The Small Arms Thread, Part 8: 2018; ICSR to be replaced by US Army with interim 15mm Revolver Cannon.

[Sturgeon]

A terrible thing has happened. I've become a SIG owner.

 

 

What I really wanted was one of the earlier import P220s with all of the German proof marks on it. I did get that; this one was made in 1990 according to the date code.

 

[D.E. Watters]

I recently came across a 1956 transcript from the House Armed Services Committee's investigation of military aircraft pricing.  Fairchild was questioned about the number of retired military officers on their payroll, including General Devers.  If you remember your history, Devers was also assigned to ArmaLite to help scout opportunities for the AR-10.

In the CGP book, Evans misrepresents Robert Enewold as an active duty USAF Colonel. George Sullivan's article on the AR-5 for the January 1957 issue of American Rifleman noted that Robert Enewold was retired from the USAF and was currently a gunsmith in Reno, NV. Enewold had previously worked at the USAF's Survival School with Burton Miller. Sullivan also credited Miller with creating the M4 Survival Rifle in 1949. Evans gets this wrong as well, claiming that the M4 was a WW2-era design that was replaced by the M6 Survival Weapon. It is my understanding that the M4 and M6 served concurrently, with their issue being more of a unit preference. You can find reports on DTIC showing the M4's issue as late the 1960s. In fact, there are more reports available referencing the M4 than the M6. A childhood friend even has a photo of his father posing with a M4 Survival Rifle during his Vietnam War-era service.

Evans also glosses over the fact Miller was hired by ArmaLite after his retirement from the USAF. He wasn't a mere employee...he became a Vice President! I'd love to dig through Curtis LeMay's papers to check out his personal correspondence with Miller and Fairchild's Boutelle.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/service/mss/eadxmlmss/eadpdfmss/2014/ms014063.pdf

While doing some additional digging, I happened to find this custom rifle that Miller had commissioned for LeMay.

http://collections.centerofthewest.org/treasures/view/firearm_rifle_remington_arms_co_ilion_ny_wood_steel_lemay_general_curtis
 

 

[D.E. Watters]

Anyone a subscriber to Aviation Week?  I'd love to see their articles mentioning ArmaLite.

http://archive.aviationweek.com/search?QueryTerm=Armalite

[D.E. Watters]

I'm beginning to take a more skeptical eye to Richard Hallock's role in getting ARPA's Project Agile to field test the AR-15 in South Vietnam. Note that Hallock was later accused of "triple dipping" in his post-retirement consultancies with the US DOD, the Govt. of Iran, and US defense contractors during the 1970s. The DOD hired him to keep the Iranians from getting fleeced by the defense contractors, but then the Iranians hired him to consult on which weapons to buy. This allowed Hallock to then act as a gatekeeper for his own clients in the defense industry.

Another reason for suspicion is the 1965 conviction of ARPA Deputy Director William H. Godel for embezzlement. This was related to his Project Agile activities in 1961.  Following his arrest by the FBI in August 1964, Godel was forced out of ARPA and went to work for Cadillac Gage.  He was soon accused of conflict of interest in trying to promote the Stoner 63 to the DOD.  Godel resigned from Cadillac Gage after his December 1964 indictment.

[Donward]

A terrible thing has happened. I've become a SIG owner.

 

 

What I really wanted was one of the earlier import P220s with all of the German proof marks on it. I did get that; this one was made in 1990 according to the date code.

 

 

My step-dad has one. Not sure the exact age although it is pre-2000. I don't have much experience other than it is pretty OK for a semi-automatic handgun.

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

A terrible thing has happened. I've become a SIG owner.

 

 

What I really wanted was one of the earlier import P220s with all of the German proof marks on it. I did get that; this one was made in 1990 according to the date code.

 

Hah, I was going to say it was really old just based on finish and the hammer, later hammers are rounder.   I've always liked the 220, I regret selling mine, but when life kicks you in the balls and you need cash, sometimes you have to sell stuff you like...

[Donward]

The good news about a Sig is that it will maintain its value and no doubt go up. 

 

Also, DE Watters, excellent posts. 

[Sturgeon]

My step-dad has one. Not sure the exact age although it is pre-2000. I don't have much experience other than it is pretty OK for a semi-automatic handgun.

 

My opinion is that the newer ones are worse, but that's subjective and based on smaller sample size.

Mine seems like a quite decent combat handgun, but I'm absolutely salivating over the thought of taking it to the range.

[D.E. Watters]

Found some numbers on the M4 and M6 survival weapons.  There were 34,910 M4 acquired between 1950 and 1951.  In contrast, 66,600 M6 were acquired during roughly the same period.  The M6 was officially considered standard, with the M4 as a limited standard.  Between the two, 10,934 survival weapons had been lost in combat, crashes, or fires by early 1954.

[D.E. Watters]

Most texts assume that Dr. Frederick H. Carten succeeded Col. Rene R. Studler as Chief of Small Arms R&D after Studler retired in 1953.  It appears that Carten only served as acting Chief until the position could be filled. The May 1956 issue of "American Rifleman" had a picture of some former and then current members of the OCO's R&D Division Small Arms Branch. Carten was identified as Deputy Chief, while Col. Gilvary P. Grant was credited as Chief. Another employee was listed as John R. Bird. Also in the photo were Studler and Col. Edwin H. Harrison, Studler's predecessor and at the time of the photo, a member of the Rifleman's technical staff. Studler was listed as employed by Olin Mathieson.

 

I can't find much on Grant other than his full name was Gilvary Preston Grant, and that he retired as a Lt. Colonel in June 1963.

 

It appears that John R. Bird was working for the R&D staff of Army Materiel Command as late as 1964.

[Donward]

Found some numbers on the M4 and M6 survival weapons.  There were 34,910 M4 acquired between 1950 and 1951.  In contrast, 66,000 M6 were acquired during roughly the same period.  The M6 was officially considered standard, with the M4 as a limited standard.  Between the two, 10,934 survival weapons had been lost in combat, crashes, or fires by early 1954.

 

That is curious. Presumably they were in the Korean War. I wonder how many downed airmen used the M4 or M6 as a self defense weapon. The .22 Hornet is a darn good anti-varmit round and I guess you could fire a .45 Colt out of the .410 shotgun portion of the gun if you had to. I'm wondering if most guys wouldn't have just or wouldn't have just preferred a sidearm like a .38 Colt Detective or a Smith & Wesson. 

[LoooSeR]

[D.E. Watters]

That is curious. Presumably they were in the Korean War. I wonder how many downed airmen used the M4 or M6 as a self defense weapon. The .22 Hornet is a darn good anti-varmit round and I guess you could fire a .45 Colt out of the .410 shotgun portion of the gun if you had to. I'm wondering if most guys wouldn't have just or wouldn't have just preferred a sidearm like a .38 Colt Detective or a Smith & Wesson. 

The survival weapons weren't intended for fighting enemy personnel.  Rather, they were promoted as foraging tools so that aircrew downed in isolated areas might  survive long enough to be rescued.  You'll note that the USAF was also testing lightweight revolvers with aluminum frames and cylinders that were adopted as the M13.

FYI:  DTIC has a 1950s vintage report on wound ballistic testing of .22 Hornet ammunition.

[D.E. Watters]

One thing that gets to me is the constant claims of Army Ordnance NIH syndrome.  However, the Army treated John M Browning, John Pedersen, and even foreign firms like FN with respect.  The Army seems to work just fine with inventors and contractors who play within the system.  The trouble begins when you have inventors and companies that immediately start throwing elbows, dragging their drama out in public to Congress and the press when their genius invention isn't immediately recognized.
 

Consider the case of Loren C. Cook.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1798&dat=19530303&id=mAEdAAAAIBAJ&sjid=NYoEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3268,207079&hl=en
 

http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.35112104230976?urlappend=%3Bseq=1109

Cook made a lot of bizarre claims for his designs, which really make you question his competence as a designer. However, that didn't him from acting like a fool in front of the media and attracting Congressional attention. His design weighed almost twice as much as he claimed, and he had to be delusional if he thought a ~10" barrel SMG was going to achieve 1,800 fps with .45 ACP. (But...but...the barrel is nearly twice as long as the M1911 pistol!)

I'll go as far as to suggest that the biggest issue with NIH designs was not that they came from outside Army Ordnance, but rather that the proposals were often unsolicited.  Testing an unsolicited proposal basically steals funding and time away from official programs of record.  I seem to remember Julian Hatcher complaining that some inventors/manufacturers just wanted to use the Army as a free R&D test service.  "Why spend our own personal savings/corporate funds on ammunition and engineering tests to debug our design when the American taxpayer can foot the bill instead?"
 

[Sturgeon]

One thing that gets to me is the constant claims of Army Ordnance NIH syndrome. However, the Army treated John M Browning, John Pedersen, and even foreign firms like FN with respect. The Army seems to work just fine with inventors and contractors who play within the system. The trouble begins when you have inventors and companies that immediately start throwing elbows, dragging their drama out in public to Congress and the press when their genius invention isn't immediately recognized.

Consider the case of Loren C. Cook.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1798&dat=19530303&id=mAEdAAAAIBAJ&sjid=NYoEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3268,207079&hl=en%22%5Dhttps://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1798&dat=19530303&id=mAEdAAAAIBAJ&sjid=NYoEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3268,207079&hl=en'>https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1798&dat=19530303&id=mAEdAAAAIBAJ&sjid=NYoEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3268,207079&hl=en"]https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1798&dat=19530303&id=mAEdAAAAIBAJ&sjid=NYoEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3268,207079&hl=en[/url]

http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.35112104230976?urlappend=%3Bseq=1109%22%5Dhttp://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.35112104230976?urlappend=%3Bseq=1109'>http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.35112104230976?urlappend=%3Bseq=1109"]http://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.35112104230976?urlappend=%3Bseq=1109[/url]

Cook made a lot of bizarre claims for his designs, which really make you question his competence as a designer. However, that didn't him from acting like a fool in front of the media and attracting Congressional attention. His design weighed almost twice as much as he claimed, and he had to be delusional if he thought a ~10" barrel SMG was going to achieve 1,800 fps with .45 ACP. (But...but...the barrel is nearly twice as long as the M1911 pistol!)

I'll go as far as to suggest that the biggest issue with NIH designs was not that they came from outside Army Ordnance, but rather that the proposals were often unsolicited. Testing an unsolicited proposal basically steals funding and time away from official programs of record. I seem to remember Julian Hatcher complaining that some inventors/manufacturers just wanted to use the Army as a free R&D test service. "Why spend our own personal savings/corporate funds on ammunition and engineering tests to debug our design when the American taxpayer can foot the bill instead?"

QFT

[Belesarius]

The PDW version of that new B&T carbine is pretty neat looking.

 

[Sturgeon]

Chinese clandestine ammunition with US headstamps.

[LoooSeR]

[Khand-e]

Chinese clandestine ammunition with US headstamps.

 

He stumbled upon something pretty big there.

 

Plausible deniability is one thing, being able to potentially frame someone else for arms trades is a real dick move.

 

Which is of course why I like it so much.

[Sturgeon]

Daniel lays down the law:

[D.E. Watters]

It was his whole "Hur, Hur, Hur...stupid old guy with a notebook" attitude that rubbed me wrong, combined with his inability to read what Hatcher had actually written.  It is true that the recorded accidents represent a low percentage of the receivers produced.  However, we don't know how many more have failed since 1929, nor how many more would have failed if they had not been condemned during arsenal refits or lost in combat.

[Sturgeon]

One of my commenters just called the TKB-022 "combat proven".

I cannot make this shit up...

[Collimatrix]

Much of the lack of theoretical knowledge about the fundamentals of firearms operation is from lack of trying.  The reason why self-loading actions usually have less felt recoil and considerable testing on firearm thermodynamic efficiency are in Hatcher's Notebook.  It's not a hard book to find, it need only be read.

[Sturgeon]

Some groups I shot with the SIG today:

 

 

 

 

 

All shot from 10 yards.

[Alex C.]

Sweet Jesus:

http://www.rockislandauction.com/viewitem/aid/67/lid/1649