatism of the establishment with reference to new equipment for
infantry. It was known by 1740 but rarely used even in civilian sport-
ing weapons.

However, Ezekiel Baker in 1800 talked knowledge-

ably about rifled weapons, arguing that the one-turn-in-four- f e e t
principle, adopted by English rifle makers, was not correct. He also
noted 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, rifled
with one quarter of a turn along its length.

Soon after Baker’s book appeared, a Colonel Beaufoy

argued for

more rapid turns, saying that a three-quarter turn in the barrel was
far better, and that accuracy at longer ranges was better with this in-
creased twist. He gave as his evidence the fact that “guns have
been . . . constructed on this plan, they were first of all (we believe)
adopted in the Duke of Cumberland’s Sharpshooters where they
were found to answer so well that all their crack shots, and such as
were fond of the sport, abandoned their old barrels, and procured
others on the new plan, which was that of three-fourths.”

This system was soon improved on, and one full turn showed

even better results, but, as can be seen, it was still very much a mat-

RIFLES

ter of guesswork, for there had been no serious scientific treatment
of the problem. Further development was carried out in the United
States, and one rifle made there had a 39-inch barrel with one full
turn of rifling, which was very successful.

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 turn
in 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 rifling
and high velocity result in stripping.

The answer lay in the form of

the 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 in
the 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 longer
bullet. He further discovered that if the caliber was reduced, the rate
of twist could be considerably increased, even to as much as one turn
in one inch. To allow him to fire such bullets, however, he had to fire
them 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 calibers
toward the muzzle, the loss in muzzle velocity would be negligible.
The principle he was working on was that the bullet should have its
rotation increased in proportion to the increase in velocity as it trav-
eled up the barrel. As the gases behind the bullet expanded so the
bullet accelerated. By plotting the acceleration in relation to time,
distinct time segments denoted where the bullet rotation could be
increased. However, manufacturing processes make this more a
dream than reality, and it can only apply to soft bullets, not long,
jacketed projectiles.

THE RIFLE AS A MILITARY WEAPON

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

RIFLES AND AMMUNITION IN 1855

of riflemen in 1631, and ten years later Maximilian of Bavaria had
several troops armed with rifled arquebuses. Louis XIII armed his
bodyguard with rifles, and later ordered that two men from every
light cavalry regiment should be so armed. These men were later
formed into a regiment of carbineers, but the first issue carbine did
not appear until 1793. The English learned the value of the rifle
when 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 armed
infantry of the line.

There are other examples of small rifle armed units in the eigh-

teenth century, such as the Austrian chasseurs, sharpshooters, and
s k i r m i s h e r s

2 3

who were issued with a rifle in 1759. Austrian border

guard sharpshooters were issued with special over-and-under rifles
in 1768, with a smoothbore lower barrel and a rifled upper barrel
for firing patched ball. The rifle was fired resting on the hook of a
long pike, which served as a protection if the riflemen were at-
tacked. The Russians issued a similar weapon between 1776 and
1 7 9 6 .

As far as the British Army was concerned, it received its first

firearms in 1471, when the hand cannon was introduced. This was
followed by the matchlock, which remained in use (only a few
wheel locks were ever issued on the grounds of cost and complica-
tion) until the reign of James I (1603–1626), when some flintlocks
were issued to the leading regiments. Muskets came into general
use in the reign of William III; from these muskets developed the
“Brown Bess” weapon, which served the British Army for over 100
y e a r s .

Brown Bess fired a ball two sizes smaller than its caliber,

to al-

low for easy loading, but range and accuracy were laughable.
Greener commented that “the immense escape of explosive matter
past the ball prevented the possibility of any velocity worthy of the
name being given to the ball, and the range is the most contemptible
of any gun I know: 120 yards is the average distance at which the
balls strike the ground when fired horizontally at five feet above the
level.”

Rifles were issued to the British Army as early as 1800, but in

such small numbers as to be ineffective. The 95th Foot, the Rifle
Brigade, was the first regiment to have this new weapon, which it
used, it seems, without being officially noticed by the British Wa r
Office, until the Brunswick rifle was introduced in 1835.

RIFLES

ENDNOTES

1. See Appendix A for a more detailed description of the contents of

Schön’s report, which was appended to Mordecai (see note 2 below) and
which is fundamental to an understanding of the more mechanical aspects
of rifles at this time.

2. Military Commission to Europe in 1855 and 1856, Report of Major

Alfred 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 put
weapons 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 this

loading 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 factus
a lumaga, and also says that one Hungarian rifled barrel from 1848 was
then (1901) in the Museum at Woolwich. Hon T F Fremantle, The Book of
the Rifle. London and New York: Longmans Green, 1901.

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

not 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 and
1.5 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.

RIFLES AND AMMUNITION IN 1855

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.

RIFLES

The Bolt-Action Rifle

The f ir s t b o lt- ac ti on we ap ons

were invented in the nineteenth

century and were initially an alternate method of closing the breech
and firing a breech-loaded, rifled, single-shot weapon. The first suc-
cessful weapon of this type was the Dreyse needle rifle, invented by
Johann Nikolaus Dreyse near Erfurt, Germany. His work started in
1827 and concentrated on standard smoothbore muzzle loaders, but
he 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. The
Dreyse cartridge had a paper case with the bullet at one end, oppo-
site the charge. In the middle of the cartridge was the primer. The
needle rifle used a long firing pin to penetrate the rear of the car-
tridge and pass through the powder charge, firing the cartridge
when 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 its
trigger mechanism. The weapon in this drawing is not loaded. The
breech was designed in the following way: The breech, comprising
the bolt and its operation knob, slides into the receiver, which is
cylindrically machined to fit it. The bolt head has a plate into which
the 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 end
of which is the two-arm lever. The bolt contains a lock including a
bush, the needle guide, and a spring with a leather inlay. A brass rod

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

As the cartridge was charged with black powder, the face of the

bolt had an air chamber machined into it to accept powder residue.
This needed careful attention and cleaning on a regular basis. The
needle and its mounting rod could be field stripped, as could the
complete bolt.

To load the weapon the soldier needed to perform the following

actions:

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 then

pull 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 forward
and 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 main
spring, to move forward. The needle went through the rear of the
paper cartridge and through the powder charge to the primer. On

RIFLES

The Dreyse Needle Rifle.

Enhanced illustration from The Engineer, various dates.

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

The success of this rifle was marked by rapid acceptance into the

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

The cartridge of the Dreyse was quickly superseded by a better

design, in which the primer was at the base of the cartridge and
therefore of the charge as well. One of the problems with the needle
rifle was the corrosion caused to the needle by being in the heart of
the chamber on firing. The heat and the gases produced by the
black powder soon caused damage to the needles, which limited the
working life of these weapons.

The French Chassepôt rifle was very similar to the Dreyse except

that the cartridge was base primed, eliminating the need for the ex-

THE BOLT-ACTION RIFLE

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-loading
weapons 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 be
said to be identical for practical purposes. This meant that every ri-
fle could fire a standard cartridge, and although interchangeability
of weapon parts was never intended, weapons and mass-produced
cartridges 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 ease
the situation, but what was needed was a means of holding a num-
ber of cartridges within the weapon itself. Earlier repeating weapons
had held ammunition in tubes below the barrel, or within the butt of
the weapon, but the breakthrough came with the invention of the
vertical magazine. This held five or 10 cartridges (on average) below
the bolt so that, on operating the bolt, the spent case was extracted
and ejected, and, on pushing the bolt forward again, a new cartridge
was taken from the magazine and pushed into the breech. At the
same time, the bolt was recocked so that all the firer had to do after
that was squeeze the trigger.

The first successful magazine design was that of Walker, Money,

and Little, which was patented in 1867.

This was a vertical box

magazine beneath the bolt that held six cartridges that were fed into
the path of the bolt on reloading by a “false bottom pressed upward
by a spiral spring.”

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-action
repeating rifle with the magazine under the bolt. The magazine held
five 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 improved
version was patented on 3 March 1882, and the U.S. Ordnance
Commission tested the weapon, pronouncing it serviceable.

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 the
firearms field in Europe led to the establishment of the British
Small Arms Committee under General Philip Smith in 1863. Its
task was to examine the new bolt-action and other rifles with a view
to 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 military
use, or both.”

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, an
improved Lee with a Bethel Burton magazine, and the Owen Jones
magazine rifle. The Bethel Burton magazine varied from the maga-
zine system of the other two by being mounted high on the upper
right side of the receiver.

All rifles were in caliber .45 in the 1855 trials, and the Owen Jones

fell at this hurdle. By the time the 1887 trials took place the Lee ri-
fles were both recalibered to .402 inch, in barrels designed by
William 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 BOLT-ACTION RIFLE

The Lee Bolt-Action Magazine Rifle of 1879. This is the first example

of 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 British
had no smokeless powder available for the new caliber. Metford
came to the rescue and drew up a specification for the rifling and
the chamber of the new weapon.

This rifle was to be known as the Lee Metford, and 350 examples

were 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 this
rifle. (His designs were also marketed commercially as Lee-Speed ri-
fles, made by the Birmingham Small Arms Company.) The trial
weapons 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 rifle

was sighted to 2,000 yards, but with the cartridge powder initially
used the accuracy of the weapon was unsatisfactory. Despite this
problem the rifle underwent various modifications and after 1891
had a 10-round magazine (approved by the new Small Arms Commit-
tee in December 1891); other, less significant changes were made
until, in 1899, the Lee-Enfield Mark I appeared. There was little of
significant change except for the removal of the cleaning rod, which
had 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 Nobel
firm all and separately arrived at the solution, which was cordite (a
compound of 58 percent nitroglycerine, 37 percent guncotton, and
5 percent mineral jelly). The resulting compound was smokeless and
left 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 produce
better results than in the black-powder days. Further, increased
ranges could be covered, and the concept of rifle fire used against
groups of men, horses, and, later, vehicles, was born.

One more improvement was made to produce what was now

called the Cartridge SA Ball Magazine Rifle Mark I. In the black-
powder era, lead was quite sufficient for ball ammunition, as it was
not subjected to stresses that it was incapable of handling. Lead
when fired with cordite propellant, however, was subject to pres-
sures in the rifling that it was incapable of withstanding, and rounds
were either “stripping” (going through the barrel without being
gripped by the rifling) or deforming when gripped by the rifling.

RIFLES

In 1875 Major Bode of the Swiss Army had invented a design for

a jacketed bullet that could cope with the higher pressures, and this
was supplemented by another Swiss, Major Eduard Rubin, who de-
signed a copper-jacketed bullet that could not only cope with the
pressures in the new rifles but also could withstand the effect of the
torque 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 this
caliber reduction, to ensure that the round had military efficiency
(that is, it would be capable of wounding or killing the target), the

THE BOLT-ACTION RIFLE

Lee’s Rifle Designs.

Enhanced illustration from The Engineer, various dates.

bullet had to take on a long profile, with the jacket surrounding a
core of lead or other similar heavy filling. Further, bullets had to
have ballistic weight, otherwise the long-range performance would
be adversely affected by the fact that the velocity of a light bullet
falls 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

RIFLES

This drawing shows the British bolt that was fitted to all service rifles

from 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 to
war in 1914, when, during the retreat to the Marne, German troops
assumed 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 late

1950s, when the self-loading rifle (SLR) was issued. British bolt ac-
tions were extremely smooth to operate and, despite the fact that
they 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 superseded
until 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 minor
modifications, the same throughout.

THE MAUSER RIFLE

AND OTHER GERMAN MAKES

Peter Paul Mauser must stand by the side of Mikhail Timofeyevich
Kalashnikov in the annals of rifle designers. Just as Kalashnikov and
his famous rifle are known to everyone today, so, too, was Mauser in
the period 1900–1945. He was born in Oberndorf, Germany, in
1838, the son of a gunsmith who worked in the Wurtemberg State
Arsenal.

The younger Mauser served his apprenticeship in the same fac-

t o r y, and by 1866 he had produced an experimental self-cocking
Dreyse 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 the
Dreyse design and to the Beck modified versions of the needle rifle.
(Johannes Beck redesigned the bolt head to improve the original
needle 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 Prussian
Army on 22 March 1872. This rifle underwent modification, and
the 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,

THE BOLT-ACTION RIFLE

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 cope
with cordite) and by incorporating a five-round box magazine,
Mauser brought his rifle up to world standards, and via various
modifications he finally brought out the Gewehr 98, a rifle that ri-
vals the Lee-Enfield in the affections of gun collectors and crack
shots all over the world. The rifle also confronted the Lee-Enfield in
the serious business of war on two major occasions, with Britain and
German fielding their own versions of the rifles against one another
from 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 many
minds he succeeded. The design itself concentrated on safety and
ease of use in the field. The weapon was strong and had more than
adequate safety features to ensure that the user was not injured by
the firing pin penetrating through the primer into the cartridge
body; the receiver was strengthened as well, against the event of an
overloaded 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, 1
inch long and weighed 9 pounds, 4 ounces. The magazine held five
c h a r g e r-loaded cartridges.

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 9.39
inches.

The weapon was chambered for the 7.92mm Mauser cartridge.

This cartridge originally held 40.75 grains of nitrocellulose powder
behind a 227-grain cupro-nickel–coated, steel-jacketed bullet. Muz-
zle velocity was a remarkable 2,093 fps. Acceptance of the rifle by
the German Army was instantaneous.

I n t e r e s t i n g l y, after Wo r l d

War I, Mauser sued the U.S. government successfully for infringe-
ment of his patents, because the U.S. Army adopted the Springfield
M1903 rifle, a Mauser in all but name (see below, “America and the
Bolt-Action Rifle”).

Another German designer who made a significant mark on rifle

design, even though his weapons were never adopted in Germany,
was Ferdinand von Mannlicher. He was born in 1848 in Bohemia
and was educated in Vienna at the technical college. In 1876 he
went 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 Hotchkiss
weapons exhibits.

Mannlicher went into rifle design from that moment and received

honors 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 in
1895, improved by 1900, which was operated by gas tapped from

THE BOLT-ACTION RIFLE

101

The Mannlicher Rotary Magazine System. Mannlicher’s rotating magazine system
was 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 his
weapons still survive is that of stalking, for Mannlicher sporting ri-
fles made around 1900 can still be seen doing excellent work in the
Scottish Highlands.

THE FRENCH LEBEL

France has a history of producing weapons that are slightly out of
synchronicity with the rest of European design, and the Lebel of the
nineteenth century and the later FAMAS are examples of this trend.
The Lebel rifle was fed by a tube magazine fitted below the barrel in
the 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 issued
only two bolt-action rifles to U.S. troops, the Krag-Jorgenson 8mm
and the Springfield Model 1903 caliber .30. The first was an abject
failure, the second being a copy of another famous weapon—the
German Mauser Gew 98. It is also interesting to note that whereas
in Europe the bolt action appeared in the 1840s, the United States
persisted 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 have
been almost traitorous as far as the well-being of U.S. infantry was
concerned. One can only wonder what would have been the effect
had Custer’s troops been armed with the Spencer at the Battle of
the Little Bighorn.

The decision was made, albeit delayed, to examine the European

fascination 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 Stephen
V. Benét (his predecessor) to be even more conservative, Flagler was
looking to the future and to the replacement of the old trapdoor
black-powder single-shot rifle then on issue to the U.S. Army. In his
first annual report he wrote unequivocally that the United States
was years behind the rest of the developed world in that it had not
adopted 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 consider

rearming the infantry, even though the Hotchkiss, Lee, and Mauser
designs were all superior to the trapdoor Springfield in every re-
spect. General Flagler was determined to change this, but he had
two problems. One was a Springfield Armory staff totally unwilling
to consider new ideas; the other was that he had none of the new
smokeless powder, which was only available outside the U.S., to

THE BOLT-ACTION RIFLE

103

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

The designers at Frankford Arsenal were now equipped to design

the new caliber .30 cartridge as soon as the rifle and its magazine
were decided upon. General Flagler now reassembled the Rifle
Board, under Captain Stanhope E. Blunt, to examine all submitted
weapons. Fifty-three weapons were submitted, including some of
the 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 new
powder.

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 one
could manufacture nonstandard barrels or ammunition for the tests.
Having said that the general was a man who looked to the future, it
is 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 for
a rifle that had a reserve of ammunition in the magazine, but this
was not to be used while there was time to load each cartridge
singly, just as the old Springfield had been operated. The magazine
contents were to be used only in the last stages of an operation,
when loading single rounds would be too slow. The old principle of
accurate 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 single
cartridges. The German Army wanted rapid-fire weapons, so the
weapon was loaded with five rounds in a clip, and German soldiers
were issued all their ammunition prepacked in clips. At the time
much opinion was against the magazine rifle in principle, and the
New York Times reported that an unidentified source claimed that
he 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 in
labour one obtains with a magazine gun over a single-loader is the
handling of cartridges and the time gained in the handling is practi-
cally far more than offset by the time lost in shifting magazines and
misfires when magazines are emptied.

104

RIFLES

Despite efforts to encourage U.S. inventors, no weapons were

forthcoming, and the board reported in September 1892 that it had
made its choice: the Krag-Jorgenson. This rifle was the brainchild of
Norwegians 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 in
service with the Danish Army. The weapons were designed for U.S.
use to fire the .30/40 rimmed cartridge, and the first issue was made
to troops in October 1894. The weapon weighed 9.35 pounds, was
49.14 inches long, with a 30-inch barrel. Subsequent modifications
were introduced as the Models 1896 and 1898, but all suffered in
comparison with European magazine rifles from one glaring defect:
they were intended to be loaded singly, with the magazine serving as
an emergency reservoir only.

U.S. reaction to the choice was predictably one of outrage, and

the board was accused of predetermining the outcome. Certainly
the Krag failed the Rifle Board tests on a number of occasions, and
the 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 managed
to get consideration, in part due to the fact that the same board
members sat in judgment of these late entries.

Not only was the Krag doubtful as far as its magazine and loading

system was concerned; in comparison with other infantry rifles of
the time, it was the longest and heaviest. Interestingly, although the
feed mechanism was not really suited to the modern maneuver style
of warfare, it did turn out to be quite accurate. The Danish Army
used it for some years, and a modified version was bought by the
Norwegian 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 point
of 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 BOLT-ACTION RIFLE

105

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

600 yards as the old Springfield. Experience in general pointed to
the 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 forced
the rifleman to load single cartridges), weaknesses in metallurgy
produced a bolt that jammed, the ramrod head was too big to fit the
barrel, and there had been some cartridge accidents as well. The
problems were confronted to an extent, but a real test was soon to
face 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 was
raised, to be commanded by U.S. General Nelson A. Miles. Spain
then declared war on the United States, and General Miles asked
that his troops be armed with Winchester rifles, which had been
turned down by the Rifle Board in favour of the Krag. A l t h o u g h
Miles got approval to test the Winchester, General Flagler failed the
rifle for not meeting the (unspecified) standards of performance of
the army, and the United States went to war. The National Guards-
men who formed the main body of General Miles’s army were armed
not with the Krag-Jorgenson but with the old black-powder trapdoor
Springfield. 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 new
rifle.

The army that finally went to Cuba was a sorry sight; some

150,000 men were still wearing heavy wool uniforms, armed with
antiquated rifles, and supported by artillery that also used black-
powder propellant. Furthermore, these ill-equipped troops were to
come face-to-face with the Spanish service rifle: the Mauser. One
description of the first encounter with this rifle and its effect is very
telling. 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, there
were too few Krags, only enough for the Regular Army and Roo-
sevelt’s Rough Riders, but enough to give measure. As they proceeded
through the Cuban countryside, U.S. troops soon encountered a ter-
rifying sound—a terrible buzz that turned into a high shriek as it went
whizzing past their heads into tree trunks and branches. A man hit in
the 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 stopped
the Americans’ advance more than once with a seemingly incredible
volume of fire from such a small force of Spaniards.

The Krag could not hack the fighting; its muzzle velocity was too

low 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 be
stressed. The Mauser, by contrast, was providing what the Spanish
defenders needed against superior numbers: firepower. A l t h o u g h
Teddy Roosevelt’s famous Rough Rider charge against the Spanish
position on San Juan Hill ended in victory, it was at the cost of
1,300 U.S. casualties out of an attacking force of 5,000. The Krag-
Jorgenson was tested against the Mauser after the war ended, and
the Mauser penetrated 9 inches farther into a wood block than did
the Krag. It was obvious that the Krag rifle was not up to European
standards and would have to be rapidly replaced.

General Flagler died in 1899, not the most popular of men with

those riflemen who had gone to Cuba armed with the Krag. After his
death, certain other disturbing facts emerged about the tests in
1892, one of which was that the Krag had been tested to 30,000
pounds of breech pressure, whereas all other entries were subjected
to tests of 40,000 pounds. This indicated once more that the Rifle
Board 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 for
whom 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 that
performance was enhanced so that the rifle was capable of safely fir-
ing a 200-grain bullet at 2,300 fps. However, General Buffington
was soon to retire, and in his place was appointed Captain William
Crozier, inventor of the Springfield M1901 rifle.

It seems rather strange that the inventor of a rifle that was to be

considered for service should be put in charge of the very institution
that would further his prospects, but that is the system that ap-
pointed Crozier. Like many others whose jobs have been the result
of favor or even fraud, Crozier stayed put. However, his term of of-
fice would only be four years, so like U.S. presidents, his deeds
would be limited to a certain extent.

General Crozier, as he had instantly become, had a very senior

b a c k e r. This was President Teddy Roosevelt, who had succeeded

THE BOLT-ACTION RIFLE

107

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 the
work was finished and the rifles were ready for testing. In no time at
all the rifles were tested and reported to have been successful, and
the rifle became the Springfield Model M1903 rifle.

Once the rifle was issued, a few modifications were needed. The

cartridge clip was faulty, and so a changed version was issued. The
rod bayonet of the original was, at the president’s request, changed
to a knife bayonet. The cartridge was also altered and the rifle
rechambered to fire it. The new DuPont powder, a cooler-burning
mix, was used as propellant in the cartridge, and, once altered to fire
this cartridge, the weapon was regarded as nearly perfect. The .30-
06 round was to see service for a long time and eventually caused
singular problems for weapons designers.

There were those at the time, however, who thought that the

Springfield M1903 was very similar to the German Mauser design.
On 15 March 1904 the first rumors surfaced that Springfield was in
breach 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 clip
and a further five on the rifle. Then came news that the U.S.-made
Krag also infringed Mauser patents. The matter was one of utter
embarrassment for the United States, which had no alternative but
to pay Mauser what it was owed. This totaled some $200,000 by the
time it was all over.

General Crozier was duly appointed by President Roosevelt to a

second term, and as soon as this was done, another round of patent
infringement talks had to take place. The injured party on this occa-
sion was the Deutsche Waffen und Munitionsfabrik (DWM) firm in
Berlin. 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. government
arrogantly told DWM it had no case, as the patent had been seized
in 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 to
pay the original sum plus interest, a total of over $412,000.

It is interesting to note that when the United States entered

World War I, in 1917, there was a severe shortage of rifles for the
American Expeditionary Force. A history of the 37th Division of the
U.S. Army describes the problem in some detail:

The Springfield rifle had superseded in our army the Krag, which we
had used in the Spanish American War. In that conflict, the Spanish
Army had a rifle of German design, the Mauser. Our ordnance offi-
cers at that time considered the Krag to be a more accurate weapon
than the Mauser. Still, we were not satisfied with the Krag, and after
years of development in 1903 we brought out the Springfield, the
most 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 a
realisation of the scale on which we must prosecute it, our ordnance
officers studying the rifle problem became persuaded that our army
could not hope to carry this magnificent weapon to Europe as its
chief small-arms reliance. A brief examination of the industrial prob-
lem presented by the rifle situation in 1917 should make it clear even
to a man unacquainted with machinery and manufacturing why it
would 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 only

two—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

THE BOLT-ACTION RIFLE

109

prior to 1917 had cut down its expenditures for the manufacture of
small arms and ammunition. The result was that the Rock Island
Arsenal had ceased its production of Springfields altogether, while
the 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 production
of rifles to the limit in these two establishments those in charge of
the 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 could
not begin to supply the quantity of rifles which our impending army
would 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 to

the private plants? Some ante helium effort, indeed, had been made
looking to the production of Springfields in commercial plants, but
lack 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 dismount
his 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 great
precision, gauged with microscopic nicety, and finished with unusual
accuracy. To produce Springfields on a grand scale in private plants
would imply the use of thousands of gauges, jigs, dies, and other
small tools necessary for such a manufacture, as well as that of great
quantities 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 in

building up an adequate manufacturing equipment for Springfields,
the while our boys in France were using what odds and ends of rifle
equipment the Government might be able to purchase for them, ex-
cept for a condition in our small-arms industry in early 1917 that
now seems to have been well-nigh providential.

Among others, both the British and the Russian Governments in

the emergency of 1914 and 1915 had turned to the United States to
supplement their sources of rifle supply while they, particularly the
British, were building up their home manufacturing capacity. There
were five American concerns engaged in the production of rifles on
these large foreign orders when we entered the war. Three of them

110

RIFLES

were the Winchester Repeating Arms Co., of New Haven, Conn.; the
Remington Arms–Union Metallic Cartridge Co., of Ilion, N. Y.; and
the Remington Arms Co. of Delaware at its enormous war-contract
factory 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. By
the spring of 1917 England had built up her own manufacturing fa-
cilities at home, and the last of her American contracts were nearing
completion.

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 y
would require, regardless of how many troops we were to put in the
field.

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. A
glance at the history of the British Enfield will make clear some of
our 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, the
Mauser and the Springfield, were easily the two leaders. The British
Army had been equipped with the Lee-Enfield for some years prior to
the outbreak of the great war, hut the British ordnance authorities
had 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 was

brought out in England and the British government was on the point
of 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 the
whole British improved Enfield on the scrap heap. England was no
more 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 turn
out the old “short Enfield and its antiquated .303 rimmed cartridges.
Now England was obliged to turn to outside sources for an additional
rifle supply and in the United States she found the three firms . . .
willing to undertake large rifle contracts. Having to build up factory
equipment anew in the United States for this work, England found

THE BOLT-ACTION RIFLE

111

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 improved
Enfield 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. The
rifle had many of the characteristics of the 1903 Springfield but it
was not so good as the Springfield in its proportions and its sights
lacked 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 build
the Springfields at the Government arsenals we should, if we adopted
the Enfield as it was, be forced to produce two sizes of rifle ammuni-
tion

The rifle had been designed originally for rimless ammunition and

later modified; so it could be modified readily back again to shoot our
standard .30 calibre Springfield cartridges.

It may be seen that the Ordnance Department had before it three

courses open, any one of which it might take. It could spend the time
to equip private plants to manufacture Springfields, in which case the
American rifle program would be hopelessly delayed. It could get
guns immediately by contracting for the production of British .303
Enfields, 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 such
delay might be and however justified by the practical conditions, and
modify 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 decisions

of the executive prosecution of the war—all honour to the men who
made it.

The three concerns which had been manufacturing the British

weapons conceded that it should be changed to take the A m e r i c a n
ammunition.

The Eddystone plant finished its British contracts on June 1, Win-

chester produced its last British rifle on June 28, and Ilion on July
21, 1917. Winchester delivered the first modified Enfields to us on
August 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 of
military rifles in the United States was 9,247 of which 7,805 were
modified Enfields produced in the three private plants and 1,442
were 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 three
army divisions. . . . All troops leaving the United States were armed
with 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 had
turned 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, we
had passed the million and one-half mark in the production of rifles
of all sorts, this figure including over 250,000 rifles which had been
built upon original contracts placed by the former Russian govern-
ment.

The production of Enfields and Springfields during the war up to

November 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 greater
quickness of aim than the Springfield sights afforded. In this respect
the 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 scant
appeal to our ordnance officers in a few weeks we added improve-
ments and modifications that made the 1917 Enfield a gun that for
the short-range fighting in Europe compared favourably with the
Springfield and was to the allied cause a distinct contribution which
America substantially could claim to be her own.

CONCLUSION

Bolt-action rifles were standard during the whole period of Wo r l d
War I, and some served until after World War II, particularly the
Lee-Enfield; the Springfield 1903, which was first issued as an in-
fantry rifle and then later as a sniper rifle; the Mauser, although
shortened from the Gew 98 to the Kar 98k; and others. Bolt-action
magazine rifles were an important type of weapon and represented
the high point of manually operated arms, but the effort required to
use them over long periods of action was tiring and often meant that
after 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

THE BOLT-ACTION RIFLE

113

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 be
thrown away. In operation the charger normally falls away from the weapon
as soon as it is empty.

7. This cartridge was originally the 88/S, otherwise known as the 88/8 or

8mm x 57 J. In 1905 another cartridge was issued, and in World War I the
standard 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 made

millions of export versions of the weapon, which saw service in most of the
world’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 Benedict

Crowell, Assistant Secretary of War, Director of Munitions, pp. 177–184,
reported in Ralph D. Cole and W. C. Howells, The Thirty-Seventh Division
in the World War 1917–1918. Columbus, OH: Thirty-Seventh Division
Veterans Association, 1926, fn. pp. 371ff.

114

RIFLES

C H A P T E R 7

Self-Loading Rifles

The de ve l opm e nt of fi r e ar ms

in the nineteenth century led ri-

fle designers and inventors to conclude that once they had a reliable
composite cartridge and a magazine system that worked, the next
logical step was to harness the recoil of the weapon, or the gases
produced 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 of
great importance at shorter ranges.

Resistance to the unwarranted expenditure of ammunition was

still felt, particularly in the United States and Great Britain, where
musket experts and instructors maintained that well-aimed single
shots were needed at longer ranges and at battle ranges. U.S. and
European 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. The
individual rifleman, it was argued, could be effective up to about
600 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 the

supporting and interdictory fire roles previously assumed by the ri-
flemen, for machine guns could range out to even 3,000 yards and
deliver concentrated fire with effect. Rifles were now to be used for
the ranges at which sight of the enemy was possible. The situation
still suffered, however, from the desire of all musketry instructors to
save ammunition. The opposite of this argument was, of course,

115

that saving ammunition for its own sake meant that trained riflemen
were loathe to fire at fleeting targets, thus allowing the enemy the
opportunity 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 to
troops. The powers at Springfield Armory were still strong, and the
issue of the Mauser copy, the Model 1903, happened at the same
time as Mexican gun designer Manuel Mondragon was preparing
his self-loading rifle for use by the Mexican Army.

Claims for the first SLR go back a long way before this, and in the

British official Textbook of Small Arms 1929

there is a note that the

principle of the automatic weapon “appears to have been a British
invention,” a claim that is based on an entry in the records of the
British Royal Society.

It was informed that “there had come to

Prince Rupert a rare mechanician who pretended . . . to make a pis-
tol shooting as fast as could be presented and yet to be stopped at
pleasure; and wherein the motion of the fire and bullet within was
made to charge the piece with powder and bullet, to prime it and
bend 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,

and it is

clear that the principle, if not the method, of making weapons that
reloaded themselves was known. However, until the invention of the
composite cartridge and the magazine, little or no progress could be
made to realize this dream. Hiram Maxim made a good try at it with
his mechanical recoil system, and others had patented designs
twenty years before him.

Maxim used the recoil of the whole

weapon to operate the Winchester lever action by means of a butt
plate against which the rifle recoiled, attached by a lever system to
the rifle’s actuating lever. The problem with this weapon was that
the 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 device

had considerable success in Europe, and the Turkish Army issued
such modified Winchester rifles. Then, in 1884 Maxim patented his
locked-breech recoil system. This was an application for machine
guns, but the concept was quickly taken on board by other weapons
designers, and in 1885 the Mannlicher short-recoil SLR appeared.
This was nothing more than an experimental piece, but it laid down
the principles upon which such weapons were to be developed.

The period 1885–1900 saw a great deal of work and a number of

rifles 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. The
Mondragon, however, had a different history. Mannlicher had no
success in selling his semiautomatics to the military, but the Mon-
dragon came from Mexico, where it had already been tested. Porfirio
Díaz (1830–1915), the Mexican dictator (president of Mexico from
1876 to 1880 and again from 1884 to 1911), decided that the Mex-
ican Army would be entirely armed with automatic rifles. The rifle
chosen was that designed by Mondragon (1858–1922). Progress in
developing 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 it
had 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. The
weapons 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 was
known as the FSK-15 (Flieger Selbstladerkarabiner: Airmen’s Self-
Loading Carbine, Model 1915). The weapon was not a great success
even 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’s
unreliability but also to the fact that fixed machine guns were totally
effective following the invention of interrupter gears, which stopped
the machine guns from firing when the propeller blades were liable
to 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 e
Model 16), of which 1,000 were made. They had to be kept scrupu-
lously clean, but demand far exceeded supply. Further manufacture
was a problem not addressed by Mauser, and the weapons that sur-
vive are extremely rare. The idea had caught on, however, and the
Germans never stopped experimenting with SLRs. The first of
M a u s e r ’s postwar SLRs was the G35, designed as a result of the
success of the Czech ZH-29 SLR (designed by Vladimir Holek; hun-
dreds were sold, including at least 500 to Manchuria). The G35 was
a short-barrel recoil weapon and was out of favor compared with the
gas-operated systems appearing elsewhere, which were more con-
ventional in barrel length. Walther (the firm of Carl Walther in
Zella-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 in
German 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, and
German SLR development faltered in 1938, only to be revived a few
years later.

GERMAN SLR DEVELOPMENT

DURING WORLD WAR II

The ammunition question refused to die, however, and the lead in
ammunition technology the Germans established during World War
II 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 the

Germans that they needed an SLR to combat the masses of Russian
soldiers 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 11
pounds), it was muzzle-heavy and too long, and the action was awk-
ward. The weapon was scrapped in favor of the Walther G41, which
soon became the target of Waffen SS demands to supply “the SS
units standing on the front [with] an automatic carbine.”

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 the
mechanism. 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).”

So the Germans had arrived at the same solution as the Ameri-

cans and were firing the standard Wehrmacht (German A r m e d
Forces) rifle cartridge (the 7.92 x 57mm sS round). Needless to say,
the problem of accuracy when fired on automatic arose, and it
proved impossible to hold the weapon on target when so fired. The

118

RIFLES

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

The 7.92mm x 57mm round was a development of the earlier

Mauser 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 war
years. The Germans realized that infantry actions took place, in the
vast majority of cases, within the 400-yard range. Further, they had
learned from experience that automatic fire, even if not killing the
enemy aimed at, if concentrated reasonably accurately on his posi-
tion, forced him to keep his head down, making the approach and
assault much easier for the men involved. When this was added to
the fact that the Russians were opting for cheap, stamped machine
pistols (submachine guns), they came to the obvious conclusion
that any new assault rifle would not need a range in excess of 400
yards but would need to be controllable when firing on automatic.

German interest in an intermediate cartridge first expressed itself

in the 1930s. Much work on new cartridges was unofficial,

and of

these, the 7.75mm x 40mm from Genschow (German firearms and
ammunition manufacturers) seemed the most promising from the
military point of view. Eventually discarded, however, it was re-
placed by the 7mm x 39mm developed for the Luftwaffe, Germany’s
new and powerful air arm (the German Air Force). The important
factor was that the cartridge had to be powerful enough to deliver a
kill or wound up to 400 yards and yet allow the user to control his
weapon when firing on full automatic.

A number of not dissimilar cartridges appeared during the prewar

years in Germany, but the Polte firm in Magdeburg came up with a
shortened 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 (later
the 7.92mm x 33mm kurz).

The next problem was what weapon was

to fire the new cartridge, and for this the Waffenamt (the We a p o n s
Office of the German High Command) turned to the Haenel firm of
Suhl, 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 it
from the rifle. The weapon was designed to replace the standard ri-
fle, the submachine gun (erroneously named after Schmeisser), and

SELF-LOADING RIFLES

119

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 be
from pressings whenever possible, and any machining had to be no
more complex than for the standard rifle.

The Wa f f e n a m t also specified that it had to be an all-weather

weapon, 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 more
than the standard rifle, yet be shorter. Ballistically it had to have a
trajectory very similar to the standard rifle out to 600 yards and had
to be accurate when fired as a semiautomatic out to 400 yards. It
had to be effective firing bursts up to 400 yards with a moderate rate
of automatic fire. It had to be controllable when fired fully automat-
ically. Naturally, as with all weapon specifications, a rider was added
specifying that it had to be capable of accommodating a grenade
launcher.

The design was a fact by 1940, but Haenel had little experience

in actual sheet-metal weapons production. It approached the Merz
company 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 Haenel
was working on this rifle, the firm of Carl Walther of Zella-Mehlis
was 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 Haenel

version 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 from
the 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 target
was not achieved because of production problems at Haenel. Troop
trials reflected the users’ attitude to the new ammunition: “As long
as there is an adequate supply, the troops are unconcerned,”

b u t

they also reported that the sight line was very high, and that muzzle
flash at night was too great. However, the general conclusion was
that “the weapons are especially suited for patrol, raiding and a t-
tack” (emphasis added).

The groundwork had been done, and the troops seemed satisfied

in the main, although the muzzle-flash problem had two disadvan-
tages: excessive muzzle flash blinds the firer at night, and it also
makes 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 MP43

was the result.

The Walther version had not proved to be a success, and when

Haenel was awarded the development contract for the MP43,
Walther withdrew from this short cartridge field. Walther had been
involved in the field from 1937 when it had submitted its short car-
tridge Maschinenkarabiner for approval. Its involvement in the later
competition with Haenel had resulted in the production of the
MK42(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 the
German Weapons Testing Office (the Waffenprüfungs Amt). A s
mentioned above, Walther had already been in the SLR field with
the G41 rifle, and production planning for the MK42(W) seemingly
suffered, with only two prototype weapons produced in late 1942,
when production was scheduled to be high by March of the next
year. 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 in

weapons manufacture, which had been a highly specialized, preci-
sion process. Now, as with the MK42 machine gun, the weapons
were to be made with the absolute minimum of machining and the
maximum amount of speedy, almost tolerance-free stampings and
p r e s s i n g s .

1 1

Nevertheless, with their ability to produce a firearm

that looks like a weapon, the Germans were producing some of the
most effective and exciting designs in infantry weapons ever seen.

The MP43 series of weapons was also designed by the brilliant

Hugo Schmeisser, and some of the characteristics of the Wa l t h e r
MK42 appeared in this version of the rifle. The open breech system
became a closed bolt one, a hammer was fitted internally, and the
safety 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, which
is what these weapons were. However, it may be, as Senich argues,
that “[Adolf] Hitler was said to have expressed particular disdain at
the prospect of introducing an entirely new weapon and car-
tridge.”

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

SELF-LOADING RIFLES

121

A r m y, finally changed his mind and gave official approval to the
project. 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 each
man could carry more rounds for the same weight of ammunition in
comparison with the long cartridge. The rifleman was also able to
use the weapon on full automatic and to control his fire. This meant
that in the assault the enemy could be sprayed with bursts of fire to
keep his head down, and in the defense attacking troops could be
covered 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 turned
against the Germans, particularly during the long withdrawal.”

1 3

The weapon and its cartridge also came to the notice of Russian
small arms designers and engineers, and there can be little doubt
that 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 designer
of the well-known and fabled AK47.

The weapon became the MP43/1 and then the StG 44. Name

changes were almost cosmetic, for the basic principle of the weapon
was not altered, although various small modifications and improve-
ments were made during the last two years of the war. One of the
best 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, 50
years later,

still appears contemporary. The weapon was a techno-

logical achievement of the highest order, embracing the principle that
a reduced-power cartridge would allow a shorter rifle to produce both
single shots and automatic bursts. The gas-operated rifle employed a
rotating bolt. It worked on the blow-back system in which some of
the gases created when a bullet [sic] ignited were used to push back
the mechanism after each shot. The weapon was reliable, robust, ac-
curate and provided selective fire. . . . Despite designer efforts the
weapon was rather heavy in relation to the muzzle energy generated
by the 7.92mm cartridge. However it handled well and withstood
combat use. It was simple, cheap and fast to produce—essential
wartime 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 steel
pressings also contributed to reductions in costs and production
time.

With an increasing number of favorable reports coming from the

various fronts in 1944 and the need to standardize nomenclature,
Hitler ordered that the very effective MG42 was to retain the same
designation, the self-loading G43 was to become the Karabiner 43,
and the MP43 was to become the MP44. The MP44, no matter
what Hitler called it, remained essentially the same weapon. A fur-
ther renaming in December 1944 meant that the weapon was now
called the StG 44, and many earlier weapons were also referred to in
the same way in documents, even if they began their lives as MP43s
or MP44s.

The importance of this weapon series cannot be overlooked. They

stand 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; it
must fire a cartridge that allows control when the weapon is fired
automatically; and the rifle must be shorter than previous designs to
allow 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. This
was the Garand M1 rifle, in caliber .30-06. (This was the full-load
military cartridge that had been issued for use with the bolt-action
M1903 rifle, described above.) Jean C. Garand was actually born in
Saint-Rémi in Quebec, Canada, but moved to the United States in
1912 to found a small engineering business. On receiving U.S. citi-
zenship in 1914 he changed his name to John. When World War I
broke out he began looking at firearms in detail, and a machine gun
design of his was looked at by the U.S. Army in 1916.

He was offered a job in the Springfield Armory design office in

1919, where he stayed (eventually rising to the position of principal
ordnance designer) until he retired in 1953 (Garand died in 1974).
His greatest work was undoubtedly the Garand M1 SLR, but his
first inventions had been of interest to the U.S. military. His ma-

SELF-LOADING RIFLES

123

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

1 6

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

Another weapons designer at the time was John D. Pedersen, who

had achieved success with his device to allow the Springfield 1903
rifle to fire .38-inch pistol cartridges semiautomatically from a 40-
round magazine. This device was intended to be issued to the whole
U.S. Army in France in preparation for an attack in 1919 that
would, because of the firepower generated by these adapted rifles,
sweep the German Army from the field and end the war. Orders
were issued for 500,000 Pedersen devices, but by the time 65,000
had been made,

the war had ended. However, the idea of arming

the U.S. Army with an SLR did not go away.

Pedersen then approached the U.S. War Department with an idea

for a .27-inch caliber rifle. He argued that the .30-inch cartridge
was too strong for an SLR and that his .27-inch cartridge would op-
erate at a lower temperature and with less recoil.

The ballistics of

the bullet were such that it had a flatter trajectory, making aiming
much simpler; it was cheaper to manufacture; and the individual
soldier could carry more ammunition.

Pedersen presented the U.S. ordnance people with a problem: the

cartridge was all that he said it was, but it had less armor-piercing
capability and a shorter range. This was at a time when many in the
U.S. military were still convinced of the need for infantry to engage
targets 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 an
SLR, 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 the
new Experimental Department Building at Springfield, not far from
where Garand was working. The two men were utterly different in
character: Garand was a company man, whereas Pedersen was not
only a great weapons designer but a superb salesman.

There was now a race between the two to produce an SLR that

the U.S. Army would issue as its next service rifle, and initially it
seemed that Pedersen had won: his delayed-action blowback toggle
rifle 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,

but when the weapon was tested it performed admirably.

The question of the cartridge would not, however, disappear, and

whereas Pedersen’s rifle required retooling, not only for his rifle but
also for its ammunition. Garand’s design required tooling only for
the weapon. Then things changed. The .30-06 cartridge was recon-
figured and was now to fire a new type of propellant and a new
crimped 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 that
would 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 do
was develop a new rifle, which he promptly did. This was a gas-oper-
ated turning bolt

weapon that was to fire the new .30-caliber car-

tridge. Pedersen persisted in his belief that the .27-caliber cartridge
was 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 more

powerful than its predecessor, and he also faced the problem that
Pedersen’s rifle was getting rave reviews

from all quarters. The In-

fantry Board reported, in 1928, that “this rifle is suitable and should
now be adopted for Infantry use as a complete replacement for the
service rifle and the Browning automatic rifle.”

The Pedersen went

on to perform admirably in the Pig Board tests,

and the War De-

partment decided to conduct more tests, but this time with rifles in
caliber .276.

The Pedersen was an obvious contender, but by this time Garand

had 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, and
the Semiautomatic Rifle Board ordered that 20 Garand caliber .30
rifles be supplied for the next series of tests. At last Garand was
gaining ground, for the original design for his new rifle was in that
caliber. 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 tradition

in the United States. The sharpshooter advocates saw the rifle in an
infantryman’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-

SELF-LOADING RIFLES

125

tlefield and that the farther away he was, the more men could be re-
moved. Further, this method saved ammunition, which endeared
the concept to Springfield Armory and others. The Ordnance Corps
of 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 done

to make the final decision, which was simple: which caliber was to
be chosen for the next U.S. service rifle. In November 1929 the In-
fantry Board went through the Semiautomatic Rifle Tests at Fo r t
Benning, Georgia. The Garand .276 came out way ahead of all the
other 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 is
preferable 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 a
cracked bolt, effectively removing it from contention. The report of
these tests was issued in 1932, and it concluded that a caliber .30
weapon was too big in all senses, especially for automatic fire, and
caused too much fatigue for the soldier. The .276 Garand T3E2 was
the chosen weapon. The report said, “the Garand was superior in
rate of fire, in hits per minute, and hits per pound of ammunition
expended . . . the light shock of recoil of the caliber .276 rifle does
not derange [sic] the line of sight as does a caliber .30 rifle and is
less fatiguing to the firer.”

The Garand also benefited from having fewer parts than the other

weapons. (The Pedersen had 99 parts, the Springfield 93, and the
BAR 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 a
tendency to strike the hat of the user. Sometimes makes holes in the
hat.” It also mentioned as undesirable that interchangeability of
parts would be a problem, and that when the last shot is fired from
the magazine, “the breech locks in the open position and . . . the
joint and mechanism of the breech block are exposed to . . . sand,
dirt or mud.”

The Garand was highly praised, and although “the gas operating

system with muzzle attachment and piston under the barrel will al-
ways be something of a disadvantage,” it was not “considered serious
enough 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 adding
enough rounds to fill the magazine again, but “the services prefer
the block clip because of the difficulty experienced in training re-
cruits in the use of the present Springfield clip and also in order to
take full advantage of the semiautomatic rifle principle and allow
the maximum time for aiming and trigger squeeze.”

It was at this point, in the early 1930s, that General Douglas

MacArthur entered the picture. He was, at the time, chief of staff of
the U.S. Army and, as such, was responsible for the purse strings.
The Army was very short of money and had millions of rounds of
caliber .30 ammunition in its stores and depots. MacArthur was of
the 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 to
this was the soldier’s reasoning that the army wanted a single caliber
for both rifle and machine gun, whereas the decision to opt for cal-
iber .276 for rifles and retaining caliber .30 for machine guns was
uneconomic, both in fiscal and military terms. He vetoed the caliber
.276 Garand and proved John Garand right. The country would not
go for a change of caliber for the new service rifle.

In 1936 the Garand caliber .30 M1 rifle was officially adopted by

the United States as its new service rifle, and this meant that the
United States was in the lead in firearms design, for it was the first
country in the world to issue an SLR to all infantry troops. There
were some small problems with the weapon, the main one of which
was that the ammunition, fed in eight-round clips, had to be fired
off before the weapon could be reloaded. It was possible to reload a
full clip by ejecting a partially fired clip, but this meant that the old
clip needed refilling before it could be used again. Further, it was
noticed that the enemy learned to wait to hear the distinctive sound
of an empty clip being thrown out of the rifle before moving, then
having a second or two of grace before the rifleman could reload a
new clip and recommence firing.

There is little doubt, however, that the M1 proved itself to be a

first-class weapon in the hands of the trained U.S. soldier and ma-
rine. It functioned everywhere to the complete satisfaction of its
users, something that cannot be said of all SLRs. The fact that the
weapon 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 bolt
actions with which so many of the other nations involved went into
World War II. It was praised for its hard-hitting effect as well as for

SELF-LOADING RIFLES

127

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

By 1950 in Europe, the first steps toward a change of weapon

were taking place as a result of experiences in World War II, particu-
larly due to the success of U.S., Russian, and German SLRs. In
Britain the EM rifle was causing a stir, and the new Belgian FA L
(Fusil Automatique Leger) had also turned some military heads.
Project No. 2231

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 countries
participating in the test.” The rifles under consideration were the
British EM2, for the Belgians the FN (from Fabrique Nationale
d’Armes de Guerre, based in Herstal). Interestingly, the control
weapon was the T-25, a tilting-block design with a rather odd butt
and a pistol grip. The EM2 fired the new .280-inch cartridge, as did
the FN, but the U.S. rifle continued to fire the standard .30-inch
round that had been in service since the turn of the twentieth
century.

The report states that one aim of the tests was “joint standardiza-

tion of small arms and ammunition.” This laudable aim was one that
had been on the minds of many forward-looking military thinkers
for a long time, for experience had shown that the United States and
Britain often fought side by side, and commonality would be to the
benefit of all, including the soldier in the field. However, the results
of the process were to be quite divisive, and the role of Colonel
René Studler (army chief of ordnance) was suspect in the extreme.

The decision to test the weapons was the result of meetings in

Washington, D.C., in 1949, when it was proposed that “standard
weapons of both countries would be converted to fire the new am-
munition and would be fired at Fort Benning to demonstrate the
feasibility of conversion.” The Fort Benning trials began on 3 May
1950, and wound ballistics tests were carried out at the U.S. Army
Chemical Center in Maryland.

At the time, a number of specifications and criteria applied to the

tests, among them trajectory, penetration, and the ability to use in-
cendiary and armor-piercing ammunition. There were also practical
user tests that included firing the weapons on full automatic, a re-
quirement that was imposed on all weapons in the aftermath of
World War II and the German and Russian weapon developments
during 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 caliber
round has flatter trajectory.” The “gravel bellies” (the older, long-
range rifle protagonists) were still alive and kicking and willing to
spoil any development if it interfered with their case for the caliber
.30 ammunition.

As far as power was concerned, the .280-inch round “is well

above 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 and
tracer 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 a

wide range of tests in the following weeks. Initial tests showed that
“the basic accuracy of the rifles are [s i c] comparable. . . . In any
case, 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 service
weapons rechambered to fire the new ammunition), it is not surpris-
ing that there were numerous breakages of parts as well as problems
with 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 other
two rifles.” This comment is further reinforced by the note that
“only the FN could be maintained in the field without the use of a
special tool. . . . The FN’s simplicity of design and ease of stripping
and assembling makes it possible to replace parts much quicker
than 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 old
guard.

The final conclusions were that the T-65 round was unsatisfac-

tory because of excessive blast, flash, and smoke. Further, although
the .280-inch round had an unsatisfactory trajectory, it was the pre-
ferred ammunition. The final recommendations were that further
work 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 .280

round acceptable to the U.S. military, the base was “identical with
that of the [U.S.] 1906 .30 cartridge so that it would have been easy
for existing weapons to be converted.”

3 0

Talks on standardization

SELF-LOADING RIFLES

129

had been going on for a considerable time, especially in view of the
establishment of NATO, for whom standard weapons and equip-
ment were an economic as well as a military necessity. Interestingly,
Clinton Ezell

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 of
the earliest and lasting disappointments was the failure to make the
desire for standardization a reality.”

It seems, says Ezell, that the

partial cause of this was the unwillingness of the rest of NATO to
cave in to U.S. mandates.

As with the EM rifles, the British were to reject their homegrown

product, the EM2, in favor of the FN FAL rifle (modified to British
requirements 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 the
NATO round was led by (not surprisingly) Colonel Studler, who said
that 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 fulfilling
this 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 the
proposal), and so the U.S. Ordnance Department would not seri-
ously consider any changes of such a fundamental nature. The
British members of the missions to the United States claimed, not
without cause, that they had been Studlered again.

In 1951 there seems to have been another attempt to rationalize

this affair, and the FN was tested against the EM2 again, and
against the old T25 (or T47) and the new T44 (actually no more
than a jazzed-up Garand). The British chose to adopt the Belgian
FN FAL, which became the SLR, and the United States elected for
Studler’s choice the soon-to-be M14.

It seems that the choice for

the United States was made by Colonel Studler, who was implacably
against a diminution in caliber and against bullpup rifles and foreign
designs.

The rift between the two countries, caused to an extent by

Colonel Studler, got so bad that Prime Minister Winston Churchill
and U.S. President Harry Truman discussed the matter during a
summit in January 1952. They issued a communiqué expressing a
belief in future standardization, but things would, in the meantime,
revert to the status quo. Finally, in 1953 agreement was reached
among Britain, France, and the United States that the standard cal-

130

RIFLES

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

This meant that the United States was now stuck with a cartridge

that was extremely powerful but also highly discomforting to both
the firer and others around him, and with the further requirement
that the new military rifle be able to fire fully automatically. The hy-
brid weapon chosen to handle the cartridge was the remodeled
Garand—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 a
paper

in which he reported his findings on what was, in any other

words, a scandal. He quoted Secretary of Defense Robert S. Mc-
Namara, who said, “I think it is a disgrace the way the project was
handled. . . . This is a relatively simple job, to build a rifle . . . and
yet this project has languished for months—years, actually. And I
see no excuse for allowing that to continue.”

The report noted that although approved in 1957, no orders were

placed for the rifle until 1958 and that production had been meager.
This tale of woe was supported by the facts that the first 19 rifles
were produced in September 1959, by the end of June 1960 only
9,741 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. The
buildup 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 M1
Garands 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 quantities

purchased [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 an
even smaller caliber than the British .280 (7mm) cartridge that had
been so criticized by Colonel Studler and his cronies.

In service, the M14 soon gained a dubious reputation. It kicked

like a mule, was uncontrollable when fired on automatic, and was

SELF-LOADING RIFLES

131

not a lighter weapon at all. The M14 was too long and too heavy to
be 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 m
War). The 7.62mm NATO ammunition was too heavy, limiting the
amount of ammunition carried by soldiers on patrols. The selective-
fire capability was mostly useless, since the M14 was way too light
for the very powerful cartridge it fired, and it climbed excessively
when fired in bursts. In fact, most of the M14s were issued to troops
with fire selectors locked to semiautomatic mode to avoid useless
waste of ammunition in automatic fire. In other words, the M14
was a failure as a service weapon; what is really surprising is that its
adherents continued to argue forcibly for its retention in the face of
the appearance of the Armalite rifles.

New Rifle, New Caliber

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

The first of these was the Hall report,

3 5

which proposed that a

much smaller bullet could do far more damage to a man than the
caliber .30 round. Although theoretical (and admitted as such by the
author), this report had a ring of common sense about it. Soon
thereafter appeared the Hitchman report,

3 6

which added to the

weight of the Hall report by noting that the standard battle range
did not exceed 300 yards, which was in agreement with S. L. A .
Marshall’s comments.

Marksmanship declined considerably after

100 yards’ range. His main point was that to improve accuracy at
ranges greater than 100 yards, “missiles of smaller calibre than the
present .30 cal. can be used without loss in wounding effects and
with substantial logistical and overall military gains.”

The smaller round was achievable, but until the mid-1950s there

seemed to be no such round in existence. However, Eugene Stoner

132

RIFLES

(who was responsible for many small arms designs, the most famous
of which is the AR range of weapons) had been experimenting with
an extremely small caliber—the .223. The eventual result was the
M16.

What is most interesting about the development of the M16 from

the 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 battle
reports confirming that 300 yards was the maximum engagement
range for the average rifle squad and that 100–200 yards was the
real fire zone for standard infantry rifles. This shibboleth had held
firm against the British EM2 rifle caliber and resulted in the M14, a
rifle that failed to advance rifle design one iota.

Much has been written of the M16 design and development and

the failure to produce a reliable tool for infantry. There is little
doubt 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 confirmed
that cleaning was needed only after firing about 1,000 rounds, but
the standard rifle propellant caused such carbon deposit buildup
that this was not the case. Further, the barrel was impossible to
clean unless a cleaning rod was issued, which was not. This is simi-
lar to the British cleaning rod fiasco whereby the rod for the SA80
was not long enough for the barrel it was to clean.

The M16 has now come of age and, despite interference from

agencies who should have been kept away, has proved itself to be of
value. However, the question as to caliber still surfaces frequently,
and it has to be asked here: the caliber is too small for effective fire
out 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). To
have a rifle for U.S. Army infantry originally adopted by an Air Force
officer for airfield guards does imply a certain willingness to take
anything in exchange for the M14, and perhaps one can see a victory
for the new guard against the Studler fixation.

RUSSIAN SLR DEVELOPMENTS

The earliest attempts to make a Russian SLR were similar to those
elsewhere: a standard bolt-action rifle was modified to enable gas
pressure to operate the bolt. Like other designs, the Roshchepei

ri-

SELF-LOADING RIFLES

133

fle used many parts of the original, and the gas operating system was
grafted onto the weapon. A somewhat questionable source described
his 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 the
ability of the Russian people, did not appreciate the talented original-
ity of this simple soldier who worked as a regimental blacksmith. The
Russian warriors were not fated to hold the rifle invented by
Roshchepei in their hands.

In actual fact, if the weapon had any commonality with other de-

signs of the time, it was heavy, awkward to operate, and probably
prone 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 designers
and gunmakers, had significant military training. He was initially
trained 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 Mikhailovsky
Artillery Academy. Part of the course was concerned with ballistics.
Following graduation he went on to join the Weapons Section of the
Main Artillery Commission, where new weapons were both designed
and examined.

He also had the opportunity of working with S. I. Mosin, director

of the Sestroretsk Weapons Factory in St. Petersburg, and it seems
that it was then that Simonov converted a Mosin-Nagant rifle to
semiautomatic operation. Publication of his book on SLR theory
and design appeared in 1907.

Initial work concentrated on activat-

ing a bolt, but he then progressed to a design with a recoiling barrel
with two locks that engaged in lugs in the breech block. This was
the 1907 model, which had some serious faults.

4 2

Despite this,

there was enough in the design for the authorities to recommend
that Federov and his coworker, Vasily Alekseyevich Degtyarev
(1879–1949), later a famous weapon designer in his own right and
creator of the Degtyarev range of machine guns, move permanently
to 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 the

development of the SLR, and a competition was arranged in which
the Federov rifle was to be tested against the To k a r e v

4 3

rifle and

against 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 of
rounds 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 R
Model 1891 cartridge was far too powerful for use in an SLR. He
opted for a less potent load, to reduce recoil (and improve operation
from the point of view of the user), increase barrel life, improve
feeding, and most importantly improve fire control. Rather than de-
sign a cartridge specifically for the purpose, he looked around until
he chose the Japanese 6.5mm x 51SR round, a reduced charge
round. The new weapon, which was issued from 1916 onward, was
known as the Model 1916 Avtomat, and it was used for troop trials
by the 189 Izmail’skiy Infantry Regiment.

The weapon weighed 9.7 pounds, was 40.9 inches long, and fired

the Japanese cartridge at 2,664 fps, a package that was remarkable
for its time. The rifle was fed from a 25-round magazine and oper-
ated on the short recoil system. The locking system was very similar
to 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, as
did Degtyarev, to get the order fulfilled. The two finally decided that
the only way to get the job done was to partly machine, partly hand
finish the weapons; the powers that be authorized this method and
reduced the initial demand to 150 weapons. Once a total of 200 had
been reached, a further order for 300 more was issued. By almost
superhuman 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 also
too delicate for military operations in the long term, as dirt soon
caused jams, and fully automatic fire accuracy was poor. Nevertheless
the weapon was reissued in the Russo-Finnish War of 1939–1940, so
it proved to be the father of all subsequent military assault rifles.

SELF-LOADING RIFLES

135

The real secret lay in the correct choice of cartridge.

The secret

of controlled automatic fire lay in the weight of the weapon: too
light, 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 by
the soldier whose weapon it was intended to be. However, very few
people 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 bolt
actions of the time could only deliver vaguely aimed mass fire),
which led to the same situation in Russia as happened in the United
States nearly half a century later. The true value of the small-caliber
weapon was not really appreciated in Russia until experience in
World War II taught the Russians that assault rifles were intended
to provide covering fire at medium ranges (up to 300 or 400 yards at
most) 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 in
coming.

Federov and Degtyarev combined their efforts in the years 1921

and 1926 and produced a number of automatic weapons, none of
which 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 idea
was Mikhail Timofeyevich Kalashnikov (1919–), whose family of
weapons has gone down in history.

Russia has produced a number of exceptional rifle designers, and

following Federov came Tokarev,

who was master armorer of the

12 Don Cossack Regiment in the late 1880s. By 1907 he was train-
ing at the Officer’s Rifle School in Oranienbaum and then in 1908
went to Sestroretsk, where he must have come into contact with
Federov and Degtyarev. His first rifle design was tested against the
Federov 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 its
further 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 v
was looking at full-caliber (chambered for the 7.62mm x 54mm R
cartridge) SLR designs at the time.

The Artillery Commission set up a competitive testing of the

available SLR designs, of which the survivors after the first cut

4 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 test
was that all of the rifles were too complicated and were lacking in
strength and reliability for military consideration. Six months was al-
lowed to the three designers to improve their offerings and to make
up two identical weapons for testing.

The next series of tests was held in June 1928. Federov led a

group of designers known as the Inventor’s Collective (consisting of
F. V. Fe d e r o v, V. A. Degtyarev, D. V. Uraznov, A. I. Kuznetsov, and
I. I. Berukov) to present an improved recoil-operated Federov rifle
and two other rifles with the Degtyarev gas-operated system.
Tokarev persisted in offering his recoil-operated weapon. The test
results were considered, and all four weapons withstood the main
phase of the tests. However, no order for production could be given,
as none of the rifles was in finished form. The collective also
brought into question Tokarev’s action, suspecting that it might be
vulnerable to barrel bending during combat operations.

By the time the third set of tests took place the competitors were

reduced 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 still
demonstrating previous faults, they were rejected. Furthermore, it
was then ordered that recoiling-barrel weapons were unsuitable for
the military, and so Tokarev was forced to start work on the design of
a gas-operated rifle that included a new bolt and bolt carrier system.

The collective decided that the Degtyarev model was to be put

into production, and eventually 500 rifles were ordered. This was to
be known as the 7.62mm SLR Model 1930, and troop testing was
done in 1933 by the Moscow Proletarian Rifle Division. At the same
time Sergei Gavrilovich Simonov (1894–) appears on the scene.

Simonov had presented his first SLR design for the 1926 trials

and was rejected. He had made a significant error in mounting the
gas-operating system on the side of his rifle, resulting in a wide
weapon that was difficult to strip in operational conditions. He re-
designed the weapon and in 1931 offered a gas-operated system
with a bolt locked by a vertical sliding wedge. In no time this
weapon 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 in
mass production, and in 1938 and 1939 a total of 34,681 of these
rifles were made.

SELF-LOADING RIFLES

137

The ways of bureaucrats are always hard to fathom, and nowhere

more so than in the decision of the Soviet Pe o p l e ’s Commissar for
Defense 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 mishandling
by soldier users. There may have been some persuasive lobbying by
To k a r e v, because when the latest tests were over, although none of
the weapons submitted were ready for adoption, the Tokarev might
be reworked quickly enough to make it a viable proposition. Te s t e d
again (against the Simonov and a weapon designed by one Rukasish-
nikov), the Tokarev was declared the winner, and the rifle was
adopted in early 1939 as the Model 1938 Tokarev SLR (SVT38).

There can be little doubt that Stalin was acting behind the scenes

in this matter, for he was a devotee of the SLR.

4 8

The Simonov-

Tokarev conflict has all the hallmarks of political infighting, and the
production 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 increased
costs; 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 himself
in manufacturing the rifle, it showed somewhat poorer results than
Tokarev’s design. Being a member of the commission, I was in charge
of accepting new designs into the arsenal of infantry weapons—an ex-
acting and responsible matter. For example, as opposed to other types
of equipment, a rifle is usually accepted for use over many years,
since subsequent changes in its design unavoidably require both
complicated 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 was
therefore clear to me that the best of the models was Simonov’s. It
had not failed because of design failures, but for production reasons
. . . which could be eliminated completely.

So despite its obvious manufacturing shortcomings, the SVT38 was
accepted 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 protective
grease. 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 into
the rifle and could fall out. Although a redesign was planned, the
sudden 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 was
only in 1945 that production was discontinued.

The problems with the rifle and the cartridge led to a number of

studies of alternatives, one of which looked at a rifle firing the
7.62mm x 25mm Tokarev pistol cartridge, and another looked at the
possibilities with the 7.62mm x 39mm M43 cartridge. The
prospects with the latter cartridge looked good, but the question of
its origin has puzzled many historians and weapons experts for years.
The first argument is that the Russian cartridge developed from the
German 7.62mm x 39mm kurz cartridge, which was fired by the
StG44 range of weapons. Russian sources, however, argue that they
had started design work on the new cartridge as early as 1939.
Whatever the truth of the matter, they had certainly looked at a
5.45mm 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 that

of balancing caliber and propellant charge to produce a cartridge
with better ballistics than a pistol cartridge but with less recoil than
a full-blown rifle cartridge. Further, in 1939, and even in 1945, the
value of the smaller calibers was not yet known, with most armies
being fond of the cartridges at about .3 inch in caliber. Further,
most armies were still wedded to the concept of aimed shooting out
to 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 x

39mm cartridge, Sergei Gavrilovich Simonov (1894–1986), who
had designed a weapon to fire the 7.62mm x 25mm cartridge, now
designed and produced his SKS45 carbine. Earlier versions had
been produced but were not field-tested until about 1944. The new
cartridge, however, was perfect for the basic design, which was to be
used at ranges of up to 400 yards. Some of the new rifles were sent
to the front, and reports were favorable. This resulted in adoption as
the SKS45. The one problem was that the magazine capacity was
only five or 10 rounds, so the SKS45 was not an assault rifle, merely
an SLR.

At the same time that the SKS was being field-tested, Kalash-

nikov appeared on the scene as well. After an apprenticeship during

SELF-LOADING RIFLES

139

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

The result was the AK47, a weapon that is still in service, albeit

somewhat modified today. It has spawned a family of arms based on
the original design,

and the success of the basic design is due to a

number 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 basic
regime of cleaning applied) very reliable. There is criticism of the
noise made by the safety catch/change lever, but this is offset by the
heavy bolt, which goes a long way to ensuring that every round is
properly seated in the chamber. Further, the fitted cleaning rod and
a strict regime of cleaning that was standard in the Soviet Army en-
sure that jams are a rarity.

Various modifications were made to the original AK47, including

a folding stick version, but the main changes were in the manufac-
turing process. The Russians experimented with machined receivers
but went back to the original sheet metal receiver quickly, and the
new design was known as the AKM. In the early 1970s a new car-
tridge was developed (the 5.45mm x 39.5mm M74), which may
have been due to studies made of the U.S. 5.56mm x 45mm round
(otherwise the U.S. .223 Remington). So the AKM was redesigned
to fire this cartridge, and the new weapon became the AK74. If any-
thing, this rifle is more reliable than the AKM, because the cartridge
rim of the M74 round is thickened to allow the even heavier bolt of
the 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 allowed
assault rifles to be built that could fire the round on full automatic.
By the late 1960s all modern armies were equipping, or planning to
equip, with small-caliber rifles, and the Russians had taken the lead
in producing a rifle that today is still regarded by combat soldiers as
the most reliable weapon available. It is this reliability that causes
many soldiers to comment that they would rather have an AK74 or
even 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 British
SA80.

140

RIFLES

THE BRITISH ARMY AND THE SLR

The story of the British Army and the SLR is not an entirely happy
one. There have been British SLR designs since the turn of the
twentieth century, with such weapons as the Gabbet-Fairfax of 1896
and the Farquhar-Hill of 1909, but the British military mind was not
ready for such newfangled ideas. It is of interest, however, that cal-
iber .276 was under serious study just before World War I, but the
outbreak 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 that
British troops were to have an SLR, and the ideal caliber was
thought 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 the
U.S. Pedersen rifle. Two cartridges were designed, one at .270, the
other at .276 (known as the .280 in typically perverse British fash-
ion). The .270 cartridge soon turned out to be too underpowered
and 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 the

Belgians 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 Royal

Small Arms Factory under the control of Noel Kent-Lemon, who de-
cided on the bullpup concept as the basis for his work. One design
team 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, with
a number of steel pressings in its manufacture. The steel pressings
proved impossible to obtain reliably, and this design was scrapped.
The other team, under Stefan Janson (and Stalowa Wola on
weapons design), came up with a successful design that was to be
the center of an international storm.

The EM2, as the new rifle was known, was also a bullpup design

and suffered from being somewhat complex in the field. Neverthe-
less it was a good design, and the developers had high hopes for the
weapon in comparative tests that were due to take place in 1950.
Standardization of weapons and ammunition, especially in NAT O
and between the United States and the United Kingdom, had been a
dream for years, but little had come of it, with the two world wars
intervening to delay the process. In 1950, however, the dream might
have come true if it had not been for the efforts of Colonel René

SELF-LOADING RIFLES

141

Studler (director of ordnance for the U.S. Army, based at Springfield
Armory) and others. Colonel Studler already had a pet project, the
T25 (later the M14), and it seems that he was unwilling to allow any
other weapon to stand in the way of his ambition to provide the next
generation of service rifles for the U.S. Army. The fact that NATO
was now in existence, and standardization the watchword, mattered
little in his approach to the problem.

The tests began in February 1950, and Janson and Kent-Lemon

led the British designers together with A. W. Dunclift from the .280
Ideal Caliber Panel, a group set up to examine the whole concept of
caliber change in the British A r m y.

5 4

The brief for the tests laid

down 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 and
then 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 appears
likely that a rifle meeting the above requirements will replace several
present shoulder weapons.

The British EM2 performed well and actually proved more than a

match for the U.S. T25 and the FN .280 caliber rifle, the other
competitors. However, this was not entirely to the liking of the U.S.
observers, and Lucian Cary, the American firearms writer, wrote a
most 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 would
think . . . that the British had no business developing a new rifle. Our
people take the line that in introducing a new rifle the British are not
helping to standardise the military equipment of the armies of the
North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. . . . The British might retort that
we are also planning a new rifle and a new cartridge. Of course from
our point of view that’s different.

Cary comments that ammunition standardization had got

nowhere, which was true, and that all were agreed that a new,
lighter SLR was needed. The Americans, however, would not admit
the 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 of
massed enemies, as the United States was soon to learn in Korea.
Further anti-British arguments centered on the cartridge, and it was
here 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 that
this was a stumbling block of insurmountable proportions. The
Americans argued that the .280-caliber bullet did not work well over
600 yards and would not penetrate a steel helmet at 1,000 yards.
They had forgotten that the average infantry fight occurred at about
50–150 yards, and such long ranges were the stuff of dreams.

So the EM2 died a political death, and the Americans promised

that if the British would accept their new cartridge, the 7.62mm x
51mm (.30-caliber short) round, as the standard to be imposed
upon NATO, they in turn would accept the FN FAL in that caliber
as their service rifle. The British agreed, the Americans went ahead
with the eventual M14, and there was a deep frost over the Atlantic.

Britain turned to FN for its new SLR, and the British Army, after

a period of weapon development and fine-tuning, was issued with its
new service rifle, the L1A1 SLR. This rifle was in caliber 7.62mm x
51mm, the new NATO caliber, and the caliber of the U.S. M14. The
original test report on the FN .280 rifle mentioned that it was the
only rifle in the test capable of being maintained in the field without
the use of a special tool, and when the SLR was issued to British
troops 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. All
parts that were field-stripped were of a size that would not easily be
lost, 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 bolt

carrier, actuated by a gas trap about halfway along the barrel. The
gas energy was transmitted through a piston that hit the face of the
bolt carrier to start the rearward movement of the carrier and the
bolt. Extraction and ejection followed, with the bolt feeding another
round 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 the
next shot was to squeeze the trigger. Sighting was simple, with a leaf
sight mounted on a range slide from 200 to 400 yards. Loading and
unloading the magazine were easy, and the magazine latch was very
firm. The safety on the British version allowed firing single shots as

SELF-LOADING RIFLES

143

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

The SLR remained in British service until the mid-1980s, when

the fateful decision to adopt the SA80 was slowly implemented. The
legacy of the EM2 was a belief in British decision makers that the
bullpup-style weapon was the way to go. Certainly, the shorter
length of the weapon made it easier to handle in confined spaces
(such as in vehicles or when house-clearing), and it was easier to
handle 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 x
45mm NATO round. To improve accuracy it was to be equipped
with the optical Sight Unit Small Arms Trilux (SUSAT) sight, and
the choice of this sight has certainly improved the performance of
British marksmanship.

The real problem of the SA80 was that it was not thought

through, and in the haste to adopt the NATO cartridge the rifle was
“made to fit.” A report

chronicles the initially disastrous history of

this rifle from first design stage to its adoption and issue. The rifle
went 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, and
magazines were badly made. The British soldier began to have seri-
ous doubts about the weapon.

Things came to a head when British troops were engaged in the

1990–1991 Gulf War during

OPERATION GRANBY

. Following a great

deal of criticism in the newspapers, the House of Commons assem-
bled the Defence Committee to look into the problems and find out
if any solutions were, or would be, implemented. It issued a report
in 1993, and despite efforts from the British Army to cover the many
failings of the weapon, the report contains much that is admonitory.
The committee notes that it was “astonished that the Ministry [of
Defence] should accept into service, and pay for, equipment such as
the cleaning kit that appears to us to verge on the shoddy.”

There were no fewer than 32 faults with the two weapons, only

five of which were unique to the LSW (Light Support Weapon—ca-
pable of firing fully automatically from a bipod, and issued to each
infantry section as a light machinegun). The remainder were firmly
of 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 is
interesting 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. The
story 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 fight
with weapons that were unreliable and that the soldiers knew were
untrustworthy.

In common with the M16 and its variants, the SA80 also had a

dislike of dust and sand. The SA80 is described as being a “preci-
sion weapon.” The SLR, the report says, “in a sandy environment
did not require a great quantity of oil and the reason for that quite
simply was that it was a weapon of much greater tolerances.” There
is little doubt that if it had been a toss-up for the soldiers between
greater tolerances and less technology or the SA80, the choice
would 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 n
Gulf (

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 article

claims that the faults are a thing of the past, but

one 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 the
Iraq War have said that the weapon would fire the first round and
then 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 that

it does not always deliver its energy, especially at short ranges, where
it tends to go straight through the target without dumping the en-
ergy needed to wound or kill. Complaints have been made that even
three rounds at 10 or 15 yards are insufficient to knock the target
down, which is, after all, the primary aim of any infantry cartridge.
Certainly the return to a slightly larger bullet would satisfy the
longer range aficionados (although their argument is tenuous, in
that most infantrymen are unable to hit targets beyond 300 yards,
and the ranges beyond 300 yards probably belong to the medium
machine gun); most important, even with less penetrative ability the
bullet 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

SELF-LOADING RIFLES

145

their rifle was delivering a substantial amount of energy where it
was needed.

CONCLUSION

The rifle as an infantry weapon is over 200 years old. It has gone
through various important stages in development, reaching maturity
in the late nineteenth century as a bolt-action, integral magazine-
fed weapon of high accuracy, reasonable rate of fire, and adequate
killing power. It reached its apogee in this form in the Mauser Gew
98, the Lee-Enfield No. I, and the Springfield M1903 (although the
last was really a copy of the first). Soldiers, to whom performance
and reliability were paramount, liked these rifles and found little in
them 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 bring

the rifle onto a par with its forerunner, the long bow. The long bow
had been rightly famous for its range, firepower, and effect; these
factors were not exceeded by rifles until the very last years of the
nineteenth century, and it is reasonable to suppose that had one of
the armies at Waterloo or even Sebastopol fought with the long bow
the effect upon the enemy would have been equal if not greater. The
long 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 quite
convinced 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 repeating
weapon, it was this weapon that caused far more death than the rifle
ever would. From World War I there are statistics to show that the
machinegun was far more a killing machine than the rifle, and that
artillery far outperformed the machinegun in dealing death out on
the battlefield.

H o w e v e r, the individual infantryman cannot be expected to go

into battle without a personal weapon, so the rifle has survived as a

146

RIFLES

local warfare weapon, even though it is not particularly effective in
comparison with the machinegun and the artillery piece. But in-
fantrymen have, time and time again, been issued weapons that
were suspect in their reliability and/or performance even before they
got into their hands. The M14, M16, and SA80 rifles are perhaps
the best known of these weapons because of the speed with which
news travels around the world these days. But the Martini-Henry
was prone to jam, and the Prussian needle rifle and the Fr e n c h
Chassepôt had their faults too; the story is ever the same.

It is of fundamental importance to all nations that will send their

men into battle to send their men armed with a weapon that will
function in all conditions, does not require excessive maintenance
in 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 must
be trained to aim his weapon at the target he wishes to hit. Far too
often television shows infantry firing their weapons blindly over or
around cover in the belief that noise alone will deter the enemy
from approaching. This fallacy is not restricted to the armed militias
and insurgents of Third World countries.

H o w e v e r, the emphasis must lie in providing reliable battlefield

rifles that will inflict sufficient damage on the target so that it is re-
moved from the possibility of causing harm to the user of the
weapon. To have the “very latest” in technology does not ensure that
the individual will be able to use it, or that it will always work; it is
far 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 of
those who will depend upon them for their lives. The technologies
may change, but there is no substitute for giving new weapons to
troops away from the battlefield initially and letting them try to de-
stroy them. Testers must think along the lines of those who will use
the weapon for real: will it go on firing, can it be fired without too
much distress, can it hit the target, and if so, does the target stay
down 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.

SELF-LOADING RIFLES

147

4. Of Mr. Regulus Pilon, a patent for recocking the hammer by barrel

recoil (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 in

facsimile 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 kurz

Patrone, in 1942 as the Maschinenkarabiner Patrone S, in 1943 and 1944
as 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 gun
rather 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. See
Edward 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 senior
men at Springfield Armory. The argument is nevertheless valid that to sup-
ply two ammunition calibers to infantry overcomplicates matters. The
British Army has, however, gone this way without serious problems, using
the 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 the
primer to bulge against the striker, giving sufficient energy to push the
striker back some .02/.03 inch, which was enough movement to operate
the lock. As the breech opened there was still enough gas pressure in the
barrel to force the working parts back for the full operating stroke to take
place, ejecting the spent cartridge case and then reloading and recocking
the weapon ready for the next shot.

17. Together with 101,000 modified ’03 rifles and 69 million rounds of

ammunition. 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 when

the British were arguing in favor of a similar caliber round for the EM2
SLR, while Colonel Studler and the U.S. Ordnance Board prevailed in
their choice of the 7.62mm x 52mm cartridge, which became the NATO
standard.

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-inch
caliber. This last was a stumbling block to approval by Congress, which, as
Garand rightly concluded, would be more likely to approve funds for a
change of rifle or a change of ammunition, but not both.

20. A turning bolt is one that locks into barrel recesses at the moment of

firing, ensuring a complete seal around the cartridge until the gas pressure
has dropped to a safe level. At this point the turning bolt is already rotating
to 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 a
four minute session with the Pedersen, they experienced no ‘appreciable
fatigue or ill effects.’ Furthermore, while the Springfield rifle barrels be-
came so hot they scorched their wooden stocks [sic], none of the Pedersens
overheated.” 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 late
1920s 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,” 2

October 1961, when it was presented to the Hon. Richard B. Russell,
Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services.

SELF-LOADING RIFLES

149

35. Donald L. Hall, in Effectiveness Study of the infantry Rifle, “Ballis-

tic Experience in Korea,” contained in the wound ballistic survey by the
U.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 Model

1891 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 7
Story. 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 by
Simonov and Kalashnikov as a primer in SLR theory and technology. Other
books 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 when

the muzzle was elevated, the recoil springs were not powerful enough to
push the breech block forward enough for it to lock.

43. Fedor Vasil’evich Tokarev (1871–1968). He also designed machine

guns 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 Arisaka
rifles and millions of 6.5mm x 51SR cartridges had been bought by Russia
for 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 ordinary
rifles.” 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, the

AKM, the PKM machine gun, the AK74, the PK, PKS and PKT machine
guns, 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. The

U.S. Army insisted upon a bolt-closing device, and no cleaning equipment
was issued with the rifle. The bolt-closing device was a throwback to the
Garand M1, which sometimes needed the cocking lever rammed home
when firing blank, because the cartridge, being shorter than the ball round,
did not always seat properly. The lack of cleaning equipment for early
M16s is a criminal error, as was the lack of a ramrod.

53. The Belgians called it the British Intermediate Cartridge, but it was

known 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, the

current 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 Weapon
for Use by UK Armed Forces.” Army Doctrine and Training News, 18 (Win-
ter 2002/2003): 2ff.

SELF-LOADING RIFLES

151

Significant Rifles and

Rifle Systems

153

A rudimentary but effective method of
firing muskets, the matchlock allowed
the firer to control the match and aim
at the same time. In previous musket-
firing systems the firer had to aim and
then apply the match that he held in his
hand, thus causing delay and increasing
i n a c c u r a c y. This simple mechanism
produced the first mechanical means of
firing in weapons and subsequently cre-

ated the trigger. The illustration shows
the pan, in which the primary charge
was inserted, with its weather cover
that allows movement when the
weapon is loaded. By pressing the trig-
ger the link pulls on the lever at the
rear, bringing the lit match into contact
with the primary powder in the pan,
thus firing the weapon.

154

MATCHLOCK SYSTEM

MATCHLOCK SYSTEM

Royal Armouries

This is an example of the standard of
engineering and metalworking that
emerged during the days of plate ar-
mour. The standards were exceptionally
high, as shown by this fine example of a
wheel lock from the Royal A r m o u r i e s

collection. (See the text for a detailed
explanation of the working of the wheel
lock.) As noted in Chapter 1, wheel
locks were extremely expensive, and
were never in general military issue.

WHEEL LOCK SYSTEM

155

WHEEL LOCK SYSTEM

Royal Armouries

The flintlock was the invention that al-
lowed the issuing of firearms to mass
armies. Although flints might only last
for 20 or 30 rounds, their capacity for
volley firing was equivalent to that of
the long bow, and their performance on
the battlefield showed that firepower
could effectively penetrate body and

horse armour. The only problem was
range, which was limited to an effective
30 to 50 yards. Indeed, it is quite possi-
ble that until rifling and bolt actions
were invented, armies would have had
better firepower and range had they
kept the long bow in service.

156

FLINTLOCK SYSTEM

FLINTLOCK SYSTEM

Royal Armouries

This multishot musket from the Royal
Armouries shows that attempts were
made to increase the rate of fire even
with the flintlock system. This weapon
has no fewer than six charges, which
are loaded sequentially into the barrel.
The lock is then positioned at charge
six, and the first round fired. Positions

five to one are then engaged and the
charge fired. It is doubtful if this was
ever a battlefield weapon, however, be-
cause it would take a long time to re-
load and a brave man to fire what could
be six rounds at once if the loading had
been at all careless.

MULTI-SHOT MUSKET SYSTEM

157

MULTI-SHOT MUSKET SYSTEM

Royal Armouries

158

LORENZONI SYSTEM

LORENZONI SYSTEM

Royal Armouries

Another method of reloading was the
Lorenzoni system.

A. This pistol, shown with the round

hole at the top for loading the ball mag-
azine, and the rectangular hole below
for charging the powder magazine, il-
lustrates the much safer method of the
Lorenzoni system than the reloading
system of the multishot musket.

B. The actuating lever on the side of

the pistol is used to rotate the central
loading mechanism that is shown here
ready to load the ball, which goes into

the chamber first. Further rotation of
the lever leads to position B where the
powder is loaded. The bar across the
chamber stops a second ball from being
loaded, which would be highly danger-
ous. The lever is then returned to the
start position at the side of the pistol,
the pan charged, and the weapon is
ready 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 at
some length in the text, and this is the
weapon that should have revolutionized
British firearms and given the British
Army a lead that it would have kept dur-
ing the Napoleonic Wars. The result of

using this weapon would have changed
the speed at which Napoleon was de-
f e a t e d .

The top view shows the rifle with the

chamber open for loading, and the
combination trigger guard and actuat-

160

FERGUSON SYSTEM

FERGUSON SYSTEM

With 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 half
cock. The lower picture shows the actu-
ating lever, which also acted as the trig-
ger guard.

This particular weapon is on show at

the Weapons Collection of the Small
Arms School Corps Depot at the

School of Land Warfare in Warminster
in Wiltshire, England, and is still in
working condition. It was made for
Colonel Ferguson by the renowned
sporting-gunmaker Durs Egg in Lon-
don. The engineering skills used to
match the male and female parts still
elicit admiration for the skill with
which they were made.

FERGUSON SYSTEM

161

Further details of the Ferguson rifle,
showing (in the top picture) the trigger
guard/actuating lever and the important
male plug of the mechanism. The lower
picture shows the female counterpart
inside the rifle itself, and the breech
can also be seen. Loading was simple:
the rifle was held muzzle down and a

ball was dropped in, falling by gravity
into the breech. Powder was then
loaded into the chamber, the screw
closing was then operated, and surplus
powder on top of the breech was
brushed into the pan for firing. (Details
of Colonel Fe r g u s o n ’s performance
with his rifle are given in the text.)

162

FERGUSON SYSTEM, DETAIL

FERGUSON SYSTEM, DETAIL

With Permission of the Infantry and SASC Weapons Collection, UK

This photograph shows early rifling at
the muzzle of a rifled musket. The cru-
dity of the rifling method is clear, and
the improvement in accuracy was not

truly apparent until breech-loading ri-
fles and cylindro-conoidal bullets were
invented.

RIFLING AT MUZZLE

163

RIFLING AT MUZZLE

With Permission of the Infantry and SASC Weapons Collection, UK

The Baker belted ball and a standard
cylindro-conoidal ball. The Baker rifle,
adopted by the British Army in 1800,
fired a ball designed to fit into grooves
cut 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. The
Snider ball is simply a lump of lead but
with a better ballistic shape, and two
compression grooves that allowed the
ball to be squeezed into the rifling bar-
rel under pressure from the propellant.

164

BAKER AND SNIDER BALLS

BAKER AND SNIDER BALLS

With Permission of the Infantry and SASC Weapons Collection, UK

The percussion system brought a sim-
pler method of firing as well as an end
to the worry that powder in the pan
would get wet or blow away. Percussion
caps were made by stamping the cap
out from sheet copper, pouring in a liq-
uid explosive primer, and then applying
lacquer to waterproof the whole object.

The Minié ball was the invention of

Captain Claude-Etienne Minié, which
appeared in 1840. It was essentially a

base-expanding bullet that contained a
plug in its base to assist in the expan-
sion. It suited muzzle-loading weapons
in that it was loaded as a subcalibre
round, which only expanded to the full
calibre under the pressure of the pro-
pellant gases when the weapon was
fired. This ball caused many of the hor-
rible wounds inflicted on both sides
during the U.S. Civil War.

PERCUSSION CAPS AND MINIÉ BALL

165

PERCUSSION CAPS AND MINIÉ BALL

With 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 tape
containing a sealed capsule of detonat-

ing compound. The mechanism elimi-
nated the need to recap after every shot
with a percussion cap by providing a
magazine of priming compound that
advanced with every shot. It was a sim-

166

MAYNARD TAPE PRIMER

MAYNARD TAPE PRIMER

With Permission of the Infantry and SASC Weapons Collection, UK

ple idea, worked well, and was above all
cheap and easy to make. This photo-
graph shows the mechanism with the

magazine door open. The hammer of
the weapon simply pushed a new
primer into place.

MAYNARD TAPE PRIMER

167

This photograph shows the Maynard
tape primer fitted to a Sharps lever-
action carbine. The Sharps had to be
manually loaded for every shot, but
users no longer had to carry loose

primers that were easily lost; instead,
they carried a paper roll of Maynard’s
capsules with which to fire their rifles.
It was a great step forward on the road
to automatic fire.

168

SHARPS-FITTED MAYNARD TAPE PRIMER

SHARPS-FITTED MAYNARD TAPE PRIMER

With Permission of the Infantry and SASC Weapons Collection, UK

Perhaps the most momentous step in
weaponry during the American Civil
War was the Spencer system, as re-
ferred to in the text. This weapon was a
tube magazine lever action repeater, fir-
ing a composite cartridge with an inte-
gral primer. It had taken some fifty
years to get from the flintlock to this ri-
fle, and it was an advancement of great
significance. The tube magazine held

seven rounds of rimfire ammunition,
which was loaded into the chamber by
means of the lever action (shown in the
photograph). The hammer needed to be
cocked manually for every shot, but the
increase in the rate of fire was phenom-
enal. Reloading was simple, and the
tube magazine is very easy to extract
and replace.

SPENCER SYSTEM

169

SPENCER SYSTEM

With Permission of the Infantry and SASC Weapons Collection, UK

The Jennings Volcanic Rifle fired a
composite cartridge, but unfortunately
the mechanism was complex and ex-
pensive to produce. The original car-
tridge was invented by Walter Hunt as

the Volition Ball, and the rifles were
made by the Volcanic Repeating
Firearms Company of New Haven,
Connecticut.

170

JENNINGS VOLCANIC RIFLE SYSTEM

JENNINGS VOLCANIC RIFLE SYSTEM

Royal Armouries

The Martini-Henry system adopted by
the British Army. Despite trials of many
breech-loading systems, the British
Army was still looking for a reliable sys-
tem when the Martini-Henry was intro-
duced. The system has a falling block
secured by a pivot pin, and is operated
by the lever shown at the rear of the

trigger guard in the lower picture.
Pressing down on this lever dropped
the breech, cocked the action, and also
activated the extractors at either side of
the breech. The extractors, in turn,
pulled the spent case from the chamber
with enough force to eject it. A new car-
tridge was then loaded and pushed into

MARTINI-HENRY SYSTEM

171

MARTINI-HENRY SYSTEM

Royal Armouries

the breech. The lever was then re-
turned to the closed position, closing
the breech, and the rifle was ready to
fire.

The system was vulnerable to sand

and other foreign bodies and was not a
complete success. It was adopted at a
time when the French and Prussian

Armies were already issued with rudi-
mentary bolt action single-shot rifles.
Innovations to attach magazines to
bolt-action rifles were available at the
time, but the British Army of the nine-
teenth century was not renowned for its
forward-looking attitude with respect to
firearms for the troops.

172

MARTINI-HENRY SYSTEM

American Benjamin Tyler Henry in-
vented the lever action system, which
was incorporated into the first Wi n c h e s-
ter system in 1866. The photographs
here show the original lever action pro-
totype. The rifle shown is a single-shot

breech loader. The top photo shows the
action closed, and in the bottom photo
it is open to receive a new cartridge. The
cartridge was a composite, and the fir-
ing pin is seen just behind the hammer
in the upper photograph.

HENRY EXPERIMENTAL SYSTEM

173

HENRY EXPERIMENTAL SYSTEM

Royal Armouries

In America the Winchester rifle gained
a fervent and approving following be-
cause it was reasonably accurate and
lightweight, and it could fire more than
one shot, unlike the rifle muskets and
Sharps rifles used during the U.S. Civil
War. The Spencer had led the way, but
had fallen by the wayside. The Wi n-
chester manufacturers took up the
challenge and made their famous series
of rifles, which continue to be pro-
duced to this day.

The upper photograph shows the ac-

tion with the lever down, the hammer
cocked, and the charging/loading plate
at 45 degrees. The plate carries a car-
tridge from the tube magazine below
the barrel to the loading position; when
the lever is returned to the up position
a cartridge is pushed into the chamber.

The toggles, which link the lever to

the mechanism, are shown; compare
the position in the two photographs.

174

WINCHESTER SYSTEM

WINCHESTER SYSTEM

Royal Armouries

They are linked to the external lever
through the lever extension.

The tube magazine is exactly the

same as the Spencer but is integral.

Cartridges are loaded through a gate on
the right side of the body and are under
pressure from a spring located at the
muzzle end of the magazine tube.

WINCHESTER SYSTEM

175

Bethel Burton of Brooklyn, New Yo r k ,
patented two rifle systems, which are
shown here. The first was a simple lever
action single-shot with a falling block
and percussion firing (Rifle No. 1). His
bolt action was more in keeping with
European designs (Rifle No. 2). It was
very similar to the Chassepôt and

Dreyse bolt actions from France and
G e r m a n y. A single-shot, manually
loaded rifle, it fired a composite car-
tridge and the firing pin was contained
within the bolt. Rifle No. 2 is a very
crude weapon, but the principle of the
bolt action is shown clearly.

176

BETHEL BURTON SYSTEMS

BETHEL BURTON SYSTEMS

Royal Armouries

The Dreyse needle rifle is referred to
i n the text. The photographs show the
weapon with the action closed and open.
The angle of the bolt arm is 45 degrees
from vertical when the action is closed.

The bolt was a simple device, with

two main components: the bolt housing
and the firing pin assembly. The actual
needle (shown in the bottom photo-
graph) was the problem with this sys-

DREYSE SYSTEM

177

DREYSE SYSTEM

Royal Armouries

tem: it was prone to distortion or break-
ing as well as corrosion, because it was
within the chamber when the rifle was
fired, surrounded by the burning pro-
pellant.

The bolt action arrived in Europe

(see the photo of the Bethel Burton
System for the American version), and
it 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 military
contracts. 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 single
hand movement, and to reload directly
into the breech. By returning the lever
to the rear position the weapon is ready
to fire. Note that this is a percussion
system.

WESTLEY RICHARDS SYSTEM

179

WESTLEY RICHARDS SYSTEM

Royal Armouries

Henry breech system. The lever on the
right of the rolling breech block opens
and closes the action, and the weapon
is a percussion arm. The action is very
similar 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 avoid
other patents, which became a signifi-
cant obstacle.

180

HENRY SYSTEM

HENRY SYSTEM

Royal Armouries

The Bartley and Sillom system of
breech closing. When the Ordnance
Committee advertised its proposed tests
of new rifle-loading and breech-closing
systems 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 the
lever shown in the center photograph,
and the converted weapon is the rifle

BARTLEY AND SILLOM SYSTEM

181

BARTLEY AND SILLOM SYSTEM

Royal Armouries

musket that was standard issue to the
British Army at the time. One of the
conditions of the early trials was that

the thousands of rifle muskets then in
existence had to be convertible, so new
designs were pit to one side.

182

BARTLEY AND SILLOM SYSTEM

The Bayliss breech-loading system. An-
other of the many designs appearing in
the United Kingdom intended to re-
place the rifle musket with a breech-
loading system. This example is more
complex than some. The lever below

the trigger guard releases the breech
block, but there is little room for re-
loading or for extracting the remnants
of the paper case after firing. This de-
sign was quickly rejected by examiners.

BAYLISS SYSTEM

183

BAYLISS SYSTEM

Royal Armouries

The Benson and Pappenburg system
demonstrates a slightly different ap-
proach to the problem by having a slid-
ing breech block, locked by inertia. The
firing pin is integral to the block, and

the weapon fired a composite cartridge.
As in the Bayliss system, however, the
space 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 SYSTEM

Royal Armouries

Hiram Berdan was well known in the
nineteenth century, and he held many
U.S. patents. This example is his design
for 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 his

primer system for composite cartridges.

BERDAN SYSTEM

185

BERDAN SYSTEM

Royal Armouries

This lifting block system is almost iden-
tical to the Berdan system except that it
has a centrally located firing pin as op-
posed to the eccentric firing pin of the
previous design. The hammer has an ex-
tension fitted to allow central striking.

The design is included to illustrate

the extractors, which are very clearly
shown around the breech in the lower
photograph. They were activated by the
movement of the breech block when
the breech was opened and threw the
cartridge case back into the receiver,
from where it was simply shaken out.

186

BRAENDLIN AND ALBINI SYSTEM

BRAENDLIN AND ALBINI SYSTEM

Royal Armouries

This breech loader is a step backward
in development apart from one feature.
It is a tilting chamber weapon, which is
loaded with powder and ball, but the
rammer 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 one
seventy-five years before the patent was
issued in 1856.

CAPTAIN G. A. HARRISON SYSTEM

187

CAPTAIN G. A. HARRISON SYSTEM

Royal Armouries

188

COOPER SYSTEM, SNIDER TYPE

COOPER SYSTEM, SNIDER TYPE

Royal Armouries

Another Snider-type locking rolling
breech system, this was notable be-
cause the operating lever is secured of
firing by the rifle hammer that closed

over the lever as it descended the strike
on the percussion cap. Otherwise it is a
standard rolling block system.

COOPER SYSTEM, SNIDER TYPE

189

D i n e ’s patent breech system was a
change from the rolling and lifting
blocks 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 pin
that held the breech block in place and
had to be pulled out to allow backward
movement of the breech block.

190

DINE SYSTEM

DINE SYSTEM

Royal Armouries

Another straight pull system, this was
designed by the Green Brothers of En-
gland between 1859 and 1860. The
lever at the rear (awkwardly positioned
for a left-handed user) acted as the bolt
lever. The percussion cap was protected

by the chained cap, allowing the rifle-
man to be sure that the often ill-fitting
cap stayed put while he moved. The
breech seal (obturator) is clearly seen at
the rear of the receiver in the lower
photograph.

GREEN BROTHERS SYSTEM

191

GREEN BROTHERS SYSTEM

Royal Armouries

192

GREENE RIFLE DESIGN

GREENE RIFLE DESIGN

Royal Armouries

This is an example of a rifle design of
James Durrell Greene of Cambridge,
Massachusetts, patented in the United
States in 1854. It is a percussion rifle
with a rotating barrel. The center pho-
tograph (A) shows the rifle ready for
loading and (B) shows the fire hole and
the recesses in the rifle body into which

the barrel locked. To close the weapon
after loading, the barrel was raised to
the vertical and pulled back. The lugs
engaged behind the recesses, and the
barrel was then rotated again to lock it.
It was not successful either in the
United States or in Europe.

GREENE RIFLE DESIGN

193

A tilting breech system with an integral
rammer (see the system of Captain
G. A. Harrison). Here the breech block
rotates forward and the cartridge has its
own cap. The rammer merely seats the

cartridge, but extraction probably
proved difficult. The thumb piece at the
rear acts as a breech lock and also con-
tains the firing pin.

194

COOPER SYSTEM

COOPER SYSTEM

Royal Armouries

Another example of the straight
through lever action, this one acting
from front to rear (compare to the
Westley Richards system). The photo-
graph illustrates the components well,
showing the high level of skill involved
in making this rifle. The 1856 date
refers 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 than
the year the conversion was produced.
The important aspect of the design is
the copper disc (seen in the lower pho-
tograph at the head of the action in the
receiver) that was compressed on firing
to provide the necessary obturation.
This design was by James H. Merrill of
Baltimore, Ohio.

JAMES H. MERRILL SYSTEM

195

JAMES H. MERRILL SYSTEM

Royal Armouries

A turning bolt, single-shot rifle from
James and John Kerr, gunmakers in
London, England, in the 1850s. This is
an Enfield rifle musket conversion that
fired a composite cartridge. The bolt

locks forward at the same angle as the
Dreyse (and the Dreyse System), an in-
dication that safety might have been a
problem upon firing.

196

KERR SYSTEM

KERR SYSTEM

Royal Armouries

A rather complex system, it was
patented in Great Britain in 1866. It
has a rotating section behind the
breech containing the firing mecha-

nism. Loading involved inserting single
cartridges by hand, an aspect that did
not appeal to the military for combat.

KRUTSCH SYSTEM

197

KRUTSCH SYSTEM

Royal Armouries

The Leetch system is very similar to
that of the Snider; the lever is a simple
one that releases the rolling breech
block and opens it for reloading.

The weapon is a civilian pattern, and

not for use in the military. When sub-

mitted to the Ordnance Committee in
England in 1864, the Committee noted
that it was “inferior . . . the arrange-
ment for closing the breech is very de-
fective, and no arrangement is made for
extracting the old metallic cartridge.”

198

LEETCH SYSTEM

LEETCH SYSTEM

Royal Armouries

The Sears bolt action seems to have
been a direct copy of the Dreyse system
right down to the needle firing pin, with
only the rather crude operating sleeve
mechanism. It is part of the collection

at Royal Armouries, Leeds, England,
but little information is available about
it. The Sears name does not appear as a
gunmaker in the records.

SEARS SYSTEM

199

SEARS SYSTEM

Royal Armouries

At first glance this rifle looks like the
Benson and Pappenburg (see the Ben-
son and Pappenburg System) until one
notices the purpose of the handle on
the right side of the receiver. This is a
release lever that, when pulled to the
r e a r, allows the lifting breech block to
be moved out of the receiver to allow
reloading. It also activates the extractor
once the breech block is out of the way.

The design was by Major (later Colo-

nel) G. V. Fosbery of the Indian Staff
Corps, who intended it to operate well
in conditions where there was little
room (i.e., in closed ranks). He, at
least, gave some thought to the rifle-
man who was to use his weapon; many
of the other 109 who submitted designs
at this time (prior to the competition in
1867) seemed more interested in
money than men.

200

FOSBERY SYSTEM

FOSBERY SYSTEM

Royal Armouries

At first glance this looks like a bolt-
action rifle. However, when the action
is opened, it transforms into another
lifting breech block. The important
point about this weapon is that it is a

center-fire rifle, with a concealed firing
pin and spring. However, it has no ef-
fective extractor, and the 1864 commit-
tee reported that the mechanism was
insecure.

NEEDHAM SYSTEM

201

NEEDHAM SYSTEM

Royal Armouries

202

PRINCE SYSTEM

PRINCE SYSTEM

Royal Armouries

The Prince system is another in which
the barrel is moved forward to reload.
The lever in front of the trigger guard
operates 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 the
British A r m y, but never adopted for use.

PRINCE SYSTEM

203

V. H. Burton’s patent of 1866. This rifle
was tested as part of the 1867 Breech
Loading Rifle Competition held in
Great Britain. Although it performed
well, it, like all others submitted (in-

cluding the Henry), was rejected in the
end and the Martini-Henry was
adopted by the British Army to succeed
the Snider conversion.

204

V. H. BURTON SYSTEM

V. H. BURTON SYSTEM

Royal Armouries

This rifle is included for the sole reason
of its design. It is a horizontal sliding
breech block produced by Walter Scott
of Birmingham, England, and shows
another type of breech block with an

integral firing pin. It is operated by
pulling the block to the side, an action
that was difficult in cold weather and
that increased susceptibility to dust and
rust.

SCOTT SYSTEM

205

SCOTT SYSTEM

Royal Armouries

The Carter and Edwards bolt action is
of interest because it has a concealed
bolt with internal firing pin and spring.
The weapon was patented in England

in 1866 by Henry Carter and George
W. Edwards of London. It was tested by
the British Army in 1868 but was even-
tually rejected.

206

CARTER AND EDWARDS SYSTEM

CARTER AND EDWARDS SYSTEM

Royal Armouries

This rifle design combines the early
promise of the Ferguson rifle during the
1860s, although the Royal A r m o u r i e s
have no paperwork on the weapon. It
has a Ferguson-type loading recess (but
without the screw threads and lever of

that weapon), and is operated by means
of the straight-pull lever shown in the
lower photograph. It was not consid-
ered for use by the British Army or
other militaries.

UNKNOWN FERGUSON-TYPE SYSTEM

207

UNKNOWN FERGUSON-TYPE SYSTEM

Royal Armouries

Another unknown design included to
show the unusual lengths gun designers
go to when trying to avoid infringement
of patent law in the British courts.

The action has a cover plate that has

to be unlocked and moved to the left
before the breech block can be ac-
cessed. This is then rotated forward to
give access to the breech. There is no
extraction system.

208

UNKNOWN SYSTEM

UNKNOWN SYSTEM

Royal Armouries

BURTON SYSTEM

209

BURTON SYSTEM

Royal Armouries

The Burton lever-action rifle. An exam-
ple of the genre with a vertical, lever-
actuated breech block. The weapon is a
fine example of this system. Safety
upon firing is guaranteed by the breech

block, which is very firmly set within
the action. Note that the percussion fir-
ing system is independent of the breech
action.

210

BURTON SYSTEM

This Mauser Gew 98k fitted with a tele-
scopic sight also has a so-called winter
trigger attached around the trigger
guard. The weather conditions in Rus-
sia were so extreme that operating a
weapon became dangerous; metal could
become so cold that it would strip the

flesh from a finger in seconds. The Ger-
mans designed the expedient shown
here, which permitted firing even with
mittens on. Needless to say, the accu-
racy of the weapon would have fallen
far below expectations even with the
telescopic sight.

MAUSER GEW 98K WITH WINTER TRIGGER

211

MAUSER GEW 98K WITH WINTER TRIGGER

Royal Armouries

The Russian Mosin-Nagant with a tele-
scopic sight. The sight mounting is
rather rudimentary and the firer would
be likely to flinch because the sight is
so close to the eye. However, Russian
snipers were extremely successful dur-

ing World War II, and Ivan Sidorenko
accumulated over 500 kills to his credit
by the end of the war. Interestingly, the
record holder is Finland’s Simo Hayha
with 542 kills, but it is not known
which weapon he was using.

212

MOSIN-NAGANT RIFLE

MOSIN-NAGANT RIFLE

Royal Armouries

The Springfield ’03 bolt-action rifle.
This weapon was the mainstay of the
U.S. Army from its first issue to about
1942, when it was replaced finally by
the M1 Garand. It was a direct copy of

the Mauser Gew 98, for which the U.S.
government paid belated royalties after
World War I. It could also be fitted with
a telescopic sight for sniper work, and
was well regarded in that role.

SPRINGFIELD ’03 RIFLE

213

SPRINGFIELD ’03 RIFLE

Royal 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 as
a killing weapon up to 600 yards on the
battlefield.

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 SCOPE

Royal Armouries

The British Army had to enter the arena
of the sniper during World War I, but,
in true British fashion, was not willing
to make any radical changes to stan-
dard service rifles. The British Lee-
Enfield No. 1 rifle was chosen as the
a r m y ’s standard issue, onto which the
telescopic sight was to be grafted. How-
e v e r, to preserve the loading method
adopted by the British—the clip or
charger of five rounds was inserted
from the top of the breechway—the
sight had to be set away from the natu-
ral line of sight to the left, as is shown
here.

This actually affected the zeroing of

the sight quite significantly and meant
that the rifle was not as accurate as it
should have been.

The reasoning behind this decision

was 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 totally
acceptable types, in that they tended to
operate alone and sneak around, rather
than standing up in regimental fashion
and presenting themselves as easy tar-
gets.

All sniper scopes are designed to

magnify the view of the target, which is
an effective method for shortening the
apparent range of view. Snipers can
therefore engage targets from much
greater distances than the average in-
fantryman, who is only equipped with
iron sights. Snipers operate mainly in
teams of two: one sniper observes while
the other operates the weapon. Each
performs his specific task for about two
hours (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 techniques
so they can approach a firing position,
take a shot or series of shots, and then
exit the firing position without being
observed by the enemy. They are re-
garded by other infantrymen as rather
strange individuals who have far more
freedom on the battlefield than the or-
dinary soldier; in reality, they are first-
rate shooters who contribute greatly to
damaging enemy morale by killing offi-
cers and other pivotal personnel at long
range.

216

RIFLE SYSTEM

216

WWI SNIPER SCOPE

In the same class as the Mondragon
and similar early-twentieth-century ex-
perimental self-loading rifles (SLRs)
stands the Fa r q u h a r-Hill, which fired
the standard British service cartridge of
that period.

A lot of trial work was carried out by

the British Army with self-loading rifles.
A large number of designs were tested
between 1900 and the outbreak of
World War I. Very few were of British
design, but this is one of the few. It was
first tested in May 1908 but had many
failures. Designed by Major H. J. Fa r-

q u h a r-Hill, who produced several de-
signs, the rifle was tried in the United
States late in World War I using a
drum-type magazine, but was never ac-
cepted, probably in part because of the
success of the Pedersen device, which
seemed to offer so much in terms of
firepower and ease of use.

Note the forward handgrip, designed

to improve stability when firing; it is
still used on many contemporary self-
loading weapons.

Cartridge:

.303 British

FARQUHAR-HILL SELF-LOADING RIFLE

217

FARQUHAR-HILL SELF-LOADING RIFLE

With 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 were
made) featured the rather awkward for-
ward handgrip. It is an important
weapon in the development of the
semiautomatic rifle.

C a rt r i d g e :

6.5 x 51SR Arisaka ( J a p a-

nese cartridge)

Length:

38.38 in

Weight:

9 lb 13 oz

Barrel:

20.47 in (6 right-hand grooves)

Magazine:

25-round box (detachable)

MV:

2313 fps

218

FEDEROV AVF AVTOMAT

FEDEROV AVF AVTOMAT

Royal Armouries

This rifle was made at Springfield A r-
moury and was also known as the T2E1
rifle. It was a delayed blow-back, toggle
system semiautomatic weapon. It was
also made in the United Kingdom by
Vickers as the Vickers Automatic Rifle.
The toggle action is clearly seen in the
illustration. The weapon was compli-
cated and not acceptable for military
purposes because the toggle action
caused 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 strength
of the .30-06 cartridge lobby at the
time. In fact it was a very good car-
tridge and would have been of great
value in itself.

Length:

45 in

Weight:

9 lb 0 oz

Barrel:

24 in (6 right-hand grooves)

Magazine:

10-round box

MV:

2,500 fps

PEDERSEN RIFLE

219

PEDERSEN RIFLE

Royal Armouries

The Pedersen device was intended to
provide advancing U.S. infantry with
very high firepower during assault. It
was designed during World War I as a
modification of the Springfield 1903 ri-
fle. A special bolt fed .30-calibre pistol
cartridges from the magazine into the
barrel. The magazine projected up and
to the right of the breech. The device
was designed in 1915 and was tested in
1917. Over 130,000 were ordered by
the U.S. Army to be used in the spring
offensive of 1919. Later in the war, the
orders totalled 500,000 when Pedersen
was also asked to modify the M1917
Enfield rifle.

The device was interchangeable with

the standard rifle bolt, and when in po-
sition it gave each rifleman a 40-round
semiautomatic weapon.

The end of World War I arrived too

early for it to go into action, but about
65,000 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 until
March 1920, producing some 145,000
M1903 modifications. One wonders
why they were not informed of the
change in plans, but perhaps news of
the end of the war had little effect on
General Crozier (then chief of ord-
nance).

220

PEDERSEN DEVICE

PEDERSEN DEVICE

Royal 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 was
responsible for the creation of the
range of rifles that bear his name, and
which were issued to the Soviet A r m y
during World War II.

There were three of these rifles: the

SVT 38, the SVT 40, and the SKT 40
carbine. The illustration shows the SVT
40, perhaps the most commonly used
version. 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 small
numbers in an attempt to increase sec-
tion (squad) firepower, but was not a
popular weapon.

C a rt r i d g e :

7.62 x 54 mm R (Russian

design)

Length:

48.1 in

Weight:

9 lb 8 oz

Barrel:

25 in

Magazine:

10-round detachable box

MV:

2,520 fps

Rate of fire:

30 rpm

TOKAREV RIFLES

221

TOKAREV RIFLES

Royal Armouries

As mentioned in the text, the Garand
was an effective service rifle. It was
semiautomatic, relatively easy to operate
and maintain, and served throughout
World War II and in the Korean War.

Loading was an easy procedure in

that a clip of only eight rounds was in-
serted into the weapon. However, clips
could not easily be reloaded, and a
weapon 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 of
the clip ejecting (an automatic proce-

dure) enabled the enemy to know when
rifles were empty.

The weapon first appeared in 1932,

but U.S. Army units had to wait a long
time before issue, with some receiving
the rifle only after the start of Wo r l d
War II.

A number of improvements were

later incorporated into the design, some
of which were unsuccessful, such as
the M1E5, which was too short and de-
livered excessive muzzle blast. A
s n i p e r ’s version was also designed, but
most snipers preferred the Springfield

222

GARAND M1 RIFLE

GARAND M1 RIFLE

With Permission of the Infantry and SASC Weapons Collection, UK

bolt-action 1903 rifle over the M1
sniper rifle, which experienced prob-
lems with reloading.

The photograph shows the complete

weapon as well as a view of the open
breech, into which the cartridge clip
(also shown) was inserted. The car-
tridge follower, which sequentially
forced cartridges up into the loading
position, can be seen inside the breech.

Cartridge:

.30-06 Springfield

Length:

43.5 in

Weight:

9 lb 8 oz

Barrel:

24 in (with 4 right-hand

grooves)

Magazine:

8-round integral

MV:

2,740 fps

GARAND M1 RIFLE

223

The need for a weapon that was shorter
and lighter than the M1 Garand
evolved 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 easily
kept in a vehicle and also easily de-
ployed from the vehicle. The carbine
was for personal protection at short
range, rather than for general battle-
field use.

The semiautomatic principle was

popular with the U.S. military by the
start of World War II, and it was en-

tirely logical that this weapon was de-
signed and issued. That it was made by
Winchester is a happy coincidence, be-
cause it continued the long association
of the Winchester company with the
U.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 in

Weight:

5 lb 3 oz

Barrel:

18 in

Magazine:

15- or 30-round box

MV:

1,970 fps

224

WINCHESTER .30 CALIBRE CARBINE

WINCHESTER .30 CALIBRE CARBINE

With Permission of the Infantry and SASC Weapons Collection, UK

The value of the Winchester .30-calibre
carbine was immediately appreciated,
especially by airborne troops, upon its
manufacture. There was a need to
shorten the weapon even further when
it was not in use, and so a wire folding
stock was used. The photograph shows
this development. The carbine in this

form was used by U.S. rangers and air-
borne troops, and was also dropped into
France for use by the Resistance.

Characteristics of the M1A1 are

identical to those of the M1 carbine,
except that the weight was increased by
6 ounces.

WINCHESTER M1A1 CARBINE

225

WINCHESTER M1A1 CARBINE

With Permission of the Infantry and SASC Weapons Collection, UK

During World War II, German weapons
designers were told by the German
Army that more firepower was needed
on the battlefield to face the hordes of
Russian troops in the east. The MG42
provided some relief, due to its phe-
nomenal firepower and relative free-
dom from stoppages, but the number of
troops was decreasing, which meant
fewer riflemen, so the army hoped to
increase 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 and
Wa l t h e r. The Mauser version proved
unpopular, because the action was awk-
ward. The Walther version was much
more successful, because the weapon
was easy to operate. These rifles fired
the standard rifle cartridge instead of
the short version.

Cartridge:

7.92 x 57 mm Mauser

Length:

44.5 in

Weight:

11 lb

Barrel:

21.45 in (4 right-hand grooves)

Magazine:

10-round detachable box

MV:

2,365 fps

226

GERMAN G41 SLR

GERMAN G41 SLR

Royal Armouries

Sergei Gavrilovich Simonov designed
this conventional self-loading rifle just
after World War II. It fires the standard
short 7.62 mm round and is gas oper-
ated. Because of the popularity of the
AK47, the SKS was not issued generally
as a service rifle. Instead it appeared
more often as a ceremonial weapon be-

cause it was easier to use in a drill than
the AK47 with its overly long magazine.

Cartridge:

7.62 x 39 mm

Length:

40.2 in

Weight:

8 lb 8 oz

Barrel:

4 right-hand grooves

MV:

2,410 fps

Rate of fire:

20 rpm

SOVIET SKS RIFLE

227

SOVIET SKS RIFLE

Royal Armouries

The standard German sniper rifle was
the Kar 98k fitted with a telescopic
sight. When SLR weapons were issued
for combat it was inevitable that some
would be considered for sniper use, and
this G41 has been fitted with a tele-

scope. However, snipers do not rely on
rapid fire but rather on the single,
aimed killing shot, and semiautomatic
rifles have little significance in this area
of work on the battlefield.

228

GERMAN G41 FITTED FOR SNIPER WORK

GERMAN G41 FITTED FOR SNIPER WORK

Royal Armouries

The German airborne forces were an
elite arm called the Luftwaffe, or Ger-
man Air Force. Their weapons require-
ment for a selective fire weapon had the
immediate backing of Reichsmarschall
Hermann Goering, who commissioned
the firm of Rheinmetall to design and
build this rifle in a very short time.

The weapon has an integral bipod

and bayonet. It fires from a closed bolt
in semiautomatic fire but from an open
bolt on automatic. The design is similar
to the M16 in that it is a straight line ri-
fle, built with the intent to reduce muz-
zle movement through better recoil
control. The bipod is a flimsy one, and
is set to provide a high profile when
used with the weapon.

The main defect of the weapon is

that it fires the originally loaded in-
fantry rifle cartridge, which is too pow-
erful in the fully automatic mode. It
would have been a far better weapon if
it had fired the 7.92 kurz cartridge de-
veloped for the assault rifle range (see
also the MP44).

Cartridge:

7.92 x 57 mm Mauser

Length:

37 in

Weight:

9 lb 15 oz

Barrel:

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, as
this unbalances the weapon)

MV:

2,500 fps

Rate of fire:

750 rpm (at the top end

of the effective rate)

FALSCHIRMJAEGERGEWEHR 42

229

THE FALSCHIRMJAEGERGEWEHR 42

Royal Armouries

Development work on rifles to fire the
new 7.92 mm (kurz) cartridge was done
by Haenel and Wa l t h e r, two top-level
weapons designers in Germany during
the Third Reich. The Haenel design
was tested on the Russian front and be-
came the MP43, and later the MP44
and STG44. This Walther weapon
(some 8,000 were made) did not enjoy
the same success.

Cartridge:

7.92 x 39 mm kurz

Length:

36.65 in

Weight:

9 lb 11 oz

Barrel:

16 in (4 right-hand grooves)

Magazine:

30-round detachable box

MV:

2,120 fps

Rate of fire:

600 rpm

230

WALTHER PROTOTYPE SLR RIFLE

WALTHER PROTOTYPE SLR RIFLE

Royal Armouries

Although many assault and semiauto-
matic rifles had been designed prior to
1944, they all had one drawback, which
was that the magazines fitted to them
contained only ten rounds. This was
sufficient for bolt action weapons, but
not for the higher rate of fire needed
from an assault rifle. This feature was
also inefficient in that it required the
user to reload during the critical assault
phase of an attack.

The MP44 solved this problem with

the 30-round box magazine. This (like
the magazine on the AK47) caused

problems in firing in the prone position,
but these weapons were designed to be
fired while standing up and on the
move.

The data below apply to the MP43,

MP44, and StG44.

Cartridge:

7.92 x 33 mm (kurz)

Length:

37 in

Weight:

11.51 lb

Barrel:

16.5 in

Magazine:

30-round detachable box

MV:

3,132 fps

Rate of fire:

500 rpm

MP44 ASSAULT RIFLE

231

MP44 ASSAULT RIFLE

Royal Armouries

The StG44 (Sturmgewehr44 —A s s a u l t
Rifle Model 1944) was the first of many
effective assault rifles. Some experts ar-
gue that the Kalashnikov AK47 was a
copy of this weapon, but this was not
so. The Russians conducted indepen-
dent, parallel experiments with the Ger-

mans using lower power rounds, work-
ing on the principle that (1) infantry
needed more battle range firepower,
and (2) the firepower had to be issued
from a controllable weapon.

The Russian 7.62 x 39mm round was

designed in the late 1930s; the German

232

GERMAN STG44 RIFLE

GERMAN STG44 RIFLE

Royal Armouries

7.92 x 33mm kurz appeared in 1941
(originally designed for the MKB42).
The German round was modified to
some extent before it became the issue
round for the StG44.

The drawings in this illustration are

all taken from the original instruction
manual on the weapon, and show:

A. The weapon from the left-hand

side

B. The weapon from the right-hand

side

C. Parts of the weapon:
C1. The detachable butt stock
C2. The piston
C3. The breech block (including firing

pin and extractor)

C4. The return spring
C5. The gun body, showing the body-

locking pin

C6. The 30-round distinctive box mag-

azine. It is probably the similarity
between this magazine and that of
the AK47 that leads to some confu-
sion as to whether the two weapons
are related in concept.

D. 5-round clip of 7.62 x 33mm

rounds. These were loaded individ-
ually into the magazine.

The rifle was a success, but manu-

facturing capacity in Germany was so
diversified, and also restricted by the
Allied bombing campaign, that very few
rifles (comparatively) were produced,
and the majority of the weapons were
consigned to Waffen SS units rather
than regular army units.

GERMAN STG44 RIFLE

233

This is the last-ditch expedient de-
signed by the Germans at the end of
World War II, and is intended for use
by men drafted into action for the
Volkssturm of the final defense strategy
of Hitler’s Third Reich. It is a crude

weapon, firing the 7.92 x 33mm kurz
cartridges. It was a semiautomatic, de-
layed blow-back weapon of crude con-
struction, and very few were actually
produced.

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 of
the twentieth century. It first appeared
in 1949, originally with wood for the
furniture, but later it was made of plas-
tic. The simplicity and durability of the
weapon have made it the favorite of
armies and militias across the world,
and many Western soldiers have often
expressed the wish that all of their
weapons be as simple and reliable as an
AK47.

Since its first issue, the rifle has been

made in many countries (not always un-
der license) and in many forms. It has
been lightened, shortened, fitted with
telescopic sights, and generally has
served as the standard for the infantry
of many countries.

The most distinctive feature of the

weapon is its curved magazine, origi-
nally designed for 30 7.62 x 39 mm
M1943 rounds, the Russian short car-
tridge designed during World War II.

The photograph shows the A K 4 7

field stripped. Its simplicity is clear, but
an additional design feature is that the
body has a great deal of clearance,
meaning that the working parts and the
spring have gaps around them so that
dust, sand, and mud can fall away from
the working parts as they move, and can
also fall away from the body through
the gaps in the bottom. This weapon is
rightfully one of the most reliable rifles:
true stories exist of soldiers burying the
weapon in sand or mud and digging it
up months later, still capable of firing.

AVTOMAT KALASHNIKOV AK47 RIFLE

235

AVTOMAT KALASHNIKOV AK47 RIFLE

Royal Armouries

Cartridge:

7.62 x 39 mm M1943 (and

5.45 x 39.5 mm and 5.56 x 45 mm
NATO)

Length:

34.2 in

Weight:

9 lb 7 oz

Barrel:

16.3 in

Magazine:

30-round box

MV:

2,329 fps

Rate of fire:

775 rpm

236

AVTOMAT KALASHNIKOV AK47 RIFLE

Before Czechoslovakia was forcefully
integrated into the satellite buffer zone
of the former USSR, weapons designers
developed the Vz 52, which fired a
unique cartridge. The weapon was
quite heavy, which made it pleasant to
use 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 in

We i g h t :

9.8 lb (with a loaded maga-

zine)

Barrel:

20.6 in (4 right-hand grooves)

Magazine:

10-round detachable box

MV:

2,440 fps

CZECH VZ 52 RIFLE

237

CZECH VZ 52 RIFLE

Royal Armouries

This assault rifle, with its slightly differ-
ent bullpup design, was issued to the
French Army in 1980 (and its succes-
sor, the G-2, was produced for export in
1994). The large carrying handle is its
most distinctive feature, as well as its
bullpup design. It has a bipod standard
fitting, suggesting that once more the
automatic fire lobby has succeeded in
producing another hybrid weapon: light
machinegun/assault rifle.

The rifle exhibits characteristics that

seem to suggest that the French design-
ers were determined to produce a
weapon that bore no resemblance to
any other.

Cartridge:

5.56 x 45 mm French

Length:

29.8 in

Weight:

8 lb 3 oz

Barrel:

19.2 in (4 right-hand grooves)

Magazine:

25-round box

MV:

3,150 fps

Rate of fire:

950 rpm

238

FRENCH FAMAS F-1 ASSAULT RIFLE

FRENCH FAMAS F-1 ASSAULT RIFLE

Royal Armouries

The illustration shows the similarities
between the Garand M1 and the M14
rifles. With the exception of the maga-
zine and the selective fire lever, there is
little to distinguish the two. The M14
was nothing more than a last attempt by
the Springfield lobby to perpetuate the
overly powerful Springfield .30-06/7.62
x 51 mm NATO tradition, which was
being challenged by the smaller 5.56
mm cartridge used in the contemporary
Armalite AR15 and U.S. M16 rifles.

The old guard insisted that riflemen

in battle needed to be able to shoot out
to 600 and more yards with a telling
shot for every trigger pull. The new
guard showed conclusively that:

1. Infantrymen in general could not

fire accurately at a range over 300
yards.

2. Battle ranges over 300 to 400

yards were rarely engaged with
handheld weapons.

3. The ballistics of the 5.56 mm

round compared very favorably
with the 7.62 mm NATO round.

4. Riflemen could carry more 5.56

mm ammunition than 7.62 mm,
justifying the issue of a weapon
capable of firing bursts or even
fully automatic fire.

COMPARISON OF THE GARAND AND M14 BREECHES

239

COMPARISON OF THE GARAND AND M14 BREECHES

With Permission of the Infantry and SASC Weapons Collection, UK

The M14 was a hybrid; it was neither
the effective Garand M1 nor the assault
rifle needed by the U.S. Army. The de-
sign and manufacture of the rifle
caused the demise of Springfield A r-
m o u r y, and the service career of the
weapon lasted only four years. The real
problem arose from the cartridge, the
7.62 mm NATO, which was too power-
ful for use in fully automatic fire. The

solution lay in the smaller 5.56 mm
round, used in the Armalite AR15 and
the M16.

Cartridge:

7.62 x 51 mm NATO

Length:

44.14 in

Weight:

8 lb 9 oz

Barrel:

22 in (4 right-hand grooves)

Magazine:

20-round detachable box

MV:

2,800 fps

Rate of fire:

750 rpm

240

U.S. M14 RIFLE

U.S. M14 RIFLE

With Permission of the Infantry and SASC Weapons Collection, UK

This was one of the earliest Armalite ri-
fles to have the now familiar layout and
look of the present M16 rifle, although
the calibre was the original NATO 7.62
x 51 mm round. It was gas-operated,
with selective fire. The drawing (from
an original manual) shows the weapon
with its bipod, necessary for imposing
some control on the weapon when fir-
ing bursts. The NATO 7.62 cartridge
was, like the .30-06 round, too powerful
when combined with the light weight of
the rifle so that it ultimately produced
an uncontrollable weapon. Needless to
s a y, this begs the question of why the
infantry rifle needs to also be a light

machine gun, especially when the M60
belt-fed 7.62mm-calibre machine gun
was on issue at the same time.

The furniture was plastic; note the

very high sight line, necessitated by the
straight-line design. The weapon in this
form was only produced in limited
numbers because the 5.56 cartridge
was produced shortly after its release.

Cartridge:

7.62 x 51 mm NATO

Length:

40.51 in

Weight:

9 lb 1 oz

Barrel:

20 in

Magazine:

20-round box

MV:

2,772 fps

Rate of fire:

700 rpm

ARMALITE AR10 RIFLE

241

ARMALITE AR10 RIFLE

Armalite Corporation

This extremely rare version of one of
the first bullpup designs to emerge in
Britain was known as the Rifle No. 9,
Mark 1. It was originally known as the
EM2, but this name was later trans-
ferred (see the relevant plate).

It appeared in 1949, and by 1951

was no longer in production. It was an
experimental design that led eventually
to the SA80, but it managed to spawn
another experimental cartridge: the En-

field .280, which, like the Enfield .276,
fell afoul of the politics of the early
1950s and the U.S. Ordnance Board.

Cartridge:

280 UK (Enfield)

Length:

35 in

Weight:

7 lb 13 oz

Barrel:

24.48 in

Magazine:

20-round detachable box

MV:

2,530 fps

Rate of fire:

650 rpm

242

ENFIELD 7MM SLR RIFLE

ENFIELD 7MM SLR RIFLE

With 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 and
U.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 the
British and Americans of 7.62 x 51 mm
NATO ammunition and the appearance
in America of the dreadful M14 and in
Britain of the much more respected
SLR (L1A1) modification of the Bel-
gian FAL with 7.62 x 51 mm NAT O
ammunition.

In the 1970s the question of calibre

arose once more, but by this time the
U.S. forces were already adopting the
5.56 round for their new M16 rifles.
Britain put forward a bullpup design to
compete against the M16 and the
5.56mm round. The winning design
was made by the U.S. weapons indus-
t r y. The 4.85 mm round fired by this
rifle was not adopted, but the 5.56 mm
N ATO was and the SA80 weapon sys-
tem was developed from the XL 64 E5
in the latter calibre.

BRITISH INDIVIDUAL WEAPON

243

BRITISH INDIVIDUAL WEAPON

With Permission of the Infantry and SASC Weapons Collection, UK

In the search for a practical new service
rifle 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 by
Stefan Janson, who had originally
worked in Poland. The bullpup design
was quite complex, but trials at the end
of 1948 showed it was a practical
weapon. However, when the same de-
sign was presented for the trials in the
United States in 1950, it was rejected
by the U.S. Ordnance Board. Despite
its reputation as more accurate and less
prone to stoppages than the Garand
M1, the cartridge (at .276 inch) was

considered to be lacking in power and
having too low a muzzle velocity. The
British made valiant efforts for approval
of the weapon and its cartridge, but
they were never adopted. When the
7.62 x 51 mm NATO cartridge was
adopted in 1957, the EM2 became
o b s o l e t e .

Cartridge:

7 x 60 mm Enfield

Length:

35 in

Weight:

9 lb 8 oz

Barrel:

24.5 in (5 left-hand grooves)

Magazine:

30-round box (detachable)

MV:

2,530 fps

Rate of fire:

600–650 rpm

244

BRITISH EM2 .280 CALIBRE RIFLE

BRITISH EM2 .280 CALIBRE RIFLE

With Permission of the Infantry and SASC Weapons Collection, UK

This rifle has had a dubious career and
many British military users were con-
vinced that it had, like the camel, been
designed by a committee. Certainly the
United States’ failure to keep a promise
to buy the Belgian FAL, the 5.56mm
cartridge, and the M16 rifle had given
the United States a bad reputation in
the international arena, and the rejec-
tion of the EM2 weapons system by the
U.S. Ordnance Board added to this
sentiment. There seems to have been a
residual and deep desire among the
British designers and military that
Britain should have a bullpup rifle, no
matter what the calibre.

The L1A1 SLR was considered too

powerful for the new battlefield, where
infantry-aimed fire was only needed out
to 400 meters (after which point sniper
and machine gun fire would take over,
combined with mortars and artillery).
The arrival of the 5.56 x 45 mm NATO
as the sole cartridge did not tie the
British to a modified SLR or any Euro-
pean weapon, so the design teams went
to 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. For
many years, however, problems arose:
parts fell off, it would not operate in ad-
verse conditions (particularly rain,
sand, mud, and dust), and many felt the
cartridge in itself was too light to be ef-
fective at all battle ranges (even only
out to 400 yards).

Heckler and Koch, the famous Ger-

man armament manufacturers, were
bought by British Aerospace and then
sold back to the Germans. As soon as
they were sold they took over the modi-
fications to this relatively unsatisfactory
rifle, and they have now produced the
A2 version, which, from accounts by
those who have used it in combat, per-
forms well—something it should have
done 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 equal
to their self-proclaimed standards of
excellence.

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 it
works well at present, there are many
requests 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 in

Weight:

8 lb 6 oz

Barrel:

20.4 in (6 right-hand grooves)

Magazine:

30-round box

MV:

3,084 fps

Rate of fire:

650–800 rpm

246

ENFIELD RIFLE L85A1

SLR ACTION

247

SLR ACTION

With Permission of the Infantry and SASC Weapons Collection, UK

This photo shows how a gas-and-piston
self-loading rifle operates.

A. The action after firing. The gases

from the barrel are tapped off and have
forced the piston back, in turn pushing
the bolt carrier backward. This unlocks
the action and extracts the empty case
from 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 is
ejected 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 held
in the magazine. At the same time, the
hammer is cocked by this backward
movement.

C. Under the pressure of the return

spring (in the butt), the bolt carrier now
starts moving forward, and the new car-
tridge, pushed into position by the mag-
azine spring, is picked up by the bottom
of the bolt and pushed firmly into the
chamber. The rifle is now reloaded and
ready to fire.

248

SLR ACTION

The instantly recognizable M16 (almost
as well known as the AK47) is the stan-
dard-issue service rifle of the U.S. Army
and many other forces. In its original
form the weapon was the lightest as-
sault rifle on general issue, and proved
its worth so long as the following in-
structions were followed:

“The M16 is the finest military rifle

ever made. It’s lightweight, easy to han-
dle, and will put out a lot of lead. If you
know it, respect it, and treat it right, it
will be ready when you need it. The fol-
lowing tips are from combat veterans
who wanted to pass on to you their
ideas on weapon care. Learn ’em, use
’em, and you’ll not be caught short!

a. Keep your ammo and magazine as

clean and dry as possible. Lightly
lube the magazine spring only. Oil
it up, and you’re headed for trou-
ble.

b. Inspect your ammo when you load

the magazines. Don’t load dented

or dirty ammo. Remember, load
only 18 or 19 rounds.

c. Clean your rifle every chance you

get. 3–5 times a day will not be too
often in some cases. Cleanliness is
next to godliness, boy, and it may
save your life.

d. Be sure to clean carbon and dirt

from those barrel-locking lugs.
Pipe cleaners help here and in the
gas port.

e. Don’t be bashful about asking for

cleaning materials when you need
’em. They’re available; get ’em and
use ’em.

f. Check your extractor and spring

often; 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 on
with a rag after cleaning is good.
Functional parts need generous
applications often. Put a very light
coat of LSA in the bore and cham-
ber after cleaning.”

M16 RIFLE

249

M16 RIFLE

Royal Armouries

(U.S. Army M16 handling card
issued to troops in Vietnam, 1968)

Present-day reports on the rifle indi-

cate its length is cumbersome for use in
vehicles, and it may be replaced by the
shorter carbine or Commando version,
as battle ranges in urban areas rarely
exceed 100 yards, and vehicles are used
to 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 capacity
and a heavier barrel.

C a r t r i d g e :

5.56 x 45 mm M193 or

NATO

Length:

39 in

Weight:

6 lb 5 oz

Barrel:

20 in (6 right-hand grooves)

Magazine:

20- or 30-round box (but see

notes above)

MV:

3,110 fps

Rate of fire:

800 rpm

250

M16 RIFLE

Perhaps best known as a photogenic
and futuristic rifle (often seen in films),
the Steyr AUG (Armee Universal
Gewehr—army multipurpose rifle) was
first issued in 1977. It is part of a series
of weapons designed to have inter-
changeable parts (rather like the Ameri-
can Stoner system). The Austrian Army
named the weapon the StuG77. It is a
bullpup with a synthetic casing, with
interchangeable barrels, receivers, and
firing mechanisms, enabling it to ap-

pear as an assault rifle, a carbine, a
heavy-barreled light machine gun, or,
very rarely, a submachinegun.

C a r t r i d g e :

5.56 x 45 mm M193 or

NATO

Length:

31.1 in

Weight:

7 lb 15 oz

Barrel:

16.02 in (6 right-hand grooves)

Magazine:

30-round detachable box

MV:

3,182 fps

Rate of fire:

650 rpm

AUSTRIAN STEYR ASSAULT RIFLE

251

AUSTRIAN STEYR ASSAULT RIFLE

With Permission of the Infantry and SASC Weapons Collection, UK

The M16 rifle was the military version
of the Armalite AR15, and has become
famous throughout the world, although
it is often criticized as vociferously as
its Russian counterpart, the AK47, is
praised.

The most important aspect of the

original Armalite design was its light-
ness. This development, with the M203
grenade launcher strapped below the
barrel, illustrates that military designers
will always add weight to a weapon to
make it more effective. Putting the
grenade launcher onto the original

weapon did not increase its weight be-
yond a sensible limit (altogether it was
11 lb), but did improve the accuracy of
delivering 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 mm
grenades, including HE, HE Dual Pur-
pose, HE Air Burst, and Training Prac-
tice rounds. Special sighting equipment
for the launcher is bolted to the left
side of the rifle.

252

COLT M16 WITH ATTACHED M203 GRENADE LAUNCHER

COLT M16 WITH ATTACHED M203 GRENADE LAUNCHER

With Permission of the Infantry and SASC Weapons Collection, UK

This weapon was designed to be more
portable in vehicles, although it also
was used by Special Forces.

Cartridge:

5.56 x 45 mm NATO

L e n g t h :

33 in/29.8 in (butt extended

and retracted)

Weight:

5 lb 13 oz

B a r r e l :

14.57 in (with 6 right-hand

twist grooves)

Magazine:

20- or 30-round box

MV:

3,022 fps

Rate of fire:

700 rpm

M16A4 CARBINE/COLT COMMANDO 5.56MM RIFLE

253

M16A4 CARBINE/COLT COMMANDO 5.56MM RIFLE

With Permission of the Infantry and SASC Weapons Collection, UK

This illustration is copied from official
documentation on the H&K G3A3 rifle
to show the myriad of parts that go into
making the modern assault rifle. A s
shown, there are no fewer than ninety-
nine parts in the rifle, all of which have
to be manufactured under strict engi-
neering tolerances. Each part must
function in all weather conditions, be
strong enough to withstand handling
and battle use, yet be easily replaced if
a breakage occurs.

The rifle itself has to be functional

when fouled with residue from firing,
be easily maintained and cleaned in the
field, and maintain zero (or stay accu-
rate) as long as it is handled reasonably
carefully by the rifleman using it.

The modern assault rifle is ages away

from the weapons of World War II, and
light years from the rifles of the nine-
teenth century in concept, but design
standards have remained the same,
with designers and the firearm makers
striving to deliver a weapon to troops
that 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 (for
example) have demonstrated faults that
should not have occurred. The crudely
manufactured AK47, however, has
demonstrated that a good design will
overcome these problems, partly be-
cause of the simplicity of the design
and the “self-cleaning” mechanism of
interior clearances that let dirt fall away
from the working parts.

254

HECKLER AND KOCH G3A3 ASSAULT RIFLE

HECKLER AND KOCH G3A3 ASSAULT RIFLE

Heckler and Koch Pamphlet

Ammunition designers have always
faced two major problems with their
product: how to get rid of the empty
cartridge when fired and how to expel
heat, generated by firing the cartridge,
from the interior of the weapon. The
Heckler and Koch G11 was designed to
solve the first problem, but failed to
remedy the second.

The cartridge fired by this compact

weapon is caseless: the bullet is sur-
rounded by the propellant powder (with
primer integrally inserted), but there is
no brass case to be ejected. Magazines
for the rifle contain forty-five caseless
rounds that are fed by a rotary mecha-
nism into the breech. This means that
once the cartridge is fired, the weapon
merely replaces another round ready for
firing and no extraction of the empty
case is required. However, when the ri-
fle was tested, it was found that sus-

tained use on the battlefield would
probably lead to problems, one of
which was that the rifle became too hot
to handle after firing a few rounds.

Nevertheless, the caseless round

continues to be used in present-day
combat, and as soon as a heat sink can
be developed, or some other heat dis-
persion method designed, the round
will almost certainly become the round
of choice for all armies.

C a r t r i d g e :

4.73 x 33 DMI (special

round)

Length:

29.53 in

Weight:

8 lb 1 oz

Barrel:

21.26 in (4 right-hand increas-

ing grooves)

Magazine:

45-round box (preloaded)

MV:

3,051 fps

Rate 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, carried
by policemen, on Wall Street near the
New York Stock Exchange in autumn
2003. The rifle is used by many police
departments in the United States and
has a forward pistol grip with an exten-
sion, a fitted Maglite flashlight below
the barrel, and the typical telescoping
butt.

The picture shows that police forces

throughout the world (including the

British) are now far more willing to pa-
trol the streets armed with high velocity
rifles, which can fire bursts. One might
question the use of military assault ri-
fles in a civilian environment. Indeed,
this raises the issue of whether society
is safer because weapons provide pro-
tection, or whether society suffers
when the line becomes blurred between
“keeping the peace” and instituting
martial law.

256

M16 RIFLE IN POLICE SERVICE

M16 RIFLE IN POLICE SERVICE

Courtesy of David Westwood

As weapons increased in sophistication,
so too did the method of sighting. Ri-
fles were seen as an increasing source
of long-range fire, especially against an
enemy assembly area or a mass of ad-
vancing troops. The sights shown here
are typical of the way in which long-
range rifle fire was initially seen as
valuable, but which declined in impor-
tance with the arrival of the machine
gun (particularly the tripod-mounted
medium) and the mortar.

The Martini-Henry sight is a rather

inaccurate vertical leaf sight, with the
ranges marked on the sight frame. It
could be aimed up to 1,000 yards with
only marginal accuracy beyond 300
yards, but a company firing at a fixed
area at 800 yards could deliver a heavy

barrage of fire in and around the aiming
point, causing an enemy to disperse.
This principle was continued in the
British Army as well as the German
Army into World War I. The Lee-
Enfield No. 1 and the Mauser Gew 98
sights shown were both calibrated up to
2,000 yards and, with the improved am-
munition supplied, were slightly more
effective than the Martini-Henry.

H o w e v e r, as noted, machine guns

were soon substituted for rifles as
longer ranges and the concept of effec-
tive battlefield ranges were presented.
It was obvious to most military person-
nel and weapon designers that the rifle
was better used at ranges up to 400
yards when it could be expected to de-
liver one-shot hits, rather than spraying

IRON SIGHTS

257

IRON SIGHTS

Royal Armouries

indiscriminately at 2,000 yards. The
problem of ammunition fired at targets
beyond the visual range of the firer was
better left to the machine guns, to-
gether with the problem that rounds
wasted at 2,000 yards were then not
available when the attack came in from
300 yards and at shorter ranges.

The British No. 4 rifle was still

sighted up to 1,300 yards originally, but
it was soon discarded as rifles became
equipped with battle sights zeroed at
200 yards.

The latest innovations in iron sights

were applied to weapons such as the
British SLR and the U.S. M16. Maxi-
mum ranges for battlefield firing were
set at around 400 yards, although many
U.S. rifle-using conservatives thought
that 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 a
target at over 200 yards with consis-
t e n c y, and hits at 600 yards are better
left to snipers.

258

IRON SIGHTS

SINGLE POINT SIGHT

259

SINGLE POINT SIGHT

With Permission of the Infantry and SASC Weapons Collection, UK

The British Army carried out a number
of trials after World War II to evaluate
iron 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 aiming
point would aid infantry in increasing
the accuracy and therefore the effec-
tiveness of their firepower on the bat-
tlefield.

One of the earliest single-point sights

was fitted to the EM range of semiauto-
matic weapons. This was a metal sleeve
into which the optics were fitted. Align-

ing the sighting eye to the tube gave a
narrow field of vision on the target area,
and the aiming point was a pointed
post. The user merely needed to align
the tip of the aiming post with his tar-
get and fire. No longer did he have to
coordinate front and rear sights, nor did
he have to adjust the range. This simple
principle has, with more modern sights,
increased the effectiveness of British
infantry fire greatly, and marksmen are
now the rule rather than the exception
in 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 weapons
and factories that had been involved in the Crimean War. Alfred Mordecai
graduated from West Point in 1823, first in his class. He was appointed
commander of Frankford Arsenal (Philadelphia) in 1836, and then, as a
member of the U.S. Ordnance Board, visited Europe to examine the
weaponry of the Crimean War. His report was of great significance, even
more so because it had bound with it an important extra: a paper written by
Captain J. Schön of the Royal Saxon Infantry. In this report Schön exam-
ined the European situation with reference to rifled weapons. This report
is of such importance that it is partially reproduced below, with linking
comments to aid continuity. The report begins with an appraisal of the
problems associated with smoothbore and rifled weapons:

The improvements and discoveries recently made in infantry arms are

mainly the result of endeavours to diminish or entirely eradicate the chief
defects of the arm hitherto used, which, in the smooth bore, are the limited
range, and in the rifle, both that and additional difficulty in the loading.

Before entering on a minute examination of these improvements and

discoveries, it is proper to advert to the causes of the defects just referred
to. The smooth bore has a considerable windage [i.e., the bore diameter is
greater than the ball diameter] to facilitate the loading, which prevents the
ball, when in its place, from filling the bore, and admits currents of the
generated gas at its side. This occasions a pressure of the ball against the
side 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 vertical
plane 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 [muzzle
loading is described here], and made it so laborious as to make the firing
much 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. The
shape 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 the

effort was made to increase their range and accuracy without, at the same
time, greatly increasing the charge or elevation.

The question propounded at this day is to find a system that shall combine

the advantages of the smooth bore and rifle without having their manifest
defects, 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 examine
more closely what depends upon the grooves.

The use of [rifling] grooves has so much advanced the accuracy and

force 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 century

were the result of endeavours to augment the accuracy of the arms then in
use, in which, on account of the great windage of the ball, they must have
been 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; nor
did the wooden drift or rammer avail much in this respect. The bore was,
therefore, furnished with a certain number of furrows or grooves running
straight along the bore—that is, parallel to its axis; the ball being at the
same 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 difficult
from the increased caliber of the ball as to be nearly impracticable after a
few rounds. By the introduction of the straight grooves the discovery was
made, however, that the ball obeyed the grooves, and followed in its flight
the direction of the axis of the bore. These observations may afterwards
have caused a certain inclination to be given to them, the twist of which
the 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 of
the air. The ball was again reduced in its diameter; but in order to retain
the advantage of the small windage, resort was had to greased patches, in
which 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 the
chase and the pastimes of target shooting than to actual service, for which
they 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 in
the arsenals of fortresses, and used only for defense.

It was not until a later day, and first of all in Germany, that this weapon

was 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 few
troops. The great popularity it has attained in later times is to be ascribed
chiefly to the use of the pointed ball. Let us now examine the different kind
of 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 a
degree greater or less, according to the inclination of the grooves. Fr o m
this it would seem to follow that as the inclination or twist of the grooves is
increased, or, which is the same thing, the angle diminished, the rotation
of the ball would increase in the same ratio, and the accuracy of the arm
improve 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, the
ball which, in consequence of every impulse, endeavours to advance, can-
not overcome the opposite and increased force of friction with sufficient
c e l e r i t y. We must also add that the lead which has been driven into the
grooves in loading, in the shape of little ridges that serve as guides to the
ball, is not strong enough to oppose the resistance to the impulsive force of
the gases, necessary to keep the ball in the grooves. As a consequence the
lead is torn off, leaving the ball without the direction required to produce
rotation. A too great twist in the grooves diminishes also the initial velocity
by the friction engendered, and consequently the range.

Hence it is evident that the degree of inclination has its limits, beyond

which the advantages of twisted grooves are lost. The inquiry next arises as
to what inclination is most suitable. Here, however, estimates founded on
theory are indeterminate, there being too many causes, such as charge,
length of barrel, depth, breadth, and even the kind of groove, which exert a
greater 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 be
prominent considerations, the latter being so regulated with reference to
the former, that its inflammation may be complete when the bullet reaches
the muzzle. So much is, however, certain, that too great an inclination of
the 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 consequent
development of its strength, should be complete when the ball has reached
the vicinity of the muzzle; a consummation influenced by the length of the
barrel, quality and kind of powder, inclination, number, and depth of the
grooves, not forgetting that too heavy a charge may force the ball over the
lands. 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 under
Colonel Pontchara, in 1835, and in Belgium under Colonel Timmerhans,
in 1839—that a medium charge, comprehended between four and six
grammes, (sixty-two to ninety-three grains,) insured an adequate range and
accuracy with a good barrel.

A smaller charge than this is not desirable, as it makes the elevations too

great and incommodes the aim. And, thirdly and lastly, the recoil is to be
considered, which, while it cannot be entirely avoided, exercises a certain
influence on the accuracy, and must not be made excessive by a large
charge. 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 the
barrel, which must fulfill the conditions for a military weapon; that is, must
be of a length and strength to admit of the fire of two ranks without danger
to the front rank, and to form with the bayonet an offensive weapon which
may 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 into
three kinds: the common, the parabolic, and the progressive grooves.

The common grooves proceed (supposing the bore to be developed) in

right lines at a given angle from beginning to end. These are in general use,
and recommend themselves especially for service arms by the ease with
which 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 by
this 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 light
twist, in which the first part departs but little from a right line, gradually
assuming 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 the
grooves 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 the
detriment of the range.

The progressive grooves are those which are deeper at the breech than at

the muzzle, where they almost disappear; but they preserve an uniform twist
throughout 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 it
take a stronger hold on the grooves, an object undoubtedly attained.

Grooves, besides, vary essentially in their cross-section, being either

square, 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 forced
into 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 of
a quadrant, the land being where two adjacent grooves are separated by a
narrow strip, which serves as a sufficient guide to the ball. These are best
adapted to service, because, in the first place, the bullet in ramming more
easily enters the grooves; secondly, because the sides do not create friction
in the same proportion as the sharp ones; and, thirdly, because the dirt
does not readily lodge in them, and is more readily removed.

The saw teeth (crémaillère) grooves present on the one side an abrupt

face, and on the other die away on the land; that is, they offer a square
edge to the rotation of the ball, whilst the opposite side meets the land at a
very obtuse angle. They have found favor in scarcely any service. The hair
grooves 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 the

belief 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 also
become more difficult to clean. The number formerly ranged from six to
twelve, but is now reduced to from four to six, a limit recognized as most
suitable for military purposes, since it admits of loading easily, without in-
terfering with the desired accuracy. An odd number is affirmed by some to
be most conducive to accuracy, for the reason that in this case there will be
a land opposite to each groove, thus avoiding long and short transverse axes
alternately, which will not be the case with an even number. For the same
reason 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 and
tedious, for which reason they are seldom used.

The proper depth of the grooves is quite as important a consideration to

the effectiveness of a rifle as any of the foregoing. With grooves too shallow
the ball is no longer secure in its direction, and the slightest excess of
charge 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 grooves
without 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, thus
exerting, 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 have
an 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 most

suitable for the pointed ball, loaded without patching. This, on the one
hand, 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 than
the grooves was introduced, it being thought that the ball thereby took a
better hold on the grooves. This consideration was applicable then when a
greater inclination of the grooves was used, which would be likely to cause
the ball, under the effect of a heavy charge, to strip. Now, however, that the
twist of the grooves, as well as their number, is diminished, it is the better
opinion 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, such
as 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 the
principles prevalent throughout Germany relative to the rifle loaded with
the tight fitting ball and patch, proposed a new system, and thereby gave the
first 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 of
pretty rapid twist, the breadth of which nearly equaled the lands, and the
breech . . . was chambered in such a manner, as to leave a rim projecting
ab[ove] the bottom of the bore. This chamber, the diameter of which was
thus 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 down
on 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 the
center of the ball had a position in the axis of the bore. With three blows of
the rammer the windage disappeared, and the lead was driven into the
g r o o v e s .

This method of loading required no exertion of strength, nor any aid

such 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 its
shape, 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 the

accuracy of the weapon, and the entire closing of the chamber increased the
recoil. Delvigne maintained in a publication made in 1843, “Sur l’emploi et
les effets des projectiles cylindro-conique évidées,” [The use and effect of
the cylindro-conoidal bullet] &c., that the flattening of the ball increased
the centrifugal force, and thereby its accuracy. How far this opinion is well
founded, we will not now enquire, merely remarking that the flattening of
the 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 the
ball from being driven into the chamber, Colonel Pontchara added a
wooden cylindrical sabot, which was hollowed out at one end to receive the
ball, and enveloped at the other by a greased patch coming half way up its
sides.

This was to facilitate the loading by removing the dirt. These con-

trivances only partly fulfilled their object however; for, the bore not being
well cleaned by the patch, the sabot either stuck fast or was broken in the
ramming, causing still a change of figure in the ball. New shapes of balls
were thereupon proposed by Colonel Thierry and Captain Delvigne, exper-
iments with which gave still less favorable results. The ball of the former
was cylindro-spherical. It was at first approved, but experiments instituted
at St. Omer being highly unfavorable to it, the common infantry cartridge,
with a charge of seven grammes, (108 grains, troy,) was substituted, to be
in its turn abandoned. Delvigne’s ball was cylindro-conical.

Both these new balls had a cavity extending from the center of the base

upwards, partly, to prevent the intrusion of the ball into the chamber, partly
to diminish its weight.

APPENDIX A

267

In September, 1841, experiments were made at Liège, by a board of

Russian and Belgian officers, with a Delvigne rifle with the cylindro-coni-
cal ball, a French arm with the Thierry ball, finally an English two-grooved
rifle with the belted ball, the results of which were highly favorable to the
system of Delvigne. Soon after, experiments were also made in France with
the Delvigne rifle and its cylindro-conical ball, as well as with the
Pontchara ball and sabot, before described, which, however, did not result
to 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 through
the action of the grooves, and oftentimes to fail in reaching the mark point
foremost; and second, the little resistance opposed by the cylindrical part
to 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 last
named.

IV. THE DELVIGNE-PONTCHARA SYSTEM

This arm, known as the “chambered rifle,” with which ten battalions of
French troops were armed in 1840, was of the following construction:

The barrel was 30.44 inches long, had four grooves, 0.23 inch broad and

0.019 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 a
chamber with a depth of 2.05 inches, and a diameter of 0.55 inch, which
held 61 grammes, (96.43 grains,) and, the rim of the chamber projected
0.027 inch beyond the lands. The ball had a diameter of 0.64 inch, and
weighed 395 grains, and its windage 0.029 inch. The length of this arm,
without sword-bayonet, was 47.58 inches, and the weight without bayonet
9.918 pounds. The breech sight consisted of a fixed or standing sight and a
leaf 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, caliber
0.688 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 was
0.669 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 of
this 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, the
windage 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 their
whole length, and also over the ball and sabot; the latter has a patch, the
former 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 give
the ball a firm bed, without impinging on the powder, from which it was
separated 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 this
equal and central effort of the gases, the ball follows the grooves more
smoothly, 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 of
0.11 inch. The empty space between powder and ball is 0.229 inch. The
bore has a caliber of 0.713 inch, with twelve grooves, which have half a
turn in the length of the barrel, or an inclination of 88° 43' 19", and a
depth 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, weighs
309 grains, and is loaded without patch, being, however, first greased in a
leathern bag.

It may here be observed that, in 1841, the Austrian infantry received the

Consol or percussion primer lock, as altered by General Auguslin, in place
of 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 place
of it, a horizontal projecting cylinder, which contains the vent, and which
rests 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 lid
closed down on the pan, the plug rests lightly on the match by its own
weight. The hammer being heavy, descends with great force on the head of
the 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, which
contains the priming of fulminate of mercury. This little tube is 0.81 inch
long, and 0.08 inch diameter. One end of it is pinched, and receives a fine
brass 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 in
Brunswick, which was to unite the advantages of the smooth-bore and
rifle—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 of

0.62 inch, with two opposite shallow grooves 0.02 inch in depth, having a
twist of three fourths, or an inclination of 88° 56' 6". The breadth of these
was so arranged as to be 0.54 inch wide at the chamber, and for a distance
of 5.153 inches. From this out they were only 0.287 inch wide, and were a
flat oval, (Fig. 7, a b c.) The windage was 0.01. The barrel, furnished with a
standing sight and three leaves, was closed with a patent breech.

The balls for this arm were, first, patched balls; and, second, rolling

balls. Both at first received an oval form. They were formed in the same
manner, of two parts, not quite hemispheres, the largest diameter being for
the 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 the
somewhat favorable results of experiments, these forms were soon aban-
doned for the simple sphere. Then the patched ball had a diameter of 0.61
inch, 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 the
rolling ball was blue) had a wad between the powder and the ball. The
patches 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, and
excels the common and the Delvigne rifle in range and accuracy; but has
itself been surpassed by the still greater accuracy and symmetry of action
introduced in the construction of later systems.

In England, where, in 1837, the light brigade was armed with a weapon

of this kind, known as the “two-grooved rifle,” the barrel is 30.04 inches
long, with a caliber of 0.704 inch. The two rounded grooves are 0.314 inch
wide, 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 0.117
inch high, and 3.53 inches from the breech, while the bead is 0.786 inch
from the muzzle. The charge is 2.82 drams; the weight of the ball, 557
grains; 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 measures

over 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 0.04
inch. 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, and
beyond 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 of
arm, the barrels of which were 39.71 inches long, and the caliber 0.646
inch. 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 0.028
inch, and a breadth of 0.258 inch. The charge was seventy grains, and the
weight 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 systems
heretofore, 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 having
been 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 the
French, 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 two
screws behind each other, having a space between them. In this space
there 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 drawn
back; and when let loose, the penetration of the needle into the fulminate
caused 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, which
frequently 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 from
taking a sufficient hold on the sides of the bore.

These objections induced the projector to insert the cartridge at the

breech, as was done in Norway, and hence arose the new Prussian needle
gun. 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 separate
chamber for the charge, with a caliber somewhat larger than that of the
barrel. 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 to
the cartridge, and the closing of the open barrel is effected by the fitting of
the 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 of

0.606 inches, with four grooves, having a twist of five elevenths in the
length of the barrel, or an inclination of 88° 6' 17". The breadth of these is
0.243 inches, and their depth 0.03 inches. The unrifled portion at the rear
makes a kind of chamber, or bed of the cartridge, the diameter of which is
0.69 inches, or several hundredths greater than the bore, and the length
nearly the same as that of the cartridge. The bed of the cartridge enlarges
slightly 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 of
the 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. To
the same end there is a slight enlargement of the lower part of the bore for
the distance of 6.17 inches. The rear of the barrel terminates externally
conically, 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 a
cap, and the mechanism is quite different. The two have only the principle
of breech loading in common.

The ball, which is a cylinder, terminated by an ogee, has but one shallow

groove, and is 1.137 inch long, and 0.696 inch diameter. Its weight is 787
grains. The cartridge is commonly of writing paper, and wound twice. One
end laps over the groove of the ball, and is tied with a thick greased woolen
thread, 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-loading

rifle constructed by First Lieutenant Von Frilitzen, and given to the Swedish
marine in 1851. That differs from the Norwegian in having a sphero-conical
c h a m b e r, which prevents the cone from going through, the metal being
t 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 the
heel plate to guard the rear end of the chamber against sand, &c. Instead of
the screw to the eccentric there is a bolt which admits of an easier removal
of the cylinder and eccentric. A projection on the side of the frame protects
its 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 the

Swedish being only 35.71 inches, and its caliber 0.514 inch. The six
grooves are 0.015 inch deep, and have a half turn in time length of the
bore, or an inclination of 89° 15' 10". The diameter of the chamber is
0.566 inch. The ball weighs 538 grains, and the charge 77 grains. The
hausse [rear sight] is a leaf bent at right angles, and movable about an axis
at the angle—the short arm serving for a distance of 300 Swedish ells, (195
yards,) the other for 500 ells, (325 yards.)

VII. THE SYSTEM OF WILD

In 1841, an engineer in the service of Zurich, named Wild, started, like
Delvigne, with the proposition that it must be an error to drive the ball into
the 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 a

slight 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 its
ball and patch attached to its end in such a way that, when the cartridge
and ball were placed in the muzzle, the patch, which was gathered over the
ball by a string through the edges, could be opened again.

In loading with the powder loose, a piece of paper must be placed on the

powder to prevent its adhering to the patch and burning it. When the patch
is not greased, the bore is moistened with water to soften the dirt adhering
from the previous discharge, and facilitate its removal by the next one. For
this purpose a flask, holding perhaps three ounces of water, is carried. A
contrivance 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 of

water, 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 be
nearly dry and quite clean after each discharge.

The ball is only moderately rammed. The rammer has a shoulder near

the top, which prevents the ball from being rammed beyond a certain
point; the powder cannot, therefore, be crushed.

Although the experiments instituted with this rifle in Switzerland in

1842, and later in Baden, gave favorable results, since, at 600 paces, (515
yards,) the balls were still effective, and more than 100 rounds could be
fired out of the same piece without cleaning, it has been adopted in but
few services. In Baden, Hesse-Darmstadt, and Wurtemburg, ten men in
each company are armed with them.

VIII. THE SYSTEM OF THOUVENIN

The Delvigne-Fontchara system did not at all answer the expectations
formed concerning it in France, notwithstanding the manifold and carefully
conducted experiments made. The causes of these unfavorable results were
sought 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, instead
of 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 results
of experiments.

274

APPENDIX A

Meantime, Colonel Thouvenin, of the artillery, had endeavoured to rem-

edy the ascertained defects of the Delvigne-Pontchara system—which were
partly the difficult fabrication of the cartridge and partly the breaking of
the wooden sabot—by removing the sabot entirely, and by simplifying the
construction of the cartridge, without abandoning the facility of loading
with a given windage, or the correct position of the ball in the bore.

For this purpose he adopted, instead of the chambered breech-pin, the

usual one, with a steel pin or stem projecting from the middle of it of half
the diameter of the bore, and placed exactly in its axis. This permitted the
ball to be rammed without disturbing the powder poured around it—the
pin being long enough to project a certain distance above the powder. The
stem or t i g e , at the same time, forced the ball when rammed into the
grooves, 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 of
the one circular groove about it, a number of smaller angular grooves or
“cannelures”; and above all, by placing the center of gravity nearer to the
point of the ball.

Captain Tamisier had observed in some experiments with Delvigne’s ball

with but one groove, that it deviated much less from the true trajectory
than the ball with smooth cylinders, and concluded that this must be due
to 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 or

countersink the rammer head.

The successive alterations of the cylindro-conical ball need not be a

matter of surprise. With the adoption of this form of missile arose many
considerations relative to the resistance of the air, the weight of the ball, its
range, and accuracy; all of which had a much smaller degree of influence
on the round ball, where, when the caliber of the bore and the ball and its
weight were given, nothing remained to be fixed but the charge and the
elevation.

The chief consideration which weighed against the spherical and in fa-

vor of the elongated ball, and which experiments have verified, may be
stated generally as follows: every ball assumes two motions, viz: a forward
motion due to the impulse of the gases, and a rotary motion impressed on
it by the grooves. The forward motion is prevented from exerting its full ef-
fect by the flattening of the ball, and the resulting increased atmospheric
resistance; 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 rifle

with 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 the
flight 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-Pontchara
system were changed, by substituting for the chambered breech-pin, a
solid 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 0.275
inch wide, and decreasing in depth toward the muzzle, being 0.0196 inch
at the bottom, and 0.0118 inch at the top. The twist was changed so as to
have 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 1,300
meters, (1,422 yards.) The weight of the arm was 8.8 pounds, weight of
ball 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 advantages
already attained in the facility of loading, the preservation of the shape of
the 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 in

depth 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, which
is 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” filled
with 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 culot

to the extremity of the cavity, by which the sides of the ball are pressed out
and 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 the
bore, 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 of
gravity of the ball, forces it to retain its original tangential position to the
trajectory.

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 and
the recent Swiss;) in all of which the effect of the rammer on the upper
part 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 was

hit 100 times in succession with this new musket, while the ordinary
smooth-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 six
times in the same number of rounds.

At 1,000 meters, (1,093 yards), at which distance a field piece generally

deviates five to six yards from the target, there were six hits in 100 shots
with the new musket, and at this excessive distance it was found that a
skillful 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 arms

of 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. The
adoption of the system was, however, deferred to a later day.

Like experiments were instituted in Baden, in 1852, but with a smaller

c a l i b e r. The ball was 0.883 inch long, and the cylindrical part had three
grooves and a diameter of 0.506 inch. The interior conical cavity was 0.558
inch deep, with an inferior diameter of 0.36 inch, and a superior diameter
of 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 weapons
for purposes of experiment. Since then a part of the smooth-bore arms of
the infantry, as well as the carbines of the artillery and the holster pistols of
the cavalry, have been altered to this system.

In Nassau, also, where the rapid fouling of the barrel was found to be

very troublesome, since it admitted but ten to twelve successive discharges
in 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. The
trials resulted favorably to the system, and showed that the arms, with
M i n i é ’s balls, became much less dirty, and could be fired thirty to forty
times in succession. The charge however, had to be increased 7.71 grains.

The tige was hereupon removed from the breech-pin, the grooves having

already 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 0.442
inch broad. The weight is 703 grains.

In England, also, in 1851, many experiments were instituted with this

system 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 the
balls 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 23,000

were 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 something
over half a turn in the bore, or an inclination of 89° 10' 37", and had a
depth of 0.02 inch at the breech and 0.01 inch at the muzzle. The charge
was two and a half drams, (68.35 grains.) The breech-sight, like that of the
French, was 4.7 inches from the rear end of the barrel, and graduated for
distances from 200 to 900 yards.

The ball, originally like the French, was, after some experiments, altered

to a sphero-conical shape, with the omission of the grooves. It is 1.03 inch
long, and has a diameter at the base, where it is greatest, of 0.69 inch. The
conical cavity is 0.54 inch long, and 0.4 inch in diameter at the base. Like
the Minié ball, it is closed by a culot, and weighs 22.66 drams, or about ten
to the pound. The weight of this arm, with bayonet, is ten pounds eight and
three quarter ounces. The height of the trajectory above the line of sight
was three and a half feet in the middle, for a range of 200 yards, and for
900 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 supply
of ammunition without overloading himself. The shape of the ball was also
to be modified, the conical part having hitherto been too great and giving
the ball too little hold on the barrel, causing it more readily to assume an
oblique position.

With this view a commission was in that year assembled at Enfield, who

were to submit to ample experiment models furnished by the most noted
gunmakers.

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 at
the 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 two
balls, one of which was 1.05 inch long, and 0.543 inch in diameter
over the rim at the base. The cavity was closed with a metal plug, in
lieu of the culot of Minié, and was in the same way to effect the
spreading 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 Minié
ball, and the cavity in the second was closed by an iron culot. The
charge was over two and a half drams of fine powder, and the weight
of rifle and bayonet, nine pounds one and a half ounces.

4. Lovell’s rifle: its length of barrel was 39 inches, and its caliber, 0.635

inch. 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 with

which being not favorable, are not given. The barrel had a caliber of
0.621 inch, and one of the several kinds of balls weighed nineteen to
the 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 peculiar

construction of the bore. It was 39 inches long, and had no grooves;
but was smoothly and elliptically bored out. This elliptical bore had
an increasing twist and a diminished cross section as it approached
the 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; while
the greater axis, which takes the place of the grooves, was 0.557 inch
at the breech, and 0.543 inch at the muzzle. The twist was half a turn
in 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 at
the base was closed by a plug somewhat larger, which spread out the
lead the further, it was driven up. The cylindrical part had three sharp
grooves. Its weight was 542 grains, and the charge two and a half
drams. The weight of the rifle and bayonet was nine pounds nine
ounces.

8. Wilkinson’s rifle, the barrel of which was also 39 inches long, and it

had 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 in
the 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 inch
in 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 inches

long, with a bore entirely cylindrical, of the caliber of 0.577 inch and
having but three grooves, the twist of which was one half in the length
of the barrel, or an inclination of 9° 19' 17". The depth of the grooves
was 0.014 inch, and their breadth 0.262 inch. The weight of the rifle
and 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 diameter
0.568 inch, and its weight 520 grains.

280

APPENDIX A

As before observed, the chief object of these trials was to determine on

an arm with smaller caliber, which would enable the soldier to carry the
customary sixty rounds of ammunition without fatigue. This could not be
done with the Minié arm of large caliber heretofore in use. It was also to
present the advantage of greater strength with less weight of metal. It was,
in addition, the province of the commission to ascertain the influence of
the number of grooves, to obviate the use of the culot, and to modify the
objectionable 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 is

most advantageous, the experiments led to the conclusion that the latter
was preferable in point of accuracy, as an odd number gave a land opposite
to the groove, causing the groove to fill more readily; and when a small
number 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 four
grooves, inclines to become a square. Whether the last conclusion is well
founded 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 of
grooves would produce a much better appearance.

The adoption of a smaller caliber infers, of course, a corresponding

diminution of the weight of the ball, when it is not made disproportionately
long. The balls submitted were, however, in their form and arrangement,
for the most part, entirely unsuited for field service. As it was one of the
prominent 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 being
made wholly cylindrical, the upper part remaining unchanged. The trials
with 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 yards
they were equal. The experiments at Woolwich, on the projecting culot,
and whether any culot is advantageous, showed less accuracy by one third
for the ball without culot.

These experiments also elicited the fact that the Minié or expanding ball

gave better results when separated from the cartridge in loading than when
united to it; and in the latter case, still better when the envelope was well
greased. 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 more
gradually 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 in
England, 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; but
the interior cross-section is an ellipse, and the bore has a certain turn in its
length. 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 of
0.066, the less of 0.029 inch.

The system thus proposed by Lancaster seems to be partially borrowed

from the American smooth bore, with the addition of the expanding ball,
which, enlarged by the action of the gases on the conical plug, retains its
cylindrical part entire, unchanged by the increased twist, and only alters
when the point has left the muzzle.

Strictly speaking this twisting ellipse is nothing else than the parabolic

grooves before described.

As the American system is the basis of Lancaster’s it deserves a passing

notice. 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 to
muzzle, but beginning with a direction nearly parallel to the axis of the
bore, they assume a greater and greater inclination to it as they approach
the 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 of
preventing the ball from stripping, or being forced over the lands by the
first 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—a
friction 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 tied
above the small ball, and in the groove of the plate.

CONCLUSION

In taking a retrospect of what has been accomplished in the systems
heretofore treated, . . . the improvement of infantry arms must be kept in
view. 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, be
attained only through the last three, which are to be regarded rather as the
means to an end. Such has been the process in all the systems proposed
since 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 the
increased windage, facility of loading. Delvigne, for this purpose, gave his
balls a windage of 0.027 inch, the powder being kept from crushing by the
use of a chamber, with a diameter less than the bore, upon which the ball
rested. In loading, however, the ball was considerably disfigured, as, on the
upper side, it was flattened by the face of the rammer, despite the concavity
of the latter, and on the other it was forced into the chamber. The results
obtained 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 in
France, and attempts made to improve it by lengthening the barrel and di-
minishing the twist of the grooves, still retaining the same charge of
ninety-six grains. The chief obstacle, however, to improved results, still lay
in the disfiguration of the ball, which greatly increased the resistance of
the air, and thereby diminished the range.

The system of Wild gave much better results. In this the round ball was

still retained, with a considerable windage, which was diminished, as de-
sired, by a thicker or thinner patch. The preservation of the spherical shape
of the ball is here, too, a condition; and this, with the method of loading,
whereby the accumulation of dirt was avoided, showed, in the experiments
of 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 also
observed 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 execution
was limited only by the extent of human vision. No longer can artillery,
when opposed to infantry, take up its position and securely discharge its
rounds of grape and canister, secure of immunity from any but a random
shot from its adversary. At this distance it is now at the mercy of the rifle of
the foot-soldier; hence, when covering the artillery, the rifled arm becomes
a much more efficient support than formerly, when it was not always in its
power 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 none
other 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 the
weight of the ball augmented, by the use of the pointed ball. In France, for
example, the charge has been reduced from 96 grains to 68 grains, whilst
the weight of the ball has increased from 452 grains (the round ball of
1842) to 725 grains. The reasons for this are, in the first place, that the
powder is kept by the tige from being crushed; secondly, that the powder is
fully burned by the time the ball quits the muzzle; and, thirdly, the effect of
the 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 with
round balls after the old method, when brought into this system un-
changed except by the introduction of the tige, acquire greatly increased
accuracy and range. Still, one circumstance operates unfavorably on the
latter of these two properties—that is, the partial disfiguration of the ball
by the rammer, which both changes the point of the ball and forms a rim
there more or less marked. This defect has been attempted to be remedied
by giving, as in Prussia, to the lower part of the hollow in the rammer-head
an increased width. The ball, too, when the cylindrical part is too long, may
take too strong a hold on the grooves, when these are somewhat deep, by
which the direction of the ball will, indeed, be secured, but the augmented
friction will be injurious to the range.

In spite of all attempts to guard against deforming the projectile, it has

not yet been attained; and this system must be regarded as that of constant
disfiguration of the ball, to which all that we have treated of belong, except
that of Wild.

While in the system of Thouvenin the ball is forced into the grooves by

the aid of the rammer and the tige, the same is effected in that of Minié by
the expansive force of the gas, which fills up the cavity of the ball and
presses 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: a
still greater facility of loading, and the preservation of the original form of
the ball. An apparent contradiction is here asserted, viz: that, did the disfig-
uration of the ball not take place, the system of Thouvenin would insure
still greater range and accuracy, while the Minié system, in which the ball
retains the shape which theoretical principles have assigned to it, gives no
greater 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 not
always correctly fulfill its functions, but is separated from the ball at the
moment of loading; or else, being turned edgeways, causes the total loss of
the shot. The diminished range may be accounted for by supposing that a
portion 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 be
augmented nearly eight grains.

A further peculiarity of this system consisted in the progressive grooves,

which were not, however, indispensable, since grooves of the shallow and
rounded kind gave the same result, namely: a certain and easy filling of
them.

The system of Wilkinson was founded on principles similar to those of

Minié, in effecting the filling of the grooves through the action of the
gases; not, however, as in the latter, by pressure from the interior outwards,
but by pressure from behind on the conical part, the cylindrical part being
provided with deep grooves, which permitted its constituent rings to move
forwards, 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 arms
of 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, prominent
principles. The Swiss system fulfills, in an equal degree, all the require-
ments of an excellent arm for service. The loading is here effected with as
little difficulty, as in the other systems, the ball being shoved down to a
given 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 of
Thouvenin, it is accomplished by the aid of the rammer; in those of Minié
and Wilkinson, by the operation of the gas on the ball; so it is here brought
about by the use of a greased patch, which surrounds the lower part of the
ball. This system also differs from the others in having a remarkably small
caliber. 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 has
the advantage of the other systems. . . .

There remains, finally, the breech-loading system, including the French

wall piece, the Norwegian breech loading, and the Prussian needle gun, all
of which differ materially from each other in their mechanism; the first two
having the ordinary percussion cap, whilst the latter is fired by means of a
needle, 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, is
the elongation which the cylindrical part undergoes by its forcible entry
into the bore, which is of little consequence.

In all the recent systems where they have not been ingrafted on old

arms, there has been a diminution in the inclination of the grooves for-
merly deemed necessary, except in the Prussian needle gun, the Swiss
Stutzer, 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 in
the 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 or
were serious contenders for that role. The most significant of these rifles
are 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 of

the abbreviations require clarification.

C a rt r i d g e : In almost all cases, these are composite cartridges, made of

brass (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 7.62mm

and the total length of the cartridge is 51mm; this was a standard NATO
cartridge 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 means

right-handed spin and lh the opposite.

Magazine: There are three types of magazines: integral meaning that the

magazine cannot normally be removed from the weapon; box meaning
that 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 were
also a number of external cartridge holders fitted near to the breech on
some British weapons, which were not true magazines, as the weapon
was still loaded manually.

M/v: The muzzle velocity of the weapon, or the speed at which the bullet

emerges from the barrel. F p s means feet per second, m / s meters per
second.

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 facts

are not included. This is simply because they are of little real value to the
rifleman 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 the
state mentioned. Other dates are the year of issue or adoption and are
shown 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 was
the designer and maker of the weapon described. Those models followed
by 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 covered
by a mass of figures and propaganda, the constant need for any new equip-
ment to be adequately tested before issue is paramount. Soldiers must be
given weapons and equipment to enable them to perform their duties at
least risk to themselves; after all, war and combat are risky enough without
having your rifle quit on you!

ARGENTINA

Ballester Rigaud

Hafdasa

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).

Fara

FARA 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 Rifle

Improved 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 Carbine

As 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 Rifle

Similar 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 Arsenal

K3 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 Rifle

1996. 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)

Früwirth

Gendarmerie 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 Rifle

As 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 Rifle

M1886 rifles converted to fire 8 x 50R Mannlicher cartridge.
M/v: 2035 fps (620 m/s).

1888 Rifle

M1886 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 Rifle

Model 1888 with new sights for M88/90 cartridge.
M/v: 2028 fps (618 m/s).

1890 Cavalry Carbine

Straight-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 Carbine

1892. As cavalry carbine.
Details: as M1890 Cavalry Carbine.

M1895 Rifle

Straight-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 Rifle

Straight-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 Carbine

Similar to short rifle.
Details: the same

M1914 Rifle

As 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).

Steyr

AUG (Armee Universal Gewehr) Rifle

1977. Designed to Austrian Army specifications for assault rifle. A d o p t e d

by them as StuG 77. Bullpup design. Modular weapon system.

Gas operated rotating bolt, selective fire. Adopted by the armed forces of

Australia, 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 Carbine

Ca. 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 Rifle

1969. 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 rotary
M/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 Rifle

Conversion 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 Carbine

As 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 Carbine

Action 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 Rifle

Improved 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 Carbine

Improved 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 Rifle

As for the M1873 with an improved cartridge.
As M1873, except M/v: 1476 fps (450 m/s).

1867/77 Rifles and Carbines

M1867 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 Carbine

Replacement for 67/77 conversions.
Details: as 1873 Carbine, except M/v: 1007 fps (307 m/s).

BELGIUM

Albini-Braendlin

M1867 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 Rifle

Lifting 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 Rifle

As 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 the
dropping-block rifle patented in 1870. Manufactured by the Petit Syndicat
de Liège.

M1870 Civil Guard Carbine

Falling-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).

Fabrique Nationale d’Armes de Guerre of Herstal, Belgium, a world-famous
arms manufacturing company, has been in business since 1888 as the Bel-
gian national arms manufacturer.

M30

1918. 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 D

1920s. 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/SAFN

Design 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 50-00

1953. 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 50-64

Ca. 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.

296

APPENDIX B: BELGIUM

FAL Model 50-63

Ca. 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 50-41

1958. 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 Rifle

1976. 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 Carbine

1976. As FNC rifle but shorter barrel.

APPENDIX B: BELGIUM

297

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 Rifle

1970–1990. 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 Rifle

1892. 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 Rifle

The infantry rifle but with the bolt handle turned down.
Details: as M1889 Infantry Rifle.

1889 Cavalry Carbine

As 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’ Carbine

A short rifle rather than a carbine.
Cartridge: 7.65 x 53M Mauser.

298

APPENDIX B: BELGIUM

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 Carbine

As 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 Rifle

Bolt 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 Rifle

Conversion 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 Rifle

Commercial 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 Rifle

Commercial short rifle to replace the M1922 for export. Made in vari-

ous calibers.

APPENDIX B: BELGIUM

299

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).

M1935/46

Post-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 Rifle

The Argentine M1891 rifle.

M1907 Rifle

The Mauser Gewehr 98 as exported, firing the 7.65 x 53mm cartridge.

M1950 Rifle

The Czech Model 1924 in 7.65mm caliber and with some minor

changes.

BRAZIL

Imbel

MD2

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.

MD3

1985. As MD2, but fixed plastic butt.
Details: As MD2 but weight: 10lb 1oz (4.6kg).

300

APPENDIX B: BOLIVIA

M1894 Rifle

Similar 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 Rifle

As 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 Rifle

Details: 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.

C7A1Rifle

1990. Improved C7 with optical sight.
Details: as C7 rifle.

C8 Assault Carbine

1984. 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

Magazine: 30-round box.
M/v: 2952 fps (900 m/s).
Rate of fire: 800 rpm.

C8A1 Assault Carbine.

1990. C8 with telescope sight. Used by Netherlands special forces.
Details: as C8.

Ross

There were two types of Ross rifles: the 1905 and the 1910. Both used
straight-pull bolts.

Rifle, Ross, Mark 1

1905.
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 2

1909. 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 3

Improved 1910 pattern.

Rifle, Ross, Mark 3*

As Mark 3, with small changes to improve the locking.

Rifle, Ross, Mark 3B

Ca. 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 3
or 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 Rifle

As 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 Rifle

Shortened rifle, bolt handle turned down.

1895 Carbine

Bolt 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 Rifle

As the Brazilian M1904.

CHINA

State Arsenal

1912–1925. 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” Rifle

1936–1949, 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 Carbine

1956. Exact copy of the Russian Simonov SKS.

Type 68 Rifle

1968. 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 Rifle

1979. Exact copy of Russian Dragunov SVD sniping rifle.

Type 81 Assault Rifle

1981. 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 Rifle

Ca. 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 56

1956. Similar to AK-47.

Type 56-1

Ca. 1956. Similar to AK-S.

Type 56-2

As Type 56-1 but with skeleton folding butt.

304

APPENDIX B: CHINA

Type 56-C

Ca. 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 Rifle

Steyr 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 Rifle

The Chilean M1895.

Model 21 Short Rifle

Post-1924. Chinese-manufactured copy of Belgian M1924 in 7.92

Mauser caliber.

COLOMBIA

M1891 Rifle

The Argentinian M1891.

M1904 Rifle

The Brazilian M1904.

COSTA RICA

M1895 Rifle

The Chilean M1895.

M1910 Rifle

Based 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 Rifle

1995. 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 Rifle

1995. 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 Rifle

1995. 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 Rifle

1990s. 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 52/56

Ca. 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 CZ

Ca. 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 Rifle

1995. 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 Rifle

1995.
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 Rifle

1922. 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 Rifle

For export M1924 short rifle.

1924 Short Rifle

Shorter 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 Carbine

Shortened M1924 rifle.
Cartridge: 7.92 x 57 Mauser.
Length: 39.2 in (996mm).
Weight: 7lb 11oz (3.5kg).
Barrel: 17.9in (455mm), 4 grooves, d1
Magazine: 5-round integral box.
M/v: 2510 fps (765 m/s).

M1954 Sniping Rifle

Assembled 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

Bang

Soren H. Bang developed a number of rifles using a muzzle cap to trap
emerging gas to drive an operating rod to open the breech. Tested between
ca. 1910 and 1930 by various countries, but none was ever accepted for
service.

M1889 Rifle

Bolt 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 Rifle

1908. As M1889, but sighted for a new cartridge with pointed bullet.
M/v: 2460 fps (750 m/s).

APPENDIX B: DENMARK

309

M1889-10 Rifle

1910. As M1889, but with 4-groove constant pitch rifling.

M1889 Cavalry Carbine

Modified 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 Carbine

As cavalry carbine, but can take a bayonet.
Details: the same

M1 889-23 Cavalry Carbine

1923. As M1889 Cavalry Carbine but fitted for a bayonet.

M1889-24 Infantry Carbine

1924. 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 Carbine

1924. As 1889 Cavalry Carbine, but with turned down bolt handle.

M1928 Sniping Rifle

1928. 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 the
Martini.

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).

Madsen

M62. 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 Rifle

Rolling 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 Carbine

As 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 Rifle

M1867 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 Carbine

M1867 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 & Larsen

1942 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 M2

1953. 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 M62

1962. 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

Misr

1950s. Copy of the AKM, with very minor differences.

ARM

1950s. Misr converted to semi-automatic fire only.

Haki Maadi

1955. Manufactured in Egypt, modified Ag42B, and fired a more power-

ful cartridge.

Cartridge: 7.92 x 57 Mauser.

312

APPENDIX B: DOMINICAN REPUBLIC

Length: 47.6in (1209mm).
Weight: 10lb 10oz (4.8kg).
Barrel: 23.2in (590mm), 4 grooves, rh.
Magazine: 10-round box.
M/v: 2854 fps (870 m/s).

Maadi

1960. 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 Rifle

Rolling 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

Helenius

APH-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 Rifle

Rebarreled 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 Rifle

Shortened 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 Rifle

M1928 shortened with improved magazine and a new backsight.
Details: as for M1927, except Weight: 9lb 10oz (4.4kg).

M1939 Short Rifle

New 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).

Pelo

Maker unknown
1950. 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-2l

1960s. 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-41

1990s. 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).

M90

1980s. 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.

Valmet

M1962 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 Rifle

Revised 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 Rifle

Improved 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 Rifle

Heavy-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

Berthier

1890 Cavalry Carbine

Bolt action carbine. In 1901 resighted to 2000m due to adoption of

Balle 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 Carbine

As Cavalry Carbine.
Details: as Cavalry Carbine, except Weight: 6lb 10oz (2.98kg).

1890 Gendarmerie Carbine

As 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 Rifle

1915. 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 Musketoon

Model 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 Rifle

Basically, 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 Rifle

The 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).

Daudeteau

M1896 Rifle

Bolt action. Issued to French Navy in 1896, withdrawn 1905, replaced

by 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).

Gras

1874 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 Carbine

As rifle but shorter, turned-down bolt handle.
Cartridge: 11x 59R Gras.
Length: 46.26in (1175mm).
Weight: 7lb 13.5oz (3.6kg).

318

APPENDIX B: FRANCE

Barrel: 27.6in (702mm), 4 grooves, rh.
M/v: 1404 fps (428 m/s).

M1874 Mounted Gendarmerie Carbine

MAC Chatellerault, MAS & MAT
As cavalry carbine but fitted for bayonet.
Details: the same

M1874 Dismounted Gendarmerie Carbine

As cavalry carbine but fitted for bayonet.
Details: the same

M1874 Artillery Musketoon

Shortened 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 Rifle

Conversion 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 Rifle

Steyr 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 Rifle

French version of Kropatschek M1878 design with increased magazine

capacity.

Details: the same, except Magazine: 8 rounds, Weight: 9lb 6oz (4.26kg).

1885 Infantry Rifle

Cartridge: 11 x 59R Gras.
Length: 48.98in (1244mm).

APPENDIX B: FRANCE

319

Weight: 9lb 4oz (4.2kg).
Barrel: 29.6in (75mm), 4 grooves, rh.
Magazine: 8-round tube.
M/v: 493 fps (455 m/s).

Lebel

Lebel created the first modern military rifle, being the first to use smoke-
less powder and a small-caliber bullet.

1886 Infantry Rifle

Bolt-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 Rifle

Improved M1886.

M1886 R35

1935. 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 1918

Improved Mle 1917. Used the standard issue cartridge charger rather

than a special one.

Cartridge: 8 x 50R Lebel.

320

APPENDIX B: FRANCE

Length: 43.1in (1095mm).
Weight: 10lb 8oz (4.8kg).
Barrel: 23.1in (586mm), 4 grooves, rh.
Magazine: 5-round box.
M/v: 2200 fps (670 m/s).

Mle 1936 Infantry Rifle

Bolt action repeater, bolt locking into the receiver behind the magazine.

Bolt handle slopes forward. Slab-sided receiver, two-piece stock, sling
ring, 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 Rifle

1939. 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 1949

1950. The result of development work started in 1944, this rifle was is-

sued to troops in 1949. Gas operated, semi-automatic fire only, tilting
block.

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 1949/56

1956. A later version of the Mle 1949, the main change being a NATO

standard muzzle for grenade launching. A special grenade sight was
also fitted.

Cartridge: 7.5 x 54mm French M1929.
Length: 40.2in (1022mm).

APPENDIX B: FRANCE

321

Weight: 8lb 6oz (3.9kg).
Barrel: 22.8in (580mm), 4 grooves, lh.
Magazine: 10-round box.
M/v: 2750 fps (838 m/s).

Mle 1962

Replacement for the Mle 1949 and Mle 1949/56 firing the 7.62 x 51

NATO cartridge. Approved for service as the Mle 1962, then replaced
by 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 Rifle

1964. Bolt action, pistol grip, box magazine. Bipod. Normally used with

telescope. Originally in 7.5mm caliber, many were later made in
7.62mm.

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 Rifle

1984. Improved FR-F1.
Details: as the FR-F1.

Mle FR-G1, FR-G2

1995. 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 Rifle

1980. 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.

322

APPENDIX B: FRANCE

FAMAS G-2 Assault Rifle

1994. 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.

Meunier

Rifle 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 Rifle

As 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 Rifle

Bolt action repeater, heavy barrel, bipod.
Cartridge: .50 Browning.
Length: 54.3in (1380mm).
Weight: 30lb 7oz (13.80kg).

APPENDIX B: FRANCE

323

Barrel: 27.6in (700mm), 8 grooves, rh.
Magazine: 7-round box.
M/v: 2788 fps (850 m/s).

GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC

(FORMER EAST GERMANY)

Years of manufacture coincide approximately with the appearance of the
original Kalashnikov model (see Kalashnikov).

MPiK

Copy of the AK-47; no cleaning rod under the barrel.

MPiKS

Copy of the AK-S; no cleaning rod.

MPiKM

Copy of AKM. Cleaning rod.

MPiKMS

Identical copy of the AKM-S but without shaped muzzle.

MPiKMS-72

As MPiKM. Has metal butt-stock.

KKMPi69

As 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 and
others 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 Carbine

1890. 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 Rifle

As 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).

Gustloff

Volksgewehr 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

Magazine: 30-round box.
M/v: 2100 fps (640 m/s).
Rate of fire: 500 rpm.

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 & Koch

G3 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 Rifle

1963. G3 Rifle with retractable butt.
Details: As G3 Rifle except Length, butt retracted: 31.50in (800mm).

Weight: 10lb 6oz (4.7kg).

G3A2 Rifle

1962. G3 with free-floating barrel. Most G3s were rebuilt to this stan-

dard.

Details: as G3 Rifle.

G3A3 Rifle

1964. 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 Rifle

1964. Specially selected G3A3 Rifle fitted with a telescope sight.
Details: as G3A3 Rifle.

G3A4 Rifle

1964. Retracting-butt G3A3.
Details: similar, except Length, butt retracted: 33.07in (840mm).

Weight: 10lb 6oz (4.7kg).

G3A6

Iranian-manufactured version of the G3A3.

G3A7

MKEK.
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.

G3A7AI

MKEK.
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 Rifle

1973. 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 Rifle

1985. Specially built, using standard action but self-loading only; tele-

scope sight.

Cartridge: 7.62 x 51 NATO.
Length: 47.6in (1208mm).

APPENDIX B: GERMANY

327

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 Rifle

1987. Less costly PSGI, using standard action with self-loading only,

heavy free-floating hammered barrel, no iron sights, telescope sight
standard, 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 Rifle

1997. MSG90 with added iron sights and windage adjustment.
Developed for U.S. Department of Defense.
Details: as MSG90, except Weight: 141lb 11oz (6.67kg).

MSG3

1987. As MSG90, with similar dimensions and standard iron sights as

well as telescope mount. Developed solely for the German Army.

HK32A2 Rifle

1965. 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.

HK32A3

1965. Retracting-butt HK32A2.
Details: similar, except Length, butt extended: 37.0in (940mm); Length,

butt retracted: 28.7in (729mm); Weight: 8lb 8oz (3.49kg).

HK32KAI

1965. 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).

328

APPENDIX B: GERMANY

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 Rifle

1965. 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 Rifle

1965. 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).

HK33KAI

1965. 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.

HK33EA2

1985. 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.

HK33EK

1985. 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).

APPENDIX B: GERMANY

329

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/1

1985. 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 Rifle

1971. 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 Rifle

1973. 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 Rifle

1985. 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.

330

APPENDIX B: GERMANY

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.

G8A1Rifle

1985. G8 rifle, but will not accept the belt-feed modification; restricted

to use with magazines.

Details: the same.

G11 K3 Rifle

1990 (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 Rifle

1995. 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 Rifle

1995. 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.

APPENDIX B: GERMANY

331

G36E and G36KE Assault Rifles

1995. Export versions of the G36 and 036K with optical sight of 1.5x

power.

Details: the same as G36 and 036K.

G41 Rifle

1985. 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.

G41A2

1985. 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.

G4IK

1985. 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).

332

APPENDIX B: GERMANY

1871 Light Infantry Rifle

1876. 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 Carbine

1876. 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’ Rifle

As M1871 Carbine, but a two-position flip rear sight.
Details: the same

M1871/84 Infantry Rifle

1885. 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 Rifle

1895. Based on the Commission Rifle M1888, but with various Mauser

ideas incorporated. The army would have adopted it, but Mauser
then 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 firing
pin to give fast locking.

APPENDIX B: GERMANY

333

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).

334

APPENDIX B: GERMANY

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 98/40

1940. 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 Mauser
charger-loaded magazine system, but the bolt and the rest of the rifle
were 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 Rifle

1915. 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-Gewehr

First 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 Rifle

1940. 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 for
a different muzzle cap and slight differences in stock contour.

M33/44

1940. The Czech M1933 Gendarmerie carbine made to suit German

mountain troops.

APPENDIX B: GERMANY

335

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 Rifle

1941. 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 Rifle

1945. 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 Rifle

1976. 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 Rifle

1986. 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.

336

APPENDIX B: GERMANY

Magazine: 9-round box.
M/v: 2362 fps (720 m/s).

Model SR93 Sniping Rifle

1993. Short-throw bolt action repeating rifle. Adjustable for right- or

left-hand use without tools. Heavy barrel, bipod, telescope mount on
receiver.

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 the
Germans for aerial use as the Model 1915, having been bought from
SIG 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).

Rheinmetall

FG 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 Rifle

1938. 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).

APPENDIX B: GERMANY

337

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 Rifle

1939. 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 Rifle

1941. 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°.

Walther

Gewehr 41(W) Assault Rifle

Ca. 1941. Gas operated, semi-automatic only. Rectangular box maga-

zine.

Cartridge: 7.92 x 57mm Mauser.
Length: 44.5in (1130mm).
Weight: 11lb 0oz (4.98kg).
Barrel: 21.45in (545mm), 4 grooves, rh.
Magazine: 30-round box.
M/v: 2365 fps (776 m/s).

MKb 42 (W) Assault Rifle

1942. 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.

338

APPENDIX B: GERMANY

Gewehr 43 Assault Rifle

1943. 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 Carbine

As 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 Rifle

M1869 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).

APPENDIX B: GERMANY

339

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 1985

Bolt 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 Rifle

Adopted 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 Rifle

Named for Captain Boys, one of the design team at Enfield Lock, which

designed this weapon.

Mark 1 Anti-tank Rifle

1937. 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.28

Experimental, submitted to British Army ca. 1950. Chambered for .280

round; was rejected when the .280in cartridge was abandoned. Gas
operated.

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 submachine
guns.

De Lisle carbine

A Lee-Enfield bolt action attached to a .45in barrel contained by a large

and almost completely efficient silencer. Specially produced for issue
to 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).

Enfield

Rifle, 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 integral
M/v: 2785 fps (849 m/s).

Rifle, magazine, .303 in, Pattern 1914, Mark 1e Remington

1916. 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; the
Mark 1e was made by Remington Arms–UMC at their Eddystone,
Pennsylvania, factory. Other weapons were made by Winchester at
New 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 integral
M/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 were
placed in storage in 1926 and re-introduced into service as the Rifle
No 3 Mark 1 on 1 December 1941.

Rifle No 3 Mark 1

1926. 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 in
1926.

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) A

1941. 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, M1917

1917. This is the Enfield Pattern 1914 rifle redesigned to accept U.S.

.30-06 cartridges and adopted as substitute standard to alleviate the
shortage of Springfield M1903 rifles in 1917. This rifle was identical
to the Enfield P14.

Cartridge: .30-06 Springfield.
Length: 46.30in (1174mm).

342

APPENDIX B: GREAT BRITAIN

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, E1

1947. 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 1

1949. 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–SA80

1986. Gas-operated, rotating bolt, selective fire bullpup design. Infantry

version fitted with SUSAT (Sight Unit Small Arms Trilux), optical
sight 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.

L85A2

Late 1990s/early 2000s. Modified version of the SA80 by Heckler and

Koch, which at last fulfills some of the promise of 20 years ago, and
which will function in climates other than Salisbury Plain and Cat-
terick.

Details: Modifications by Heckler and Koch, but essential details as

SA80.

APPENDIX B: GREAT BRITAIN

343

L86A1 Cadet Rifle

Ca. 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 made
to a previous model, but not enough to justify a new Mark Number. This
became rather confusing during World War I, especially as some rifles
boasted as many as three or four asterisks.

Rifle, magazine, Lee-Enfield, Mark 1

1895. 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 new
backsight.

Details: as Rifle, magazine, Lee-Enfield Mark 1, except Weight: 9lb 5oz

(4.2kg).

Rifle, Short, magazine, Lee-Enfield, Mark 1

1903. 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).

344

APPENDIX B: GREAT BRITAIN

Rifle, Short, magazine, Lee-Enfield, Mark 1*

1906. Improved magazine.
Details: as Mark 1.

Rifle, Short, magazine, Lee-Enfield, Converted, Mark 1

1903. 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 2

1903. Converted. Lee-Enfield Mark 1 and 1* and. Lee-Metford Mark 2

and 2* with new sights, shorter and lighter barrels, and modifications
to 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 3

1907. As SMLE Mark 1 sights improved.
Weight: 8lb 10.5oz (3.94kg).

Rifle, Short, magazine, Lee-Enfield, Converted, Mark 4

1907. 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 Mark
7 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.

APPENDIX B: GREAT BRITAIN

345

Rifle, No 4, Mark 1

1941. Similar to the short magazine Lee-Enfield, but with an aperture

rear sight hinged at the rear of the body, the muzzle exposed for about
3 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 United
States or Canada and are stamped “U.S. PROPERTY” or “LONG
BRANCH.”

Rifle, No 4, Mark 2

1949. As Mark 1, but with a new trigger mechanism.

Rifle, No 4, Mark 1/2

1949. 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 1/3

1949. A No 4 Mark 1* with trigger modified to Mark 2.

Rifle, No 4,T/W3 Mark 2

1956. Specially selected No 4 Mark 2 rifles fitted with a No 32 Mark 3

sighting telescope.

Rifle, No 5, Mark 1

1945. 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, muzzle
flash 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.

346

APPENDIX B: GREAT BRITAIN

Magazine: 10-round box.
M/v: cc 2400 fps (731 m/s).

Rifle, 7.62mm, L39A1

1960s. 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, L42A1

1960s. 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 1

1902. Carbine, magazine, Lee-Metford, Mark 1 fitted with Lee-Enfield

barrels.

Carbine, magazine, Lee-Enfield, Cavalry, Mark 1

1907. 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, under
the 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 by
William Metford.

APPENDIX B: GREAT BRITAIN

347

Rifle, magazine, Mark 1

1888. 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 now
the 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 2

1892. 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 the
cocking piece was also lengthened and carried the safety catch.

Rifle, Charger-Loading, magazine, Lee-Metford, Mark 2

1907. 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 1

1894. 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).

348

APPENDIX B: GREAT BRITAIN

Barrel: 20.8in (527mm), 7 grooves, lh.
Magazine: 6-round single-column box.
M/v: 2000 fps (610 m/s).

Martini-Enfield

Rifle, Martini-Enfield, Mark 1

1895. Conversion of Martini-Henry Mark 3 rifles with a new shorter

barrel 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 2

1896. 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 1

Martini-Metford Carbine rebarrelled to Enfield standard in 1903.

Carbine, Martini-Enfield, Artillery, Mark 1

1895. 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 2

1897. Converted Martini-Henry Carbine Mark 1 and 3 with new fitting

barrels.

APPENDIX B: GREAT BRITAIN

349

Carbine, Martini-Enfield, Artillery, Mark 2*

1899. Converted Artillery Mark 2 omitting cleaning rod and fittings.

Carbine, Martini-Enfield, Artillery, Mark 3

1899. Converted Martini-Henry Rifle Mark 2 with new .303in barrel.
Details: as Mark 1.

Carbine, Martini-Enfield, Cavalry, Mark 1

1896. 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 Alexander
H e n r y, which involved the gradual deepening of the rifling grooves for
about 11 in from the breech face before they attained full depth.

Rifle, Martini-Henry, Mark 1

1874. 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 2

1877. Similar to Mark 1, but better trigger pull.
Details: as Mark 1.

Rifle, Martini-Henry, Mark 3

1879. Improved Mark 2.
Details: as Mark 1.

Rifle, Martini-Henry, Mark 4

1887. 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).

350

APPENDIX B: GREAT BRITAIN

Carbine, Martini-Henry, Cavalry, Mark 1

1877. 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 1

1879. 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 2

1900. 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 1

1892. Conversion of Martini-Henry Artillery Carbine Mark 1 by fitting

a new .303in barrel, chambered and rifled as for the Lee-Metford
r 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 2

1893. Converted Martini-Henry Rifle Mark 2, fitted with .303in barrel.
Details: as Mark 1, except Weight: 7lb 1oz (3.2kg).
Converted short butt rifles:

APPENDIX B: GREAT BRITAIN

351

Length: 36.8in (936mm).
Weight: 6lb 5oz (3.16kg).

Carbine, Martini-Metford, Artillery, Mark 3

1894. 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 1

1892. 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 2

1892. 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 3

1893. 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 the
Model 85 was manufactured in the United States by the Gibbs Rifle
Company.

352

APPENDIX B: GREAT BRITAIN

M82 Sniping Rifle

1982. 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 Rifle

1983. 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 Rifle

1985. 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 the
United States.

Pattern 1 Rifled Musket

1866. Snider’s conversion of the Enfield Rifled Musket Pattern 1853.

The conversion was the insertion of a side-hinged breech block with
firing pin, converting the previous muzzle-loading rifled musket into
a 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 & LSA

1867. As Pattern 1, but with small changes.

APPENDIX B: GREAT BRITAIN

353

Pattern 2** BSA, Enfield & LSA

1867. With a new extractor, the underside of the block was truly circular

so as to support the entire base of the cartridge and improvements to
the 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 P60

1867. 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 P61

1867. 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 P61

1867. 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 P58

1867. Snider conversion to the Pattern 2** standard.

Constabulary Carbine

1867. 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).

354

APPENDIX B: GREAT BRITAIN

Rifle, Pattern 1853, Snider, Improved Action 1868, Interchangeable, Mark 3

1869. As Enfield Rifle Pattern 2**, but steel barrel instead of iron.

Carbine, B. L., Rifled, Snider, YeoManry, Mark 1

1880. 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 a

longer 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 Rifle

Bolt 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 Carbine

Shortened 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 spool
M/v: 2,057 fps (627 m/s).

Mannlicher-Schoenauer M1903/14 Rifle

Improved M1903.
Details: the same, except Weight: 8lb 7oz (3.8kg).

APPENDIX B: GREECE

355

Mannlicher-Schoenauer M1905/14 Cavalry Carbine

Similar 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 Rifle

1990s. 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 Rifle

1990s. 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 Rifle

1990s. 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 Rifle

1990s. 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-63

1963. As AKM, but forward pistol grip beneath the fore-end. We i g h s

about 5oz (20g) less than the Russian AKM.

AMD-65

1965. 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 Rifle

1990s. 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 Rifle

Short 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 Rifle

Redesign 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 1317

1931. These were Czech M98/29 rifles and short rifles.

Model 1328

Czech 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).

Tabuk

1980s. Copy of the AKM with slight manufacturing differences.

ISRAEL

Galil

7.62mm 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 Rifle

Current. As the assault rifle, but without bipod.
Details: as ARM, except Weight: 8lb 11oz (3.95kg).

7.62mm SAR Short Assault Rifle

Current. 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 Gun

Current. 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 Rifle

Current. As AR, but with no bipod or carrying handle.
Details: as AR, except Weight: 8lb 11oz (3.95kg).

5.56mm SAR Short Assault Rifle

Current. 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 Rifle

Current. 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 Sniper

Current. Standard Galil rifle with special modifications: bipod, heavy

barrel, muzzle brake, telescopic sight mount on receiver, two-stage
trigger. 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 Rifle

1960. 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 Rifle

1960. 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 Rifle

1960. 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 Automatic

1964. 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 Rifle

1970. 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 Carbine

1970. 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 Carbine

1975. 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.

AR70/90

1990. 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

Magazine: 30-round box.
M/v: 3050 fps (930 m/s).
Rate of fire: 625 rpm.

SC70/90

1990. 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.

SCS70/90

1990. 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.

SCP70/90

1995. As SCS70/90, but with gas regulator and attachable grenade

launcher.

Details: as SCS70/90.

Sniper Rifle

1985. 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).

Bernardelli

B2 Infantry Rifle

1985. Rifle proposed to Italian A r m y. Beretta preferred; development

ceased in 1990.

Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm M193.
Length, butt extended: 38.5in (979mm).

APPENDIX B: ITALY

363

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 Carbine

1985. 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-Rigotti

1900. 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 Rifle

Rotating bolt, clip-loading.

364

APPENDIX B: ITALY

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 Carbine

Short 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’ Carbine

Another 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 Carbine

As M1891 special carbine, but with rifle sight.
Details: as 1891 Cavalry Carbine.

M1891/38 Short Rifle

M1891 Rifle remodeled to correspond to the 7.35mm 1938 rifle in ap-

pearance but firing the 6mm cartridge.

1938 Short Rifle

M1891 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 Carbine

M1891 Cavalry or TS carbine rebarreled to fire 7.3mm ammunition.
Details: as originals except M/v: 2378 fps (725 m/s).

APPENDIX B: ITALY

365

Vetterli

1870 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 Rifle

Shortened 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 Carbine

M1870 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 Rifle

M1870 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 system
designed by Vitali.

1870/87 Infantry Rifle

M1870 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.

366

APPENDIX B: ITALY

Magazine: 4-round box.
M/v: 1410 fps (430 m/s).

1870/87 Short Rifle

Converted Vetterli short rifle to Vitali magazine rifle.
Details: as original model.

1870/87 Cavalry Carbine

Conversion to Vitali magazine.
Details: as original model.

1870/87/15

1915. 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

Arisaka

Meiji 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 Rifle

1897. 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 Carbine

1900. 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 Rifle

Koishikawa.
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 Rifle

1905. 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 integral
M/v: 2400 fps (730 m/s).

Meiji 38th Year Cavalry Carbine

1905. Short version of the 38th Year Rifle. This carbine was employed in

British service, 1915–1921, as Carbine, magazine, 0.256in, Pattern
1907.

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 integral
M/v: 2250 fps (685 m/s).

Meiji 44th Year Cavalry Carbine

1911. 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 Rifle

1939. 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’ Rifle

1940. Experimental Type 99 rifle with interrupted screw thread joint be-

tween barrel and receiver for dismantling.

Type 1 Parachutists’ Rifle Nagoya

1941. Variant of the Type 38 Cavalry Carbine with a side-hinged butt;

interim design for paratroops.

Type 2 Parachutists’ Rifle

1942. 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).

Howa

Type 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 Rifle

1989. 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 Rifle

1997. 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°.

Murata

Meiji 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 Rifle

1889. 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 Rifle

1889. 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 58

1958. AKM copy.

Type 68

1968. AKM-S copy.

KOREA, SOUTH

Daewoo

K1 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 Rifle

1987. 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 grooves
Magazine: 30-round box.
M/v: 3018 fps (920 m/s).
Rate of fire: 800 rpm.

KIA1 Carbine

1987. 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

Magazine: 30-round box.
M/v: 2690 fps (820 m/s).
Rate of fire: 800 rpm.

MEXICO

1895 Infantry Rifle

Spanish 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 Carbine

Shortened 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 Rifle

As 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 Rifle

Made 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” Rifle

Gas-operated semi-automatic with a rotating bolt. Designed in Mexico,

372

APPENDIX B: MEXICO

made in Switzerland by SIG. Box magazine. Gas cylinder exposed at
front 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 Rifle

M1902 rifle manufactured in Mexico from 1913.
Details: as for the 1902.

M1912 Infantry Rifle

Problems manufacturing the M1910 led to a further order for rifles

from Steyr. These were similar to the M1907 design, but most of the
production went to the Austro-Hungarian Army.

1924 Short Rifle

Belgian M1924 rifle in 7mm caliber.

1936 Short Rifle

Mexican-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 Rifle

1936 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 Rifle

Model 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 Rifle

Turning 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 Carbine

Action 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 Carbine

Similar to the cavalry carbine.
Details: the same, except Weight: 7lb 1oz (3.2kg).

1895 No 3 Engineer and Artillery Carbine

As No 2 Carbine, but with a long handguard.
Details: the same, except Weight: 6lb 15oz (3.1kg).

1895 No 4 Bicycle Troops’ Carbine

As No 3 Carbine, but with the handguard the same length as the stock.
Details: the same.

1895A5 Carbine

1930. 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

Jarmann

M1884 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 Rifle

As 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 Carbine

As 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 Carbine

As M1904 Engineer Carbine except for fittings.

M1912 Short Rifle

Cartridge: 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 Rifle

Pistol-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 Rifle

As 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 Rifle

Free-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).

Vapensmia

NM 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

Beryl

Beryl 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 96

1996. 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

M28

1928. 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.

PMK

1960s. Copy of AK-47. The same title is applied to a copy of the AK-S.

PMK-M

Copies of both the AK-47 and AKM-S are covered by this designation.

Tantal 88

1988. 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 89

1989. 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 Manufacture

1898 Infantry Rifle

1920. Polish copy of German Gew. 98 Infantry rifle.

378

APPENDIX B: POLAND

M1898 Short Rifle

1920. Polish copy of the German Kar. 98AZ.

M1929 Short Rifle

1930. 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 39.5M
Length, 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 Rifle

Bolt 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 Rifle

M1886 rifles for colonial troops.

1886 Fiscal Guard Carbine

Short 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 Carbine

A 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 Rifle

1937. 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-Vergueiro

M1904 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 with
appearance of the original.

AKM

Copies of Russian AK and AKM-S are both found under this designation.

AKM-R

Compact 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-74

As 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 Rifle

Rotating 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 Rifle

Improved M1892. Changes to the bolt to prevent it from being incor-

rectly assembled.

Details: as M1892.

APPENDIX B: RUMANIA

381

1893-03 Carbine

Short M1893 rifle, with a turned-down bolt handle
Cartridge: 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 Rifle

L 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 Rifle

Also 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 Carbine

Short 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 Rifle

Variant 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 Rifle

As Dragoon Rifle, except Length: 48.0in (1219mm); Weight: 7lb 8oz

(3.38kg).

M1895 Three-Line Berdan Nagant

Conversion 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-automatic

only.

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 Avtomat

1916. 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 and
rotating-bolt system. Features for recognition are the short fore-end and
handguard, the gas cylinder above the barrel, and the curved magazine.

AK-47

1949.
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-S

1950. As AK-47, but with a folding wire butt.
Details: as AK-47 except Length, butt folded: 27.5in (699mm).

AKM

1959. 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.

384

APPENDIX B: RUSSIA

AKM-S

1960. 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-SU

1975. 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-74

1974. 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-74

1974. Folding-stock version of the AK-74.
Details: the same, except Length, butt folded: 27.16in (690mm).

AK-74-SU

1980. 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.

AK101

1996. Similar to the basic AK-74.
Cartridge: 5.56 x 45mm NATO.
Length: 37.1in (943mm).
Weight: 7lb 8oz (3.4kg).

APPENDIX B: RUSSIA

385

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 Rifle

Shortened 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 Carbine

As 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 Rifle

Sovietized 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 Carbine

Shortened M1891/30 rifle.

386

APPENDIX B: RUSSIA

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 Carbine

As 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).

SKS

1946. 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 Rifle

1980s. 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°.

APPENDIX B: RUSSIA

387

Tokarev

SVT38 Rifle

1938. Gas-operated semi-automatic, selective fire. Muzzle brake, short

curved 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 Rifle

1940. 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 Carbine

1940. 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 (also
called the Koka Mauser in contemporary reports). Never repeated
due 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 Carbine

Bolt 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 Rifle

As 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 Rifle

Gew. 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 Rifle

M1902 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-88

1988. 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 Rifle

1990. 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 Carbine

1990. 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 Rifle

1895. 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 Rifle

Current. 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

Vektor

R4 Rifle

1982. Modified copy of the Galil rifle to suit the larger stature of South

African 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 Rifle

1980s. 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 Rifle

1980s. 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 Rifle

1998. 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 Rifle

Conversion 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 Carbine

Conversion 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 NATO

cartridge 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 C

1965. 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 L

1984. 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 LI

1985. Export version of the Model L. Took the U.S. Colt M16 and simi-

lar magazines.

Model LC

1984. 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 R

Firing 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 Armouries

1891 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

Barrel: 29.13in (740mm), 4 grooves, rh.
Magazine: 5-round box.
M/v: 2067 fps (630 m/s).

1892 Infantry Rifle

Similar 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 Carbine

Action 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 Rifle

The 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 Carbine

Shortened 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 Rifle

As 1895 Cavalry Carbine, but fitted for bayonet. Troop trialed.
Details: as N11895 Carbine.

APPENDIX B: SPAIN

395

1916 Artillery Rifle

Replaced 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 Rifle

Essentially 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 Rifle

Remington 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 Carbine

As 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 Rifle

Spanish-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 Rifle

Standard 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 Rifle

Shortened 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 Carbine

Action 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 Carbine

Shortened 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

Bofors

CGA 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).

CGA5D

1995. CGA 5 with iron sights.
Details: as CGA 5 (Ak5).

CGAS5-C2

1993. 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 Gustav

M21

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.

M37

1937. 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 Rifle

1943. 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 Carbine

Two-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 Carbine

As M1894, but bayonet fitted.
Details: as M1894.

APPENDIX B: SWEDEN

399

M1896 Rifle

Action 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 Rifle

Modified 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 Rifle

M1939 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, heavy

barrel, 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 Carbine

Straight-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-door
breech block, with a hammer and with the firing pin in the block, modified
by Amsler of Switzerland and used to convert earlier percussion muzzle-
loading weapons to breech-loading.

400

APPENDIX B: SWITZERLAND

M1851/67 Rifle

Conversion 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 Rifle

Conversion 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 Rifle

Conversion 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 Rifle

Conversion 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-pull

bolt 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 Rifle

Improved 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 Rifle

S 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 Rifle

Shorter, 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 Carbine

M1896 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 Rifle

Stronger bolt system, smaller magazine. New rifling.
Cartridge: 7.5 x 55M Swiss M1911.

402

APPENDIX B: SWITZERLAND

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 Carbine

Short 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 Rifle

Straight-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 the

Schmidt-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 Rifle

1953. Unusual selective-fire rifle with the blow-forward system, with

fixed breech-block and a moving barrel. Large curved magazine with
slot 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.

APPENDIX B: SWITZERLAND

403

Stgw 57 Assault Rifle

1957. 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 Rifle

1960s. 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 Rifle

1970s. Reduced Stgw 57 chambered for the 5.56mm cartridge, but

changed to gas piston operation. Too expensive to produce; replaced
by 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, selective
fire.

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.

404

APPENDIX B: SWITZERLAND

SG542 Assault Rifle

1960s. 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 Carbine

1980s. 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 SG550

1986. Replacement for Stgw 57 as a 5.56mm weapon. Improved the de-

sign of the SG540. Selective fire with three-round bursts. Light
bipod.

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 SG551

1986. 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.

APPENDIX B: SWITZERLAND

405

SG550 Sniper

Ca. 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 Commando

Late 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 with
muzzle 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 Rifle

1992. Based on Sauer 200STR target rifle, with cam-locked bolt (as

above). Modular system. Heavy barrel with muzzle compensator, no
iron 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.

406

APPENDIX B: SWITZERLAND

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°.

Vetterli

1869 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 Rifle

Bolt 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 Carbine

Shortened 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 Carbine

As 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 Rifle

Improved 1869 but with the same action.

APPENDIX B: SWITZERLAND

407

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 Rifle

Infantry 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 Carbine

Shortened 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 Carbine

As 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 Rifle

Action 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 Rifle

M1878 with improved sights and trigger.
Cartridge: 10.4 x 38R Swiss Peabody RE.

408

APPENDIX B: SWITZERLAND

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 Rifle

1965. 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 Rifle

Made 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 Rifle

M 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 Rifle

Similar 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 Carbine

Action 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 Rifle

Similar 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 Carbine

M1903 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 National
Armoury 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-door
principle, patented by Allin in 1865.

M1866 Infantry Rifle

Conversion 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 Rifle

New 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 Rifle

New 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 Carbine

As 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 Rifle

New manufacture 1884–1889.
Details: as M1873.

M1874 Carbine

New manufacture 1884–1889, changes as rifle.
Details: as M1879 Carbine.

M1889 Infantry Rifle

New manufacture 1889–1892.
Details: as M1879.

Armalite

AR-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-15

1957. 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-18

1964.
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-18S

1970. 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.

412

APPENDIX B: UNITED STATES

Magazine: 11-round box.
M/v: 2798 fps (853 m/s).

M82A2

1992. 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).

Blake

John Blake of New York City–designed bolt-action rifle

1890. Bolt action, detachable rotary magazine. Submitted for military

tests, 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.

M1918A1

1927. This model was fitted with a bipod and selective fire.
Cartridge: .30-06.

APPENDIX B: UNITED STATES

413

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.

M1918A2

1939. 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-Burton

An experimental rifle, submitted to the U.S. A r m y, 1870–1872. Burton’s
bolt 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.

414

APPENDIX B: UNITED STATES

Magazine: 5-round tube.
M/v: 1300 fps (396 m/s).

Colt Firearms

M16

1962. The military designation of the Armalite AR-15 rifle (see Armalite)

upon acceptance into U.S. military service.

M16A1 Rifle

1967. 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 Rifle

1982. Rifling changed to suit NATO standard 5.56mm bullet, optional

three-round burst device, with a heavier barrel and improved muzzle
compensator.

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 Rifle

1980s. As M16A2 but with removable carrying handle and optical sight

mount on receiver.

Details: as M16A2.

M16A4 Carbine

1980s. 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.

APPENDIX B: UNITED STATES

415

M231 Firing Port Weapon

1980s. 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.

Evans

Old Model Rifle

1872. Lever action, rolling block breech. Submitted to U.S. Army, but

rejected.

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 Rifle

1877. 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 integral

magazine.

416

APPENDIX B: UNITED STATES

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 M1E1

M1 with changes to the bolt and the operating mechanism.

US Rifle M1E2

M1 rifle adapted for optical sights. Few made.

US Rifle M1E3

M1 with changes to the bolt and the operating system. Few made.

US Rifle M1E4

An expansion chamber inserted into the gas system to ease operation.

Few made.

US Rifle M1ES

Shortened version with 18.0in (457mm) barrel and folding stock. Exces-

sive muzzle blast. Abandoned.

US Rifle M1E6

M1 with offset telescope sight for use of iron sights in emergency. Few

made.

US Sniper’s Rifle MIC M1E7

M1 with telescope sight M73 (Lyman Alaskan) or M73B1 (Weaver 330).

Flash hider.

US Sniper’s Rifle MID M1E8

M1 with sight M81, M82, or M84 on block mount.

US Rifle M1E9

Variant of the M1E4 with a tappet system of gas operation.

US Rifle T26

Short version of the M1 demanded by the Pacific Warfare Board in June

1945. Some were made, but the project was abandoned when World
War II ended.

US Rifle M14

1957. The clip system was abandoned, replaced by a charger-loaded 20-

APPENDIX B: UNITED STATES

417

round box, firing the 7.62 NATO round and turning it into a selective
fire weapon. Far too powerful a round for automatic fire. A waste of
effort 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 M14A1

1957. 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 M21

1950s. Sniper version of the M14, fitted with Leatherwood telescopic

sight.

Details: as M14.

Harris & McMillan

M87R Sniper Rifle

1987. Bolt-action, magazine, anti-materiel rifle. Box magazine, heavy

barrel, 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 Rifle

1992. 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.

418

APPENDIX B: UNITED STATES

Magazine: 5-round box.
M/v: 2798 fps (853 m/s).

M93 Sniper Rifle

1993. An improved M87R.
Details: as for the M87R.

Hotchkiss

Winchester-Hotchkiss M1879

Bolt-action, tube magazine in butt, loaded through trap. Purchased by

U.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 tube
M/v: Up to 1300 fps (396 m/s).

Winchester-Hotchkiss M1883

Improved 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. Used

by U.S. Marines, Dutch East Indies Army and U.S. Special Forces in
1941–1945.

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).

Joslyn

Model 1862 Carbine

Single shot, side-pivoting breech-block.
Cartridge: .6-50 Spencer.
Length: 39.5in (1003mm).

APPENDIX B: UNITED STATES

419

Weight: 8lb 7oz (2.92kg).
Barrel: 22in (558mm), 4 grooves, rh.
M/v: cc 900 fps (274 m/s).

Model 1864 Carbine

As 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. Army

and 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 Rifle

Straight-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 Rifle

Rotating bolt, removable box magazine. Tested by U.S. Army but re-

fused. As M1879, but an improved version.

420

APPENDIX B: UNITED STATES

Remington-Lee 1885 Rifle

Further improved M1879. Removable magazine, a separate bolt-head

with improved extractor, and an enlarged cocking-piece. Adopted by
U.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).

Palmer

Bolt action carbine. First U.S. military bolt action. Some 1000 purchased
in 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).

Peabody

M1868 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 Carbine

Action 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).

APPENDIX B: UNITED STATES

421

Barrel: 24.0in (610mm), 6 grooves, rh.
Magazine: 10-round box.
M/v: 2500 fps (762 m/s).

Remington

The only Remington rifle to see extensive military service was the rolling
block model. The system has a rearward-pivoting breech-block that is en-
hanced by a conventional hammer. The block cannot be opened unless the
hammer is cocked, and when the hammer falls, it interlocks with the block
to prevent opening.

USA 1870 Navy Rifle

Standard 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 Carbine

Action 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 Rifle

Similar to Navy model, but the breech mechanism is fitted with the

locking action in which the hammer drops to half-cock when the
block 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 Rifle

Ca. 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.

422

APPENDIX B: UNITED STATES

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 Weapon

1984. 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 Weapon

1984. 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.

APPENDIX B: UNITED STATES

423

M/v: 3470 fps (1058 m/s).
Cyclic rate: 750 rpm.

KAC-556, KAC-556F

1986. 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 cartridges
do not refer to the caliber of the weapon but to the dimensions of the
case mouth and base; most calibers were .5in.)

M1861 Rifle

External hammer and operating lever forming part of trigger guard. Piv-

oting breech-block with tube cartridge magazine inserted into the
stock 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 Carbine

Action 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 Conversion

Converted 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 Rifle

As M1861 Rifle, but chambered in .6-50.
Details: as M1861 above, except M/v: cc 1125 fps (343 m/s).

M1865 Carbine

As M1861 but chambered for the .6-50 cartridge.

1865 Contract Carbine

Identical to M1865 Spencer-made carbine, but with 3-groove rifling.

424

APPENDIX B: UNITED STATES

M1867 Rifle

Identical 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 Spencer

As M1865 but usually with Spencer magazine cut-off on breech-block.

New Model Rifle Spencer

1868. Identical to M1867 rifle but marked N.M.

New Model Carbine Spencer 1868

As M1867 carbine, but marked N.M.

M1871 Rifle Conversion

Rebarreled 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 Rifle

Similar 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 Device

M1903 rifle converted by removing the bolt and inserting a blowback

APPENDIX B: UNITED STATES

425

pistol mechanism, feeding from an obliquely mounted box magazine.
It fired a pistol-type cartridge and was intended to deliver constant
firepower during an infantry assault. Scrapped in the 1920s.

M1903A1

1929. 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-Corona

1942. 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 Remington

Sniper 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 Rifle

Bolt 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 Rifle

As M1892 but new sights. Magazine cut-off.
Cartridge: .30-40 Krag.
Length: 49.1in (1245mm).
Weight: 8lb 15oz (4.3kg).

426

APPENDIX B: UNITED STATES

Barrel: 30.0in (762mm), 4 grooves, rh.
Magazine: 5-round integral.
M/v: 2000 fps (610 m/s).

M1896 Cavalry Carbine

Action 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 Rifle

Action 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 Carbine

As 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 Carbine

Modified M1898 Cavalry Carbine.
Details: no significant difference, except weight: 7lb 14oz (3.6kg).

Philippine Constabulary Short Rifle

Ca. 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).

APPENDIX B: UNITED STATES

427

Stoner

M63A1 Rifle

1963. Modular rifle system that was something of a milestone in devel-

opment. Designed by Eugene Stoner and made by Cadillac Gage, the
system had 15 modules that could be assembled into rifle, carbine,
and light machine gun format. The basic operating system was direct
gas impingement, with a gas tube above the barrel and a bolt carrier
and 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 Rifle

1996. 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 as

to 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, Short

1864. 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).

428

APPENDIX B: UNITED STATES

Warner

Carbine

1860. Single shot, lifting breech-block. Hammer fired. Thumb lever

alongside 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).

Carbine

1860. 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 Carbine

Rolling 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 breech

mechanism, central hammer and trigger-guard lever as any other
Winchester 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 Musket

Variation of the M1895 Browning-designed lever-action carbine, but has a

box magazine ahead of the trigger guard. Russia bought over 200,000
in 1915–1917; many of them were taken to Spain in 1936–1937.

APPENDIX B: UNITED STATES

429

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 I

1941. 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 M1AI

1941. 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 M2

1941. 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 M3

1942. M2 specially adapted to mount an infrared “Sniperscope” lamp

and sight.

YUGOSLAVIA

M70BI

1960s. 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

M70AB2

1980s. Copy of AKM-S.

M76 Sniping Rifle

1976. The AK with a long barrel and wooden fixed butt, chambered for

the 7.92 Mauser cartridge, iron sights and a mount for optical or
electro-optical sights, semi-automatic only, small straight magazine.

Cartridge: 7.92 x 57mm Mauser.
Length: 44.68in (1135mm).
Weight: 9lb 4oz (4.2kg).
Barrel: 21.65in (550mm), 4 grooves, rh.
Magazine: 30-round box.
M/v: 2887 fps (880 m/s).

M77B1

1977. 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 cartridge

1980. Very similar to AK-47.
Cartridge: 5.56 x 45M
Length: 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.

M80A

1980. 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 Arms

M59 Rifle

1959. Exact copy of the Simonov SKS made under license in Yugoslavia.
Details: as for that rifle.

M59/66 Rifle

1967. 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 sights
offer greater accuracy at longer ranges), climatic influences, and the
user.

AC P Automatic Colt Pistol (.45 ACP or .38 ACP). Originally designated

cartridges 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) or
more complex, such as a bolt or an SLR action. The bolt/SLR actions
are self-contained and contain within them the firing pin and spring and
the 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 sights
that were less easy to use for the rifleman.

assault rifle A small arm that uses a rifle-type round that is smaller and

lighter than a rifle but larger than an SMG. Usually has selective fire
and 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 held

down. 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 became
very complex with graduated sights for firing at ranges from 200 yards to
2,800 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 chamber
and barrel deposits than tubular propellant. Gives less chamber pressure
but increases muzzle pressure.

ball round A jacketed bullet normally lead cored; it may contain some

other 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 blank
powder and tends to burn longer.

barrel The tube that directs the projectile. May be rifled or smoothbore. It

extends 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 expect
to fire at sustainable accuracy by the division of barrel life by barrel
t i m e .

barrel time The time taken for a bullet to travel from the instant it starts to

move out of the neck of the case into the chamber to the moment it
leaves the muzzle. This is on the order of .0009 of a second, plus or
minus .0002 in modern weapons.

beaten zone An area on the ground into which a succession of bullets fired

from a weapon will fall. Used at longer ranges for interdiction fire by
platoons or even companies up to World War I in particular. Superseded
by machine gun fire.

bent A recess, normally in the breech block or the firing pin housing, into

which the sear fits. When engaged, the firing pin or the breech block is
prevented from moving, normally forward.

bipod A two-legged support placed under a weapon to support its weight in

order to allow more accurate shooting. Often seen on sniper rifles.

blank A cartridge or shell, without a projectile, intended to produce a noise

when 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 a

better ballistic flight with less tail drag from air.

bolt The rotating mechanical device used in the nineteenth and twentieth

centuries to load and unload a rifle. Consisted of the bolt lever, the bolt
itself, 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 it
is the component that holds and supports the base of the round while it
is 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 either
safe or loaded and ready to fire. It is located immediately behind the
chamber. Sometimes the term is used to signify the chamber, but this is
strictly inaccurate.

breech block Normally this component houses the bolt, adds mass to the

recoiling parts, and provides the bent recess.

breech loader Any weapon that is loaded at the breech, or rear, end rather

than at the muzzle, or front, end.

breech pressure The internal breech pressure exerted by the cartridge on

the 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 the
weapon but disintegrates very rapidly after leaving the muzzle. Still
lethal at short ranges.

burst A specific number of rounds fired sequentially on one application of

the trigger. Some assault rifles have a burst-control mechanism allowing
them to fire, say, three rounds at one time. The Heckler & Koch G11
caseless round rifle fires three-round bursts at a much higher rate of fire
than normal.

caliber The nominal internal diameter of the bore, measured from land to

land, or the nominal diameter of the projectile. Today caliber is ex-
pressed as the first part of the whole cartridge description, so the
7.62mm 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 a

good 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 it
that 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. In
World War II and subsequently, carbines were issued to all front-line
troops who were not riflemen, such as drivers, officers, radiomen, and
so on.

cartridge Originally a paper container for the powder, which also served as

wadding. Nowadays it signifies the complete assembly of primer, case,
propellant, and bullet that goes to make a round of ammunition, the
composite 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 contain

and 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 this
type 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 the
base of the cartridge case.

chamber The rear part of the barrel into which the cartridge is loaded and

where it is fired.

chamber pressure The pressure created in the chamber by the expanding

gases caused by firing the weapon. These gases force the bullet along
the barrel and can be tapped to provide extraction and reloading energy
in the breech block. Pressures reach 55,000 pounds per square inch or
more.

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 (see
ballistite).

closed bolt The time at which the bolt of a bolt-action rifle is completely

closed, and the bolt is either cocked with a cartridge in the chamber or
the bolt is safe, with or without a cartridge in the chamber. Also, modern
semiautomatic and automatic weapons firing from a closed bolt have a
round in the chamber before the trigger is pressed.

c o ck Alternate old name for the hammer of a flintlock of percussion

weapon. Nowadays it denotes the working part that strikes the firing pin
when a weapon is fired.

cocking The process of making a weapon ready to fire, normally by moving

the 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 on
firing, especially in automatic or burst firing. Also seen on anti-materiel
rifles to reduce the recoil to a small extent.

cook off The firing of a round due to the chamber inducing enough heat in

the cartridge propellant to cause spontaneous combustion. See also
hangfire.

core The internal component of a bullet. Often lead, it is surrounded by

the jacket or bullet casing.

c r i m p The lip created at the neck of a cartridge used to hold the bullet

firmly in the case.

cyclic rate The number of rounds that a weapon will fire in 1 minute given

a continuous supply of ammunition (also known as the rate of fire in
this 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 more

strips 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 its

trajectory causes deflection. Can be caused by wind, foliage, armor, or
the human body.

d i s c o n n e c t o r Part of the trigger mechanism of an automatic weapon to

prevent the gun from being fired unless the action is fully closed, or to
prevent 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 some
pistols.

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 the
rifle.

Dum-Dum Correctly (but very rarely) a bullet made at the British Arsenal

of 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 hitting
flesh to cause severe wounding. The same effect at short range can be
achieved by reversing the bullet in the case before firing, but this can
cause jamming.

effective range The range at which the average military rifleman may be

expected to hit a target with his first or perhaps second shot. Dependent
upon 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 300
yards or less.

ejection After extraction, the method whereby the empty case or unused

round is thrown clear of the weapon.

ejector Normally a fixed stud in the bolt or breech block housing (the rifle

body) that is hit by an extracted round on its base that causes the case to
be thrown away from the breech.

e l ev a t i o n The vertical adjustment in sights that allows firing at various

ranges.

erosion The wearing-away of the bore by gas, chemical, or mechanical ac-

tion. All barrels suffer from erosion when fired, and excessive erosion
degrades 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 and

down, down on extraction and up after manual loading. Normally they
are pivoted at the rear to allow access to the chamber for reloading. The
Martini-Henry is such a rifle.

field of view What is seen through an optical/telescopic sight. The higher

the magnification, the smaller the field of view. Snipers generally work
at 6x magnification to give good target viewing as well as a reasonable
field 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 and
consistency at the manufacturing site.

firing pin The part of the firing mechanism of the weapon that strikes the

primer and causes the propellant to ignite.

flash hider/eliminator An attachment to the muzzle of a weapon that

hides or eliminates the flame that exits the muzzle. In fact, in daylight
today 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 apparent
in the dark.

flash hole The hole in the base of the cartridge case through which the

flame 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 older
weapons, 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 and

carry. The term derives from the fact that most early weapons used wood
to form the butt (stock) and the fore end. The butt allows the weapon to
be fired from the shoulder; the fore end protects the firer’s hands from
excessive 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 have
never 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 the

loading/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 is
measured 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 the
rifle and how good their weapon control is. A “floater” is an errant
round. A small group is proof of good musketry, whereas a wide group
shows the opposite.

gun Any weapon that fires a projectile. Loosely applied to all manner of

weapons; a generic term.

g u n p o w d e r The earliest propellant, a mixture of charcoal, saltpeter, and

sulfur. Also known as black powder from its color. Granular, very prone
to dampness.

h a m m e r O r i g i n a l l y, the external hammer activated by the trigger that

strikes 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 when

held 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 cap

and the ignition of the propellant. The delay may be infinite (the primer
did 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 is
very 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 about

500°C.

ignition time The time that elapses between the firing pin striking the

primer and the bullet starting to move. Compare hangfire.

individual weapon An assault rifle or rifle, seldom required to engage a

target 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 nineteenth

century to calculate trajectory, velocity, and time of flight, in relation to
caliber, charge, and rifling.

jacket A casing that forms the outer covering of a bullet. Usually made of

copper, steel, or gilding metal over a lead core. A full-metal jacket covers
the core completely, but in expanding bullets (unlawful militarily) the
jacket is cut or removed at the tip of the bullet and allows the core to
mushroom on impact, causing dreadful wounds.

GLOSSARY

439

jam A stoppage caused by an object becoming jammed within the working

parts of a rifle, or by fouling preventing the smooth operation of those
parts. Jamming can be caused by sand, dust, rust, or foreign material as
well as by deformed rifle parts and faulty or malformed cartridges and
cartridges 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 the

w e a p o n ’s initial recoil while the bullet is still in the barrel. Normally
caused by the firer.

keyhole An elongated hole made in a target by a yawing bullet that, due to

insufficient spin, arrives at the target sideways or partly so.

killing power A rather inaccurate term for the ability of a weapon or its

projectile to effect lethal force on the target. Sometimes used by those
in 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 in
front 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 a
section (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 to
be more trouble than they are generally worth, especially if magazine
fed. 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 based
on the SA80 system.

line of fire An imaginary straight line continuing down the axis of the bore

when the weapon is fired. Also signifies the area in front of a weapon
that is visible to the firer and in which he can visually obtain and engage
targets.

line of sight A straight line from the weapon sight to the target, which is a

visual, but not a ballistic, line (see trajectory).

lock time The time between the release of the sear and the detonation of

the 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 from

a bipod or tripod, and belt fed.

machine pistol What is now known as a submachine gun or pistol-caliber

weapon designed for close ranges. Previously also applied to weapons
such 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 propellant

charge, giving higher-than-normal velocity.

m a x i mum range The range at which a bullet is no longer effective in

wounding.

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, belt
fed, 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 of
bullets (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 d
cartridge.

nitrocellulose The base for modern propellant powders made from cotton

impregnated 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 a
very short life.

open bolt Weapons that fire with an open bolt or breech, have the working

parts held to the rear before firing thus ensuring that no round is in the
chamber until the trigger is pressed, at which point the working parts
move forward to chamber the round.

pin-fire Composite cartridges that are hammer fired. The hammer strikes

an 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 barrel
and/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 held
in the rim (rimfire cartridges) in small-bore cartridges.

projectile Any object fired by a gun. A bullet becomes a projectile at the

moment it leaves the barrel.

propellant The charge used to propel the bullet along the barrel and its

trajectory.

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 earlier
weapons.

r e c o i l The rearward movement of the gun due to the energy created on

firing.

recoil-operated A firearm that uses part of the recoil energy to reload and

recock itself.

revolver A repeating handgun having a number of chambers in a rotating

cylinder that are indexed around by pulling the trigger. Most revolvers
index, then fire, a very few vice versa. A single-action revolver is one in
which 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 sniping
work. Today the AK-47 is perhaps the most recognizable rifle in the
world, closely followed (in proliferation) by the Heckler & Koch G3 and
the 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 its
stability in flight.

rim The part of a round of ammunition that allows the extraction of that

round from a chamber. A cartridge may be rimmed (have a rim that is of
wider diameter than the base of the cartridge), rimless (the rim being
cut into the cartridge base, reinforced for this purpose), or semi-rimmed
(a mixture of the two techniques). Modern military cartridges are all
rimless, 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 the
trigger 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 a
mixture of the two. Aperture rear sights are standard but are being sup-
planted by single-point optical sights (where the firer sees an arrow or
other indicator in the sight tube). Sighting systems are becoming more
and more complex, but more dependent upon batteries, which must be a
disadvantage. 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 cocked

before 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 larger
caliber, as these weapons now go up to around 20mm caliber.

s m o keless powder Discovered in 1832, perfected in 1884, it is neither

smokeless 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, a
bullet cannot describe a line of flight that is exactly the same as the line
of sight. It actually travels above the line of sight in a parabola until it
reaches the actual aiming point (as opposed to the firer’s perceived aim-
ing point, which may be completely different). When the bullet’s path to
its aiming point is below the average height of a man, it is said to create
a danger zone.

trigger The part of the firing mechanism pulled or squeezed that releases

the hammer or firing pin.

tumble (tumbling) The effect of bad design in bullets can cause them to

tumble. This causes inaccuracy but can also cause very serious wounds.

vibration Small but rapid, rhythmic vibrations in barrels on firing; occurs

while the bullet is in the barrel.

GLOSSARY

443

w h i p The sudden movement at the moment of emergence of the bullet

from 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 longitudinal

axis 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 at
the principles governing the operation and use of military small arms in
the 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 magazines
and 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 ’s
Land 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 of
which are part of Brassey’s Land Warfare into the 21st Century series.

Army Field Forces Board, Fort Benning. Report of Joint Test of United States
and United Kingdom Lightweight Rifles. Typescript copy, 1950.

The joint tests in 1950 led eventually to the United States’ adopting the
totally inappropriate and useless M14 in place of the M1 Garand, and to
the British adopting the SLR instead of the promising 7mm EM-2. This
report has the details of the tests and the results and conclusions. A t
best these tests were an uneasy compromise, especially with the United
States 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 color
photographs of the weapons.

445

Barnes, Frank C., M. L. McPherson (eds.). Cartridges of the World. Krause
Publications, Iola, WI, 1965.

This is a comprehensive treatment of civil and military cartridges, and
has 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 has
some 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 of
weapons used by both sides in the U.S. Civil War. There are also many
comments 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 be
without. 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 these
methods. 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 in
the United States. Of no great significance to a military study, but has
some value in its comments about the U.S. tradition of carrying
firearms.

Cole, Ralph D., and W. C. Howells. The Thirty-Seventh Division in the
World 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 carried
out between 1904 and 1906 in the United Kingdom, and also gives the
results 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 be
read for pleasure, although there are certain sections on chemistry that
are 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 contain
some interesting photographs.

Ezell, Edward Clinton. The AK-47 Story. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA,
1986.

The story behind the development of the famous rifle, including
Kalashnikov himself, the way he thought out the principles of the
weapon, 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. The
author 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 turn
of the twentieth century. There is a very valuable section on military ri-
fles, and much of the history of the development of military firearms is
included 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 early
U.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 military
weapons 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 of
civilian and military weapons, with important background information
and 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 much
further back. The descriptions of the corruption and sheer inefficiency
at Springfield A r m o r y, and the machinations in the nineteenth and
twentieth 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 things
that 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, The
Netherlands, 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 fifteenth
c e n t u r y. Perhaps a little dry for the gun-nut, it is nevertheless of real
value 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 that
surrounded them in the UK from 1864 to 1866. Interestingly shows that
there was no serious intention of providing British troops with the most
modern 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 this
volume, 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 is
of 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 and
Light 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 British
Army was issued a second-rate weapon, which was only sorted out after
Heckler & Koch modified it significantly in recent years. It says little on
the surface, but begs the question as to whether British Aerospace had
any real interest in making the weapon one that British soldiers could
trust.

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 of
the 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 the
wrangling over the Armalite weapons was at its height.

Kahn, Lessing A., et al. A Study of Ineffective Soldier Performance under
Fire 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 by
United 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 much
greater detail.

Korn, R. H. Mauser Gewehre und Mauser Patente. Akademische Druck und
Verlagsanstalt, 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 the
original 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 text
of a detailed history of the development of firearms, including revolvers,
pistols, rifles, submachine guns, and machine guns. Volume 2 contains
first-class line drawings and photographs to illustrate the text. These
stand alongside Pollard’s History of Firearms and rank on a par with that
book.

Majendie, V. D. “Military Breech-Loading Small Arms.” Journal of the
Royal 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 many
publishers.

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 seems
quite tenable. Not many men in battle do more than perhaps make a
noise with their individual weapon, and some just hide. The reason for
the criticism seems to be that Marshall wrote the unpalatable: he argued
that most men under fire do not do the John Wayne/Sylvester Stallone
thing, but take cover and stay out of harm’s way, without firing their own
rifle. 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-Loading
Mechanisms for Small Arms.” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, 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, and
the drawings in this article are very clear and useful.

Mordecai, Alfred. Report of the Military Commission to Europe. U.S. House
of Representatives, 1861.

A fundamental source of information on the armament industry’s state
in 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’s
report 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. Valuable
in understanding recoil, feed mechanisms, and interior and exterior bal-
listics of the bullet.

Myatt, F. The Illustrated Encyclopedia of 19th Century Firearms. Crescent
Books, New York, 1979.

Major Myatt’s work covers the development of firearms during the pe-
riod of the greatest improvements—from flintlock to bolt-action
weapons. 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 illustrate
the text.

Officers of the Ordnance Department, U.S. Army. Small Arms for Military
Service. Nicholson, Washington, DC, 1859.

Contains exhaustive detail on tests carried out from 1853 to 1855 to
establish the best weapon for use by the U.S. A r m y. Many ballistic
t 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 service
during World War II and continued until 1958, when it was replaced by
the 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 the
British Army so well. Top-class three-dimensional drawings complement
a 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 including
Westley 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 changes
forced on the infantry by the arrival of the rifle on the battlefield.

Royal Military College of Science. “The Small Calibre Concept.” Chapter
12 of Principles of Infantry Weapons, Shrivenham, Swindon, RMCS, 1968.

A paper on the whole idea of reducing the service caliber to 5.56mm
from well over 7mm. Of importance because of its source: the British
Military 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 also
looks at the chemistry. Gives a good picture of the state of the art 150
years 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 toward
the end of World War II. Senich deals with all the important facts and
the 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 as
military 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 during
World War II in particular.

Smith, W. H. B. Basic Manual of Military Small A r m s . Military Service
Publishing, 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. It
is a really enjoyable “how to” book.

———. Small Arms of the World. Stackpole, Harrisburg, PA, 1943–1962
and later.

This book is often referred to as the “bible” of firearms; its depth and
compass make it deserving of such an accolade, and early editions are
preferred 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 for
the 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 rightly
famous as sporting weapons.

Smith, Winston. The Sharps Rifle. William Morrow and Company, New
York, 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 Grade
Pubs., Cobourg, Canada, 1994.

The story of the development of and opposition to the M16 rifle, which
replaced the completely useless M14 after only four years of service.
This rifle is still in service and is perhaps almost as recognizable as the
AK-47. A really detailed book that proves that the opposition to this
weapon 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 the
Snider 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 the
nineteenth century.

Thompson, A. L. “The Sturmgewehr 44 Assault Rifle.” Military Review
(September 1992): 84ff.

An analysis of the German assault weapon that so impressed observers
toward 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 Service
Weapon 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 to
troops until its reliability was beyond doubt—especially in the minds of
those who had to use it. It took Heckler & Koch to reinvent itself free of
British Aerospace and take on a reevaluation of the weapon before it
could 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, with
many 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 s
Glen, NY, 1947.

A comprehensive listing of rifle manufacturers and patentees in the
United 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 of
weapons, 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 no
historical 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 with
breech-loading weapons that led to the adoption of the Martini-Henry
rifle.

———. Textbook of Small Arms 1929. HMSO, London, 1929.

A first-class textbook on the history and development of military small
arms, particularly but not exclusively issued to British and European
armies. 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 with
the G41 and G43 SLRs developed by the Germans to increase infantry
firepower 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 that
is 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 I
Books, 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 restrictive
European gun-control laws, but the book shows the components of
many firearms that have been issued to military personnel.

456

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I N D E X

457

AB Svenska Vapen och

Ammunitionsfabriken, 135

Abel, Sir Frederick, 96
Aberdeen Proving Ground, 118
Adolphus, Gustavus, 27
Afanas’yev, N. N., 150n. 50
Aim, 7, 8
AK47 rifle, xii, 38, 40, 122, 140, 227, 232,

235–236, 235 (figure), 249, 252, 254

AK74 rifle, 140, 151n. 51
AKM rifle, 140, 151n. 51
AKSU rifle, 151n. 51
Albini, Augusto, 50, 62n. 16
Albini and Braendlin rifle, 50–51, 50

(figure), 186, 186 (figure)

test, 57

Ammunition

in Crimean War, Mordecai report,

79–84, 80 (figure)

expenditure, 115–116, 118
shortages, 16
technology, 118
See also Bullets; Cartridges

Angelucci, Angelo, 89n. 12
AR-5 rifle, 39
AR-10 rifle, 39, 241, 241 (figure)
AR-15 rifle, 39, 239, 252
Archers, 84

and flight stability, 14
and long bow, 146

Armalite Division, Fairchild Engine and

Airplane Corporation, 39

Arquebus, 7
Arrows, as weapons that fired, 3
Artillery, 7

and “empty battlefield,” xii
vs. long bow, xii
vs. machine gun, 146–147

Assault rifle, 37–38. See also specific models
Austria

infantry weapons in Crimean Wa r, 81–82
rifle as military weapon in, 88

Austrian Army, and percussion system, 70
Austro-Prussian War, 93
Automatic priming systems, 67–68, 68

Bacon, Roger, 2–3
Baker, Ezekiel, 21–22, 86
Baker ball, 164, 164 (figure)
Baker rifle, 21–22, 87
Baltic Lock, 18n. 26
Bartley and Sillom system, 181–182,

181 (figure)

Bavaria, rifle as military weapon in, 88
Bayliss system, 183, 183 (figure)
Beaufoy, Colonel, 86
Beaver, John, 27
Beck, Johannes, 99
Beck needle rifle, 99
Belted bullets, 22, 40n. 6
Benét, Stephen V., 103
Benson and Pappenburg system, 184,

184 (figure)

Berdan, Hiram, 30–31, 185

Berdan system, 37, 185, 185 (figure)
Berselli, Domenico, 71
Berselli system, 71
Berukov, I. I., 137
Bethel Burton rifle, 95, 176, 176 (figure)
Birmingham Small Arms Company, 96
Bismarck, Otto von, 93
“Bite the bullet,” 15
Black Berthold, 3
Blast furnace, introduction of, 1
Blunt, Stanhope E., 104
Bode, Major, 97
Bolt-action rifle, 91–113

British Army, 95–99
caliber reduction, 95–96, 97–98
cartridge, 97
Danish Army, 105
French, 102–103
German, 99–102
invention, 91
magazine-type, 103–106, 113
Norwegian Army, 105
trigger mechanism, 98 (figure)
United States, 103–113
World War I, 110, 113
See also Repeating bolt-action rifle;

Rifle; specific models

Bott, Sergeant, 56
Bow, 1. See also Long bow
Boxer, Edward Mounier, 31, 33, 41n. 26
Boxer primer system, 37
Braendlin, Francis Augustus, 50–51,

62n. 16

Braendlin and Albini rifle. See Albini and

Braendlin rifle

Brass-headed cartridge, 29
Brauning, Karl A., 135
Breech-loading carbines, 30
Breech-loading rifle, 32, 33–35, 43–61,

171–172, 171 (figure)

British Army, 47–57
Revolutionary War, American, 43–45
safety, 43
“special ammunition,” 76
See also Rifle; specific models

British Aerospace, 245
British Army

bolt-action rifle, 95–99
breech-loading rifle, 47–57
percussion system, 69–70
See also Great Britain

British Intermediate Cartridge, 151n. 53
British Royal Society, 116
British School of Infantry Practice, 84
British Small Arms Committee, 95
British War Office, 22, 40n. 10, 88
“Brown Bess” weapon, 88
Browning automatic rifle, 125, 126
Brunswick rifle, 16, 22, 24, 40n.10,

40n. 13, 83, 88, 89

Buffington, Adelbert, 107
Bullet molds, 19–20

design, 20
soapstone, 20

Bullets

cylindrical, 23–25
cylindro-conoidal, 20, 24–26, 32, 69
development, 32–33
expanding, 22–23, 26
fouling, 22
ogival, 32
windage, 22–25
See also Lead ball; Minié bullet; Musket

ball; specific bullets

Bullpup design, xii
Burnside cartridge, 33
Burton, Bethell, 50, 52
Burton rifle, 51–52, 51 (figure), 204,

204 (figure), 209 (figure), 210

test, 57

Caliber, 95–96, 97–98, 132–133, 142.

See also Cartridge

Cambridge, Duke of, 59
Cannons, 3

first appearance of, 16n. 3
and nation-states, 1

Carbines, 22, 40n. 10, 88. See also specific

carbines

Carl Axel Theodor Sjogren design, 135

458

INDEX

Carter, Henry, 206
Carter and Edwards system, 206, 206

(figure)

Cartridge SA Ball Magazine Rifle Mark I,

Cartridges, 15–16

brass-headed, 29
case, 37, 37 (figure)
center-fire, 35–36
combustible, 29
expanding, 34
linen, 28
military, 31–33, 37–39
paper, 27–28
percussion cap, 29
pin-fire, 29, 35
reloading, 28
rim-fire, 35, 41n. 24
self-consuming, 27, 32
standardization, 39, 141–144, 243
test, 37
test report, 33–37
World War II design, 37–40
See also Caliber; Composite cartridge;

specific cartridges

Cary, Lucian, 142–143
Cavalry, 7
Center-fire cartridge, 35–36
Chassepôt rifle, 48, 93–94, 93 (figure), 99,

147

cartridge, 30 (figure)

Chaumette, Isaac de la, 43, 62n. 2
China

cannons, first appearance of, 16n. 3
firearms, first appearance of, 1, 16n. 3
and gunpowder, origin of, 2, 16n. 3

Churchill, Winston, 130, 143
Civil War, U.S., 41n. 24, 73, 77n. 13, 165,

169, 174

Clothyard arrow, 7
Colt, Samuel, 27
Colt M16, with M203 grenade launcher,

252, 252 (figure)

Colt revolver, 74
Combustible cartridge, 29

Composite cartridge, 27–31, 28 (figure),

invention, 71, 116
metallic, 29, 31–32, 48
as “special ammunition,” 74–76

Consol ignition system, 89n. 6
Continuous fulminate primer strips,

67–68

Cooper system, 194, 194 (figure)

Snider-type, 188 (figure), 189

Copper priming cap, 67, 76n. 5
Cordite technology, 99–100
Council of Florence, 3
Crimean War

infantry weapons and ammunition,

Mordecai report, 79–84, 80 (figure)

Criminal classes, and firearms, 10–11,

17n. 19

Crossbows, 1. See also Long bow
Crozier, William, 107–109, 220
Cuba, Spanish rule in, 106–107
Cumberland, Duke of, 86
Curtis, Tony, 77n. 14
Custer, George, 73, 103
Cylindrical bullets, 23–25
Cylindro-conoidal bullets, 20, 24–25, 32,

Czech ZH-29 SLR, 117

Danish Army, bolt-action rifle, 105
Davis, Jefferson, 79
Daw, George Henry, 30, 33, 41n. 26,

69–70

De Nobilitatibus, Sapientiis et Prudentiis

Regum (On the Duties of a King;
Milimete), 5

“Dead fire guns,” 11, 17n. 21
Degtyarev, Vasily Alekseyevich, 134–137,

140

Degtyarev machine gun, 134
Degtyarev SLR Model 1930, 137
Delvigne, Gustave, 22, 32, 40n. 7
Delvigne system, 22, 22 (figure), 26,

40n. 1, 82

Demin, V. S., 150n. 50

INDEX

459

Deutsche Waffen und Munitionsfabrik

(DWM), 109

Díaz, Porfirio, 117
Dine system, 190, 190 (figure)
Dragunov SVD, 151n. 51
Dreyse, Johann Nikolaus von, 29
Dreyse needle rifle, 91–93, 92 (figure), 99,

177–178, 177 (figure)

cartridge, 29, 30 (figure), 91, 93
description, 91–92
firing method, 92–93
loading, 92

Dreyse rifle, 84
Dunclift, A. W., 142
DuPont powder, 108
Durs Egg, 62n. 4, 161
Duryea, Dan, 77n. 14
DWM. See Deutsche Waffen und

Munitionsfabrik

East India Company, 24, 40n. 13
Edward III, 4, 5
Edwards, George W., 206
Egg, Joseph, 67
Elizarov, N. M., 122
EM rifle, 128, 130
EM1 rifle, 39
EM2 rifle, 39, 128, 130, 133, 141–143,

144, 145, 242, 245

“Empty battlefield,” xii
Enfield L85A1 rifle, 245–246, 245

(figure). See also SA80 rifle

Enfield musket, 47, 83
Enfield rifle, 39, 87, 110, 111–113, 242,

242 (figure)

cartridge, 39
Pattern 14, 111

English Pattern 1842 musket, 25
English Royal Chamber

and royal armory and arsenal, 4

English Wardrobe Accounts, 19, 39n. 1
Espinar, Alonso Martinez de, 86
Europe, and gunpowder, origin of, 2
Expanding bullet, 22–23

self-expanding, 26

Expanding cartridge, 34
Ezell, Clinton, 130

Fabrique Nationale, 39–40
Fairchild Engine and Airplane Corporation,

FAL (Fusil Automatique Leger), 128, 243,

245

Falschirmjaegergewehr 42, 229, 229

(figure)

FAMAS rifle, 102, 238, 238 (figure)
Farquhar-Hill, H. J., 217
Farquhar-Hill SLR, 141, 217, 217 (figure)
Federov, Vladimir Grigorevich, 134–137,

150n. 41

Federov Avtomat rifle, 135, 136, 137, 218,

218 (figure)

Ferguson, Patrick, 43, 61n. 4, 161, 162
Ferguson rifle, xii, 43–45, 44 (figure),

160–161, 160 (figure), 162, 162
(figure)

demonstration, 45
Ferguson-type system, 207, 207 (figure)

Ferrara, Duke of, 10
Firearms

and criminal classes, 10–11, 17n. 19
definition of, 1–2
earliest examples, 4–5
earliest records, 4
first appearance, 1, 16n. 3
first manufacture, 4
modern creation, 6
reliability, 6
before 1300s, 1–3
1300s–1400s, 3–8
1500s, 8–12
ways of holding, 5
written history, 3–4

“Firearms,” 16–17n. 6
Firepower, and manpower, xii
Firing systems, 6–8

difficulties, 5–6
See also specific systems

Flagler, Daniel W., 103–104, 106–107
Flieger Selbstladerkarabiner: Airmen’s

460

INDEX

Self-Loading Carbine, Model 1915.
See FSK-15

Flieger-Ballon-und Zeppelin Truppe Model

16, 117

Flight stability, and archers, 14
Flintlock system, 13–14, 13 (figure), 15,

65, 156, 156 (figure)

cost, 15
as synonymous for “snaphance,” 14

Flints, 15, 18n. 28

suppliers, 15

Flobert, Nicholas, 30
Flobert cartridge, 30
Floyd, John B., 79
FN FAL rifle, 130, 141, 143
FN rifle, 143
FN short rifle, 141
FN SLR, 128, 129, 135
Forsyth, Rev. Alexander John, 65–66

“On certain useful properties of the

Oxygenated Muriatic Acid,” 65

Forsyth scent bottle, 66, 66 (figure)
Fosbery, G. V., 50, 200
Fosbery rifle, 52, 200, 200 (figure)

test, 58

France

bolt-action rifle, 102–103
infantry weapons in Crimean War,

82–83

rifle as military weapon in, 88

Franco-Prussian War, 89n. 5
Frankford Arsenal, 34, 104
Frizzen lock, 66
FSK-15, 117
Fulminate of mercury, 65–66
Furniture of weapons, 14–15

G43 SLR, 123
Gabbet-Fairfax rifle, 141
Garand, John, 123, 124–125, 127, 149n.

Garand 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. 7
Germany

bolt-action rifle, 99–102
infantry weapons in Crimean War, 84
rifle as military weapon in, 87–88
self-loading rifle, 118–123
wheel lock, 11

Goering, Hermann, 229
Golden, William, 29
Great Britain

infantry weapons in Crimean War,

83–84

rifle as military weapon in, 88–89
self-loading rifle, 141–145
weapons design, xii
See also British Army

Green, William, 49
Green Brothers system, 191, 191 (figure)
Greene, James Durrell, 193
Greene rifle, 192 (figure), 193
Greener, William W., 22, 40n. 10, 88
Greener expanding bullet, 22–23,

23 (figure)

accuracy test, 23
windage, 23

Gulf War, 144
Gunpowder, 2–3

mixture, 2
origin, 2–3, 16n. 3

Gunpowder weapons, impact on society, xvi
Gunsmith, and wheel lock, 9

Haenel firm, 119–122, 230
Hall, John H., 46–47, 62n. 7
Hall breech loader, 46–47, 46 (figure)

interchangeable parts, 46–47

Hall (Donald L.) SLR report, 132–133
Hallahan, William, 106
Handguns, 3
Hanson, John, 29
Harper’s Ferry, 47
Harquebus, 7
Harrington-Richardson, 131
Harrison system, 187, 187 (figure)
Harry Potter books, and gunpowder, 2–3

INDEX

461

Hayha, Simo, 212
Heckler and Koch, 27, 32, 245, 254, 255
Heckler and Koch G11 rifle, 255, 255

(figure)

Heckler and Koch G3A3 assault rifle, 254,

254 (figure)

Heinemann SLR, 148n. 7
Henry, Alexander, 50, 58–59, 62n. 18
Henry, Benjamin Tyler, 62n. 18, 71–72, 74
Henry rifle, 35, 41n. 32, 52, 53 (figure),

74–75, 180, 180 (figure)

action, 75 (figure)
description, 74
lever action prototype, 173, 173 (figure)
“special ammunition,” 74–75
test, 58–59

Henry VIII, 19
Herstal, 40
Heurteloup, Baron, 40n. 11
Hitler, Adolf, 121–122, 123, 234
Holek, Vladimir, 117
Hoover’s Gap, 73
Hotchkiss bolt-action rifle, 103
Howe, Sir William, 45
Hudson, Rock, 77n. 14
Hundred Years’ War, 4
Hunt, Walter, 170

Ideal Caliber Panel, 142
Imperial Guard ball, 82
Infanterie-Gewehr M1871, 99
Infanterie-Gewehr M1871/84, 99
Infantry rifle

development, 2

Infantry weapons

in Crimean War, Mordecai report, 79–84

Infantryman

vs. knight, 1
and new era of warfare, 7

Inventors, xii–xiii

and military contracts, xii

Inventor’s Collective, 137
Iron sights, 257–258, 257 (figure), 260.

See also Sights

Italian Lock, 18n. 26

Jacob, John, 24, 40n. 12
Jacob cylindrical bullets, 24–26, 25

(figure)

Jacob’s Horse, 40n. 12
James I, 88
Janson, Stefan, 141, 142
Jennings volcanic rifle, 170, 170 (figure)
Jorgenson, Erik, 105
Joslyn, Benjamin Franklin, 50
Joslyn/Newby rifle, 54

test, 58

Kalashnikov, Mikhail Timofeyevich, 99,

122, 136, 139–140, 150n. 41,
150n. 50

Kar 98k, 113, 228
Karabiner 43, 123
Kent-Lemon, Noel, 141, 142
Kerr, James, 196
Kerr, John, 196
Kerr system, 196, 196 (figure)
Khar’kov, V. A., 150n. 50
Knights, 3, 7

demise of, 1

Kolesnikov rifle, 150n. 47
Konalov rifle, 150n. 47
Kongsberg Armory, 105
Korean War, 149n. 33
Kotter, Augustus, 85
Krag, Ole, 105
Krag-Jorgenson bolt-action rifle, 103, 105,

105 (figure), 106–107, 109

Mauser patent infringement, 109
test, 107

Krupin, V. V., 150n. 50
Krutsch system, 197, 197 (figure)
Kryakushkin, A. D., 150n. 50
Kubík, M., 11
Kuznetsov, A. I., 137

L1A1 SLR, 143, 243, 245
Lagatz weapon, 71
Lancaster, Charles William, 27, 30, 59,

Lancaster system, 84

462

INDEX

Landgraf of Hess, 87–88
Landsknecht stocks, 8
Lead ball, 19, 40n. 2. See also Musket ball
Lebel rifle, 102–103, 102 (figure)

cartridge, 103

Lee, James P., 94
Lee bolt-action magazine rifle, 94, 95–96,

95 (figure), 97 (figure), 103

with Bethel Burton magazine, 95
cartridge, 96
test, 94

Lee-Enfield Mark I rifle, 96, 97 (figure)
Lee-Enfield rifle, 100, 113
Lee-Enfield Rifle No. 1, 146, 216
Lee-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, 29
Lefauchaux rifle, 35
Leonardo da Vinci, 10
Lever-action repeating rifle, 71–76

design description, 72
invention, 71
as sporting rifle, 71
See also Rifle; specific models

Linen cartridge, 28
Little Bighorn, Battle of, 103
Loading methods, 7, 8

development, 15–16, 18n. 29

Local warfare weapon, rifle as, 146–147
Long bow

vs. artillery, xii
vs. machine gun, xii
as modern battlefield weapon, xi–xii
vs. rifle, xi–xii, 146
See also Bow

Lorenzoni, Michael, 71
Lorenzoni system, 71, 158 (figure), 159
Loshult gun, 5
Louis XIII, 88
Louis XIV, 12
Louis XV, 16
“Lounge” rifle, 30

M1E5 rifle, 223
M14 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, 249
with 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, 140
MacArthur, Douglas, 127, 148n. 12
Machine carbine, 119–120
Machinegun, 115, 116, 123–124

vs. artillery, 146–147
and “empty battlefield,” xii
vs. long bow, xii
vs. rifle, 146–147, 257–258

Magazine

invention, 116
tube magazines, 36, 41n. 32

Manchuria, 117
Mann, Anthony, 77n. 14
Mannlicher, Ferdinand von, 101–102,

117

Mannlicher rotary magazine system,

100 (figure)

Mannlicher short recoil SLR, 116
Mannlicher sporting rifle, 102
Manpower, and firepower, xii
Manton, Joseph, 67
Marshall, S. L. A., 132
Martini, Freidrich von, 50
Martini rifle, 54–55, 54 (figure)

test, 58, 59

Martini-Henry rifle, 59–61, 95, 147,

171–172, 171 (figure)

cartridge, 36, 36 (figure)

Mary Rose (vessel), 20
Matchlock system, 7, 8 (figure),

8 (figure), 10, 15, 154, 154 (figure)

INDEX

463

Mauser, Peter Paul, 99, 108–109

patent suit against U.S. government,

101, 108–109

Mauser bolt-action rifle, 99–101, 100

(figure), 104, 106–107, 109, 111, 113

Mauser cartridge, 101, 114n. 7

charger-loaded, 100, 114n. 6

Mauser G35 SLR, 117
Mauser G41(M) SLR, 118
Mauser G41 SLR, 121, 226, 226 (figure)

sniper telescope, 228, 228 (figure)

Mauser G43 SLR, 119
Mauser Gew 98, 100, 103, 113, 146, 213
Mauser Gew 98k, 118, 211, 211 (figure)
Mauser Waffenfabrik, 114n. 8, 226
Maxim, Hiram, 96, 104, 116, 146
Maximilian I, 10, 14, 18n. 27, 88
Maynard, Edward, 67, 68
Maynard tape primer, 28, 68, 81, 166–167,

166 (figure)

Sharps-fitted, 168, 168 (figure)

McKinley, William, 108
McNamara, Robert S., 131
Mechanical firing, 6
Mensuration, 19
Merrill, James H., 195
Merrill system, 195, 195 (figure)
Merz company, 120
Metallic cartridge, 29, 31–32, 48
Metallurgy, 19
Metford, William E., 59, 87, 95–96
Mexican Army, self-loading rifle, 116
MG42 SLR, 118, 121, 226
Midvale Steel and Ordnance Co., 111
Mikhailovsky Artillery School, 134
Miles, Nelson A., 106
Milimete, Walter de

De Nobilitatibus, Sapientiis et Prudentiis

Regum (On the Duties of a King), 5

Milimete gun, 5
Military

cartridges, 31–33, 37–40
contracts, and inventors, xii
technology, and impact on society, xv
and wheel lock, 11–12

Military development, and social

development, 1

Military rifle, 22, 88, 89

vs. long bow, xi–xii, 146

Minié, Claude-Étienne, 23, 26, 32, 165
Minié bullet, 20, 26–27, 27 (figure), 32,

48, 69, 80, 82–83, 84, 89n. 8, 165,
165 (figure)

windage, 23
See also Bullets

“Miquelet” Lock, 18n. 26
MK42(H) SLR, 120
MK42(W) SLR, 120, 121
MK42 SLR, 120–123
Model 1841 muzzle-loading rifle, 47
Model 1916 Avtomat, 135
Mondragon, Manuel, 116
Mondragon rifle, 117
“Mont Storm” rifle, 52
Mordecai, Alfred

infantry weapons and ammunition in

Crimean War report, 79–84, 80
(figure), 89n. 1

Mordecai report, 79–84, 80 (figure)

and Schöne report, 89n. 1

Morse, George W., 30
Morse cartridge, 33–34
Moscow Proletarian Rifle Division, 137
Mosin, S. I., 134
Mosin-Nagant Model 1891 rifle, 135, 137,

150n. 39

Mosin-Nagant rifle, 134, 212, 212 (figure)

cartridge, 137

MP40 SLR, 118
MP43 SLR, 121–123, 148n. 10, 230
MP43/1 SLR, 122
MP44 rifle, 123, 230, 231, 231 (figure)
MP44/StG, 118
Multi-shot musket system, 157, 157 (figure)
Musket ball

accuracy, 21
bullet molds, 19–20
design, 20
firing, 21
first reference, 19

464

INDEX

loading, 20
original, 19
powder, 21
range, 21
reloading, 21
trajectory, 20
windage, 21, 40n. 5
See also Bullets

Muskets, 16, 88
Muzzle-loading rifle, 48

accuracy, 43

Napoleon I, 89n. 10, 160
Napoleon III, 89n. 10
Napoleonic Wars, xii, 160
Nation-states, and cannons, 1
NATO. See North Atlantic Treaty

Organization

Needham system, 201, 201 (figure)
Needle rifle, 29, 81, 89n. 5, 147
Nessler ball, 79–80, 83
Netherlands Lock, 18n. 26
New York Times, 104
Newby, Edwin Henry, 54
Nobel firm, 96
Norris, Samuel, 99
North, Simeon, 47
North Atlantic Treaty Organization

(NATO), xii, 39–40, 130

cartridge standardization, 141–144, 243

Norwegian Army

bolt-action rifle, 105

Ogival bullets, 32
“On certain useful properties of the

Oxygenated Muriatic Acid” (Forsyth),
65

PERATION

ARBAROSSA

, 118

PERATION

RANBY

, 144

PERATION

ELIC

, 145

Optical sights, 260. See also Sights
Owen Jones magazine rifle, 95

Pan cover, 8
Paper cartridge, 27–28

Paper tapes of percussion powder, 67
Pauly, Johannes Samuel, 29, 66–67,

76n. 4

Pauly breech-loading system, 67 (figure)
Peabody, Henry O., 50
Peabody rifle, 55–56, 56 (figure)

test, 58

Pedersen, John D., 124, 125
Pedersen device, 220, 220 (figure)
Pedersen rifle, 145, 149n. 21, 219, 219

(figure)

Pedersen SLR, 124–126
Peeter ball, 26–27
Pellets, 19
People’s rifle, 234, 234 (figure)
Percussion caps, 29, 165, 165 (figure)
Percussion musket, 81
Percussion system, 65–70

Austrian Army, 70
British Army, 69–70

Persian Gulf War, 145
Petrarch, 17n. 9
Petronel, 85, 89n. 5
Pig Board tests, 125, 149n. 23
Pikes, 1
Pin-fire cartridge, 29, 35
PK machine gun, 151n. 51
PKM machine gun, 151n. 51
PKS machine gun, 151n. 51
PKT machine gun, 151n. 51
Polte firm, 118
Poncharra, Lieutenant Colonel, 23
Pottet, Clement, 29
Powder, smokeless, 103–104
Powder flask, 19–20
Prince, Frederick, 203
Prince system, 202 (figure), 203
Pritchet Ball, 83–84
Prussia, infantry weapons in Crimean War,

Prussian needle rifle, 147
Pushin, V. N., 150n. 50

Recoil, 7, 8
Reloading methods, 7, 8, 16

INDEX

465

Remington, Samuel, 50
Remington and Sons, 57, 99
Remington Arms Co., 111, 112
Remington Arms-Union Metallic Cartridge

Co., 111, 112

Remington rifle, 56 (figure), 57

test, 58

Remington Special, 39
Repeating bolt-action rifle, 94–95

cartridge, 94
magazine design, 94
See also Bolt-action rifle; specific models

Retreat from Mons, 146
Revolution, Mexican, 117
Revolution, Russian, 135
Revolutionary War, American

breech-loading rifle, 43–45, 88

Rheinmetall, 148n. 7, 229
Rhenish-Westphalische Sprengstoff,

148n. 7

Richards, Westley, 59
Rifle

as infantry weapon, 146–147
as local warfare weapon, 146–147
vs. long bow, 146
vs. machine gun, 146–147, 257–258
as military weapon, 87–89
reliability, 147
World War I shortage, 109–113
See also Bolt-action rifle; Breech-loading

rifle; Lever-action repeating rifle;
Self-loading rifle

“Rifle,” 17n. 6
Rifle No. 9, Mark 1, 242
Rifling, 14

first appearance, 85, 89n. 12
forms, 86
fouling, 86
history, 84–87
invention, 85
muzzle, 163, 163 (figure)
straight vs. spiral, 85–87, 89n. 13
turns, 86–87
wadding or patching, 86

Rigby firm, 59

Rimfire cartridge, 35, 41n. 24
Ripley, James, 74, 77n. 13, 77n. 15,

77n. 17

Rock Island Arsenal, 109–110
Roosevelt, Teddy, 107–108, 109
Roshchepei, Yakov Ustinovich, 150n. 39
Roshchepei rifle, 133–134
Rounds, number carried, 16
Royal armory and arsenal, 4
Royal Artillery, 31
Royal Engineers, 27
Royal Small Arms Factory, 96, 141
RPKS74 rifle, 151n. 51
Rubin, Eduard, 97
Rupert, Prince, 116
Russell report, self-loading rifle, 132
Russia

infantry weapons in Crimean War,

79–80

rifle as military weapon in, 88
self-loading rifle, 133–140
weapons design, xii

Russo-Finnish war of 1939–1940, 135
Russo-Japanese war of 1905, 150n. 44

SA80 rifle, 133, 140, 144–145, 147, 242,

245–246, 245 (figure), 254

Schleswig-Holstein War, 81
Schmeisser, Hugo, 119, 121
Schmeisser, Louis, 119
Schneider cartridge, 33
Schöne report, 89n. 1
Schweizerische Industrie-Gesellschaft

(SIG), 117

Scinde Horse, 40n. 12
Scotland, 19
Scott, Walter, 205
Scott system, 205, 205 (figure)
Sear lock, 7–8
Sears system, 199, 199 (figure)
Self-consuming cartridge, 27–28, 32
Self-expanding bullet, 26
Self-loading rifle (SLR), 102, 113–114,

115–147

action, 247–248, 247 (figure)

466

INDEX

British, 141–145
caliber, 132–133
cartridge, 118–119, 122, 123–125,

135–137, 139, 140, 141–144, 148n.
16, 149n. 18, 149n. 19, 150n. 44,
151n. 53, 243

development, 116–118
German, 118–123
Hall report, 132–133
invention, 116–117
locked-breech recoil system, 116
mechanical recoil system, 116
Mexican Army, 116
Pig Board tests, 125, 149n. 23
Russell report, 132
Russian, 133–140
standardization, 128–131, 141–142, 243
test, 126, 128–129, 142
United States, 123–131
World War I, 117
See also Rifle; specific models

Self-spanning wheel lock, 11
Semi-automatic rifle, 101–102. See also

Self-loading rifle

Semi-automatic Rifle Board, 125
Semin, B. V., 122
Service rifle, 125
Sestroretsk Weapons Factory, 134
Sharps, Christian, 27
Sharps 1848 rifle, 35
Sharps carbine, 34, 73, 83
Sharps lever-action carbine

Maynard tape primer fitted, 168, 168

(figure)

Sharps rifle, 34
Sharps system, 28–29
Shaw, Joshua, 67, 76n. 5
Sidorenko, Ivan, 212
SIG. See Schweizerische Industrie-

Gesellschaft

Sight Unit Small Arms Trilux (SUSAT)

sight, 144

Sights, 115, 144

development, 7, 8, 14
iron, 257–258, 257 (figure)

iron vs. optical, 260
single 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. See

also Sights

SKS rifle, 227, 227 (figure)
SKS45 carbine, 139–140
SKT 40 carbine, 221
Slow match firing, 6
SLR. See Self-loading rifle
Small Arms Committee, 96
Smith, Horace, 30
Smith, Philip, 95
Smoothbore muskets, 81–82
Snaphance, 12–13, 12 (figure), 18n. 24

“flintlock” as synonymous for, 14

Snider, Jacob, 30, 47
Snider ball, 164, 164 (figure)
Snider cartridge, 33, 36
Snider conversion rifle, 30, 31, 47–49
Snider rifle-musket, 33
Sniper telescope rifle, 119, 215 (figure),

216, 223, 228, 228 (figure)

Snipers, xii, 216
Soapstone, bullet molds, 20
Social development, and military

development, 1

Spanish Lock, 18n. 26
“Special ammunition,” 74–76
Speed, Joseph J., 96
Spencer, Christopher M., 45, 71
Spencer carbine, 73, 77n. 13
Spencer lever-action repeating rifle, 71–73,

77n. 13, 103, 169, 169 (figure)

action, 72 (figure)
design description, 72

Spencer rifle, 35, 41n. 32
Spiral rifling, 85–87, 89n. 13
Sporting rifle

lever-action repeating, 71
and 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, 108
Springfield Model 1903 bolt-action rifle,

103, 108–109, 108 (figure), 109–113,
116, 146, 149n. 21, 213, 213 (figure),
220, 223

DuPont powder, 108
Mauser patent infringement, 101,

108–109

semiautomatic, 124
sniper rifle, 113

Standing armies, 17n. 14
Stanislaus, Charles Louis, 67–68, 76n. 6
Steel bow, 1. See also Long bow
Stewart, James, 77n. 14
Steyr assault rifle, 251, 251 (figure)
StG 44 rifle, 37, 121–123, 122, 141, 230,

232–233, 232 (figure)

Stocks, 7, 8
“Stone guns,” 11
Stoner, Eugene, 39, 41n. 35, 132–133
Straight rifling, 85–87, 89n. 13
Stuart, Jeb, 73
Studler, René, 128, 130, 133, 141–142
StuG77 rifle, 251
Submachine gun, 119–120
Sudayev, A. I., 140
SVT 38 rifle, 221
SVT 40 rifle, 221, 221 (figure)
Swedish National Historical Museum, 5
Switzerland, infantry weapons, 79

T25 SLR, 128, 130, 142
T44 SLR, 130
T47 SLR, 130
Talcott, G., 76n. 5
Tamisier, Captain, 32
Textbook of Small Arms 1929, 116
Thirty Years’ War, 16
Thompson, A. L., 122
Thornton, William, 46, 62n. 7

Thorpe, Stanley, 141
Thouvenin, Louis E. de, 23
Thouvenin tige rifle, 81, 82
Thouvenin’s tige, 23, 24 (figure)
Timmerhans, Colonel, 83
Tokarev, Fedor Vasil’evich, 135, 136, 150n.

43, 221

Tokarev, Nikolai Fedorovich, 221
Tokarev rifle, 136, 137, 221, 221 (figure)
Torgau, Battle of, 16
Touch hole, 8
Tower of London, 4
Townshend, Lord, 44–45
Treadwell, T. D.

cartridge test report, 33–37

Truman, Harry, 130
Tube magazines, 36, 41n. 32
Turkish Army, 116
Turning bolt, 125, 149n. 20

Under-hammer system, 67–68, 68
United States

bolt-action rifle, 103–113
bolt-action rifle, magazine-type,

103–106

breech-loading rifle, 43–45
rifle as military weapon in, 88
self-loading rifle, 123–131
weapons design, xii
See also Civil War, U.S.; Revolutionary

War, American; Vietnam War; World
War I; World War II

Uraznov, D. V., 137
U.S. government

Mauser patent infringement, 101,

108–109

U.S. Infantry Board, 39
U.S. Ordnance Department, 79, 94, 126,

130

VG1-5 rifle, 234, 234 (figure)
Vickers automatic rifle, 219
Vietnam War, 39, 132
Vojenské historické muzeum (the Military

Museum), 11

468

INDEX

Volcanic Arms Company, 74
Volcanic Repeating Firearms Company,

170

Volcanic rifle, 72, 170, 170 (figure)
Volition Ball, 170
Volsgewehr rifle, 234, 234 (figure)

Waffenamt (Weapons Office of the

German High Command), 119–120

Walker, Money, and Little, 94
Walther, Carl, 117, 120
Walther A115 SLR, 118
Walther manufacturing, 117, 120, 226,

230

Walther SLR, 117–118

prototype, 230, 230 (figure)

War of 1812, xii
Warfare, and infantryman, 7
Weapons

and blast furnace, introduction of, 1
evolution, xv
impact on society, xvi
rifle as infantry, 146–147

Weapons of mass destruction (WMD)

impact on society, xvi

Weapons technology

impact on society, xv

Welsh archers, 7
Wesson, Daniel B., 30
Westley Richards firm, 59
Westley Richards rifle, 60–61, 179, 179

(figure)

Wheel lock system, 9–12, 9 (figure),

11–12, 11 (figure), 155, 155 (figure)

accidental ignition, 12
cost, 15
description, 9–10
German, 11

and gunsmith, 9
invention, 10, 17n. 19
self-spanning, 11
social repercussion, 10–11
as sporting gun, 10, 11

Whitworth, Sir Joseph, 27, 59, 87
Wilder’s First Mounted Rifle, 73
Wilkins, William, 76n. 5
William III, 88
Winchester ‘73 (film), 77n. 14
Winchester carbine, 224, 224 (figure)
Winchester M1A1 carbine, 225, 225

(figure)

Winchester M1873, 77n. 14
Winchester Repeating Arms Co., 111, 112
Winchester rifle, 41n. 32, 74, 106, 116,

131, 174–175, 174 (figure)

action, 75 (figure)

Windage

bullets, 22–25
Greener’s expanding bullet, 23
Minié bullets, 23
musket balls, 21, 40n. 5

Winters, Shelley, 77n. 14
WMD. See Weapons of mass destruction
Wola, Stalowa, 141
World War I, 150n. 44

bolt-action rifle, 110, 113
rifle shortage, 109–113
self-loading rifle, 117

World War II

bolt-action rifle, 110, 113
cartridge design, 37–40
self-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 Military

Library Research Service Ltd., Derbyshire, England, and a freelance mili-
tary historian concentrating on the German Army from 1933 to 1945. He
has published a number of works on the organization of the German Army
and on the campaign in Russia, as well as a history of the German Type VII
U-Boat.

470

Document Outline

Preliminaries
Contents
Militaries in the fourteenth century
Ball, bullet, powder, and cartridge
breech-loading rifles
the percussion system
rifles and ammunition in 1855
the bolt-action rifle
self-loading rifles
Significant Rifles and Rifle Systems
Appendices
Index

Wyszukiwarka

Podobne podstrony:
ABC CLIO Rifles An Illustrated History of Their Impact
D McDowall An illustrated history of Britain
Ancient Rome An Illustrated History
An Oral History of Kent Brewery Historical Research and Oral History by Mary Ann Hamilton & Sue And
Ferguson An Essay on the History of Civil Society
Unsolved Mysteries An Exhibition of Unsolved Mysteries and Enigmatic Findings in the History of Hum
Easley E S The War Over Perpetual Peace An Exploration into the History of a Foundational Internatio
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY OF KHAZARIA(1)
Poland, 1918 1945, An Interpretive and Documentary History of the Second Republic
History of Great Britain exam requirements
history of britain ?tes
History of the Celts
The History of Great Britain - Chapter One - Invasions period (dictionary), filologia angielska, The
history of britain proper names
Hume The History of England vol 1
Unhappy?et (A Brief History of Misadvertised Fitness Footwear)
The History of the USA 6 Importand Document in the Hisory of the USA (unit 8)
The History of the USA 5 American Revolutionary War (unit 6 and 7)

więcej podobnych podstron