Heckler & Koch’s first 5.56×45 rifle, the HK33, was introduced in the late 1960s as a response to the emergence of the new 5.56x45mm round and the introduction of the FN CAL. The HK33 is little more than a scaled down version of HK’s successful 7.62×51 G3. Developed by Tilo Möller, the HK33 used the same roller delayed blowback action and shares most of the G3’s features.
It has a stamped receiver and uses the same plastic furniture and pistol grip/trigger mechanism housing as the G3. The rifle is 39 inches or 92cm long and is by no means a light weapon, weighing around 4kg or 8.7 lbs. The HK33 feeds from 25, 30 or 40 round proprietary HK magazines.
The rifle came in main two main variants a full length version with a fixed stock, which could be fitted with a collapsing stock, and a shortened K-variant with a shorter barrel. The weapon came with either a safe, semi and full auto or safe, semi, 3-round burst fire control mechanism.
The HK33 was not adopted by the West German Army, however, it did see extensive use with Germany’s federal state and police forces and the Bundeswehr special forces. While it wasn’t adopted at home it was a successful export weapon with dozens of countries purchasing and adopting the rifle. France tested the improved HK33F in the Army 1970s and although it performed well the FAMAS was adopted instead. A production license was sold to Thailand who adopted the HK33, purchasing 40,000 rifles and the license to manufacture 30,000 more. Thailand also developed their own unique bull pup version of the rifle, the Type 11.
Malaysia also purchased 55,000 HK33s and the Spanish Guardia Civil used them for a time. The manufacturing rights for the HK33 were also sold to Portugal for production at Fabrica Militar de Prata and to Turkey where it remains in production at MKEK.
HK produced the HK33 from 1968 through to the late 1980s. It also provided the basis for the HK53 5.56 ‘submachine gun’ which we have covered previously. It was also the basis of the less successful G41, which we’ve also covered in a full length episode, you can find this here. The similarities with the HK33 are easy to see but the G41 has a number of subtle changes.
If you enjoyed the video and this article please consider supporting our work here.
In 1981, Heckler & Koch introduced what would be their last infantry rifle that used their tried and tested roller-delayed blowback action, the HK G41. In October 1980, following NATO’s smalls arms and ammunition testing during the late 1970s, a meeting of NATO Armament Directors, agreed to standardise to the 5.56x45mm round favoured by the United States since the mid-1960s. Standardisation Agreement (STANAG) 4172 saw NATO standardise on the Belgian/FN SS109 ball round. At the same time Draft STANAG 4179 proposed adopting US 30-round M16 magazines as the standard 5.56 magazine pattern, while this proposal wasn’t ratified the M16’s magazine became the de facto standard.
At this time Heckler & Koch were engaged in a major engineering project to develop the G11 caseless ammunition-firing individual weapon. Their main offering for the 5.56x45mm rifle market at the time was the HK33, a rechambered version of the 7.62x51mm G3 developed by Tilo Moller, which was introduced in 1965. The HK33, however, used a proprietary HK magazine and was not compatible with the M16’s magazines. In 1977, as the NATO trials began and it became clear that 5.56x45mm would be adopted, HK began to develop what would become the G41. In 1979 with initial development completed HK submitted 18 G41s for testing with the West German Army. It wasn’t until 1981 that HK introduced the G41 onto the market.
While continuing to use the same roller delayed blowback operating system as the G3, HK33 and MP5, the G41 embodied a number of improvements. While still using a stamped metal receiver it utilised 1mm thick high tensile steel rather than the 1.2mm thick steel used by the HK33. This helped to lighten the receiver. The new rifle also used a lighter bolt assembly, paired with a new recoil spring which comprised of five wound strands around a central coil, rather than a single coil, which had a longer stroke. This acted to lower the felt recoil. The G41, however, had a higher rate of fire at around 850 rounds per minute compared to the 750 rounds per minute of the HK33. Some of the G41’s bolt geometries were reworked and a new extractor was added.
The G41’s lower receiver was redesigned to allow the rifle to feed from STANAG magazines rather than HK’s earlier proprietary magazines. The cocking lever and forward assist were taken from the HK21A1 (XM262) general purpose machine gun, developed for the US SAW trials.
It also had a new more triangular polymer foregrip and added a plastic dust cover to the ejection port, a NATO pattern optics mount (meeting STANAG 2324) replaced HK’s claw-mount system, and a spring-loaded folding carrying handle near the centre of balance was added. Importantly it also added a last round hold open device and a bolt release catch, on the left side of the lower receiver.
The usual thumb serrations on the side of the bolt, for pushing the bolt home, were replaced by a prominent forward assist, similar to that found on the M16A1 and other HK weapons such as the HK21 light machine gun and the PSG-1 sniper rifle. HK sales literature described it as a ‘low noise’ forward assist and the manual describes the “quiet cocking of the weapon” – essentially riding the cocking handle back into battery and then pushing the forward assist to lock the action, the system is not as ‘low noise’ as advertised.
Another important feature of the rifle was the inclusion of a three-round burst setting alongside semi and fully automatic. The G41 could mount a standard G3 bayonet, fit an M16 bipod and had a flash hider designed to enable it to fire NATO standard rifle grenades. The 40mm HK79 under barrel grenade launcher could also be mounted to all variants of the G41, simply swapping it out for the polymer forend. HK referred to this set up as the G41-TGS or ‘Tactical Group Support system’.
The G41 came in a number of variants with designations A1 to A3. The base rifle had a fixed buttstock and its rifling had 1 turn in 7 inches with a right-hand twist, in a 18.9 inch barrel. The A1 had a 1 in 12” twist barrel and fixed buttstock. The A2 had a collapsing, single position stock and 1 in 7” inch twist rifling, while the A3 had 1 in 12” inch twist rifling. The 1 in 7” rifling was optimised for the new SS109, while the 1 in 12” optimised for the US M193 round. There was also a shortened G41K model which had a collapsing stock and a 15 inch barrel available with both rifling types.
One of the main issues with the G41 was its weight. Despite efforts to lighten the sheet metal receiver, it weighed more than its predecessor the HK33. According to measurement data compiled by researcher Nathaniel F, unloaded the G41 weighs in at 4.31kgs or 9.5 lbs, this is a full pound heavier than the HK33. A contemporary M16A2 weighed 3.39kg or 7.5 lbs while the Spanish CETME L, a similar stamped receiver rifle chambered in 5.56×45, weighed 3.72kg or 8.2 lbs. The rifle eventually adopted by the Bundeswehr, the HK G36, weighed 3.13kg or 7.3 lbs. The G41K with its collapsing steel stock wasn’t much lighter, weighing 4.3kg or 9.5 lbs, according to HK sales literature. Another potential issue may have been reliability with the move to the STANAG magazine rather than the optimised proprietary HK magazines may have introduced some issues.
Following NATO’s decision the early 1980s saw a large number of countries looking to replace their ageing 7.62x51mm battle rifles. Sweden began to look for a 5.56x45mm rifle to replace its licensed version of the G3, the Ak4, in the late 1970s. HK could initially only offer the HK33 but the G41, tested later, was also rejected by the Swedes in favour of FN’s FNC. Italy sought to replace the BM59 with a more modern rifle and HK entered into an agreement with Luigi Franchi which saw them offer both the original HK configuration and the develop their own, slightly modified version, the Franchi mod. 641, but the Beretta AR70/90 was selected. Similarly, in 1984 Spain decided to adopt the indigenously developed CETME L. In 1986 the HK G41 was also submitted to the Irish Army’s trials to replace the FN FAL, it was beaten by the Steyr AUG. Initially West Germany had hoped to procure up to 20,000 HK G11 rifles per year, with a total of 224,000 in service by 2003.
The collapse of the Soviet Union and the subsequent reunification of Germany saw Federal budgets stretched and the G11 programme was subsequently abandoned entirely. The Bundeswehr still needed a suitable rifle to replace the G3 and in the 1990s sought a lighter weight rifle. HK felt their HK50 project, in development since the mid-1970s was a better bet than the heavier G41, and following Bundeswehr trials the G36 was subsequently adopted in 1997. Sadly, I have not been able to get a hold of any of the trials reports from the nations that tested the G41, so can not say with certainty why the countries mentioned above rejected HK’s rifle.
From photographs of members of the Turkish Gendarmerie special operations group training at the Foça Commando School, dating from the early 2010s, it appears that Turkey either purchased a number of G41s or Turkey’s state-owned defence manufacturer, MKEK, produced an unknown number under license.At some point in the 1980s the British Army also tested a small number G41s with serial numbers #11131, #11832 and #11833 remaining in UK collections.
Denmark’s elite Jaegerkorpset and Froemandskorpset used the G41 for a time and Argentina’s special forces, including the Grupo de Operaciones Especiales, have also been photographed with both HK G41s and G41A2(collapsing stock) fitted with the TGS package comprising of the HK79 under barrel grenade launcher.
The G41 represents the last evolution of HK’s infantry rifles using the roller delayed blowback action. It comes from a period when HK were developing what they hoped would be the next generation of small arms technology and with the collapse of the G11 programme and the lack of interest in the G41 the company faced financial uncertainty throughout the early 1990s. HK’s move away from the roller delayed blowback action to a more conventional gas operated rotating bolt system, combined with lightweight polymers, in the G36 proved to be more successful than the ill-fated G41.
If you enjoyed the video and this article please consider supporting our work here.
Our thanks to the collection that holds the G11 for the privileged and nerve-wracking opportunity to field strip it and take a look inside. If you’d like to know more about the history of the G11’s development you can check out our video and full blog on it here. Vic has done a great series of videos looking at the G11 and the other prototype rifles from the US Army’s abortive Advanced Combat Rifle trials – you can find those here.
In this blog we’ll take a closer look at some of the G11’s components, for a demonstration of dissassembly and and explanation of how the rifle works in principal check out the video above.
Firstly, lets take a look at the exterior of the rifle. The weapon has a box-like polymer coated outer shell. The shell is made up of three parts, with the butt assembly and forend locking into the centre assembly which includes the pistol grip, trigger mechanism and optical sight. The forend and butt are locked into the centre assembly by plastic locking tabs. While stiff and somewhat difficult to depress the tabs are reportedly prone to breaking.
Before we look at the G11’s internals lets take a look at the shell components. Here we can see the inside of the forend, we can see a metal (aluminium I believe) barrel tube into which the barrel slides.
Below is a photograph of the rear of the centre assembly looking forward, the small white circle (sadly slightly out of focus) is the bushing the barrel protrudes through into the forend.
Next we have a view of the inside of the rifle’s butt assembly. Note the scuff marks on the inside where the centre assembly has scrapped the plastic. We can also see the locking tab windows which are on the top and bottom of the butt.
Inside the butt we can see the ‘toothed wheel’ and ‘sealing gear’ which are turned when the cocking piece is rotated. These plastic pieces act directly on the action. Behind that is the gas escape valve, which will tap off excess gas if over pressure problems occur with the rifle.
The first step to disassembling the G11 is ensuring the weapon is clear by pushing the cleaning brush up into the breech.
Lets now take a look at the rifle’s action up close, below we can see the G11 with its forend and butt assembly removed. Next to it is the breech cylinder and control disk.
Here are some photos of the action from various angles:
Here’s some close ups of the breech cylinder and control disk:
Here are some close ups of the various parts of the action:
According to the 1989 armourer’s manual, provided for the ACR trials, the G11 is made up of a total of nearly 450 individual parts. 144 of those make up the G11’s breech assembly.
With the breech and barrel assembly removed from the centre assembly here’s a diagram I put together showing most of the component parts of the G11’s action:
Next lets take a look at the G11’s barrel assembly with its recoil management system and gas piston:
Finally, here’s a photo of the G11 broken down into its major component assemblies: magazine, forend, centre assembly breech & barrel assembly and butt stock:
If you enjoyed the video and this article please consider supporting our work here.
HK G11- ACR. Armourer’s Manual for Maintenance of Repair of Rifle, 4.92mm, ACR, March 1989 (source)
The first viable firearm suppressors appeared just after the turn of the 20th century with a series of patents being granted on various designs between 1909 and 1920. In 1895 Hiram Percy Maxim, son of Sir Hiram S. Maxim – inventor of the machine gun, established his own engineering company. Initially this company focused on the burgeoning automobile market. But in 1906, Maxim began developing a series of designs to moderate sound. Initially, he experimented with valves,vents and bypass devices, however, he eventually finalised his basic idea based on baffles and developed a series of practical suppressors; which were sold through the Maxim Silent Firearms Company (later renamed the Maxim Silencer Company.) He filed his first patent on 26th June, 1908, which was granted in March the following year (US 916,885).
The US military first took interest in silencers in 1908. The 1909 annual report of the Chief of Ordnance notes that:
“The reports of tests so far received recommend that the silencer be not adopted for use in the service in its present form. On damp, cloudy days the slow escape of gas from the silencer might assist an enemy in locating the position of a firing line; it is also difficult to handle the silencer when it becomes heated, and additional manipulation is required when it becomes necessary to fix the bayonet.”
The following year the Annual Report from Chief of Ordnance describes the Model 1910 silencer, which overcame “most of the defects found in the original”, the report then describes the Model 1910’s mounting method:
“The rear of the silencer is extended to fit over the end of the barrel and takes the place of the front sight fixed stud. The silencer is prevented from turning by means of a spline on the barre, and is held from moving longitudinally by means of a pin. The front sight movable stud is mounted on the silencer.
Intriguingly, the report confirms that “five hundred of the silencers are now being procured with a view to the issue of one or more to each organisation for instruction of recruits in target practice, and for issue to the militia, on requisition.”
In 1910, Springfield Armory tested Maxim silencers fitted to both a M1903 and an older .45-70 trapdoor Springfield. Colonel S.E. Blunt, the Armory’s commanding officer, reported in January 1909 that the Maxim silencer reduced report at the muzzle and felt recoil by around a third with no loss of accuracy. The initial tests put 400 rounds through one silencer before it failed, noting that the silencer could “withstand any rapid fire to which they could be exposed in service under ordinary conditions.”
The US School of Musketry also tested the Maxim silencer. Twenty four soldiers were issued silenced M1903s for the test. The School of Musketry’s testing found that the report at the muzzle and the recoil felt by the rifleman was reduced when compared to a normal, unsuppressed, M1903. The School of Musketry’s report noted that:
“It greatly facilitated instruction of recruits in rifle firing. It materially lessened the fatigue of the soldier in prolonged firing, such as would occur in modern battle, which is a distinct military advantage.
The muffling of the sound of discharge and the great reduction in the total volume of sound which permits the voice to be heard at the firing point about the sound of a number of rifles in action, greatly facilitate the control of the firing line.”
They also reported that “the silencer annuls the flash” a quality that they felt was a “positive military advantage in view of the extent to which night operations may be employed in future wars.”
They also felt that the silencers would help “conceal positions of sentinels and to deceive the enemy as to the position of the firing line” especially at night. As the silencer was used with standard ammunition it could do nothing to reduce the crack the round made as it travelled down range, without subsonic ammunition the silencers were only able to moderate the report of the rifle firing.
Maxim did his best to develop a robust silencer that would meet the military’s needs. He incorporated a mounting point for a bayonet on the military variant of the Model 1910. The model 1910 silencer for the Springfield M1903, however, required the removal of the rifle’s front sight. This attachment method was felt to be the Model 1910’s weakest point and something Maxim himself actively looked to address.
The Maxim Silencer Company subsequently developed the Model 1912 and subsequently the further improved Model 15, which Maxim christened the ‘Government Silencer’. Encouraged by this early military interest Maxim envisioned a military silencer being useful in roles such as sniping, guard harassment and marksmanship training. He believed that the increasing number of American men joining the military from cities who lacked experience in shooting were struggling to master the .30-06 M1903 because of its loud report and stout recoil. Maxim felt that using a silencer would prevent recruits being intimidated by their rifle and help them to learn the fundamentals of marksmanship faster. This was an issue that was subsequently resolved by the use of .22 calibre training rifles.
Maxim was not the only designer working in the field and Robert A. Moore, his most competent competitor, also submitted a design for military testing. The Moore Silencer Company secured a number of patents protecting designs for both civilian and military rifles (US 956,717 & US 1,021,742). Moore’s designs used large gas expansion chambers which sat beneath the rifle’s muzzle as well as a series of vortex chambers ahead of the muzzle. The muzzle gases were supposed to be deflected by concave surfaces down into the silencer which had a number of partitioned chambers. The sides of Moore’s first silencer were ported with vents to allow cool air to rush into the casing theoretically cooling the gases, but this was abandoned by his second 1911 design (seen below).
US Ordnance tests with Moore silencers began in 1910. When the two silencers were compared the US Army found that there was little difference between the two rival designs with regards to the reduction of sound, recoil and flash. Colonel S.E. Blunt later reported:
“the opinion that there is but little difference between the Moore and Maxim silencers as regards, reduction of sound, recoil and flash; that the method of attachment of the Moore silencer to the service rifle is superior to the attachment provided with the Maxim silencer, model 15; that while the Moore silencer gives higher velocity and does not deflect shot group as much as the Maxim silencer; yet the endurance of the Moore silencer indicate that it has not yet been sufficiently perfected to withstand rapid fire and is therefore inferior to the Maxim silencer.”
The Springfield Armory’s report in July 1912, found that the Moore silencer was more accurate and had a better attachment system. The Maxim silencer, however, was more durable and could withstand more prolonged rapid fire. Moore’s silencer attached by latches behind the front sight post and at the bayonet lug and required no tools to fit. It could mount a standard M1905 bayonet while Maxim’s design required a specially adapted proprietary bayonet. While the Maxim required some minor modifications to the front sight to enable it to be mounted to the M1903. The US Army subsequently purchasing 100 Moore silencers for a full trial (this was confirmed by the 1911/12 Annual Report of the Chief of Ordnance) – these were still in inventory in 1918, but no evidence of their use in service has been found.
With field trials planned, there appears to have been discussion of equipping two rifles per company with silencers for use by sharpshooters in conjunction with two star-gauge (accurate barrelled) rifles and the M1908 or M1913 Musket Sights. This was not the large-scale contract that Maxim had hoped for believing silencers might become standard issue, however, the funding was not available and the idea behind the silencer’s use was not fully embraced by the military.
Between 1912 and 1915 Maxim improved his silencer offering the military Model 14 and Model 15. The US Army appears to have only purchased the Model 15 for testing, although secondary sources suggest the purchase and testing of some Model 1912 silencer. In his February 1913 patent (US 1,054,434), filed in April 1910, protecting his new attachment system Maxim explains how it worked:
“The improved coupling comprises a sleeve adapted to fit upon the barrel, a split grip-v sping ring to encircle the barrel and a nut or internally threaded sleeve adapted to engage the threaded portion of the coupling sleeve and at the same time to clamp the gripping ring tightly about the barrel.”
This patent appears to protect the later Model 15 or ‘Government Model’ silencer’s attachment method which required no removal of parts from the rifle. While the Model 14 could mount a standard M1905 sword bayonet with no modification to the bayonet the Model 15 did not have an attachment point for a bayonet.
In August 1915, the commanding officer of Rock Island Arsenal requested permission to transfer “20 rifles fitted with maxim silencers, 20 bayonets for same turned in from field” to Springfield Armory. This tantalising primary document fragment confirms that further testing occurred during 1915.
In terms of primary source information about testing and deployment of silencers by the Army before the First World War there isn’t a great deal available. Secondary sources, including William Brophy and David Truby, note that the US military’s first deployment of silencers came in 1916, when General John Pershing’s Mexican expedition against Pancho Villa included a squad of snipers apparently armed with silenced M1903s, however, little is known about their use in the field.
In addition to the military’s continued testing, the Maxim silencers had gained some public notoriety and President Woodrow Wilson was familiar enough with them to raise concerns about public ownership of the devices on the eve of America’s entry into the war. On the 30th March 1917, just three days before the US entered the war, President Wilson had his personal secretary, Joseph Tumulty, write to the Department of Justice requesting that they look into the threat German Fifth Columnists might pose if they used Maxim Silencers to attack key infrastructure. His letter stated that the sale of Maxim Silencers “should be prohibited and all outstanding weapons collected by the police.” The President was concerned that sentries guarding isolated posts such as bridges and munitions factories might become targets of opportunity for assassins with silenced weapons. His memorandum said “great damage could be done before main guard… discovered sentry’s death.” On the 3rd of April, the Department of Justice in turn wrote to the Secretary of War and asked for his comment on the issue.
Brigadier General William Crozier, Chief of US Army Ordnance, was consulted by the Adjutant General. Crozier responded on the 7th April, saying that the use of a Maxim Silencer by ‘unauthorised persons’ was not considered sufficiently important to require special action by the War Department. He continued saying it should be noted that: “a silencer reduces the intensity of the report at discharge, but does not entirely eliminate it.” Despite the War Department’s lack of concern about silencers the Maxim silencer has the distinction of being mentioned in the US declaration of war on Germany. Presidential Proclamation #1364, published on 6th April, 1917, stated:
“An alien enemy shall not have in his possession, at any time or place, any firearm, weapon or implement of war, or component part thereof, ammunition, maxim or other silence, bomb or explosive material used in the manufacture of explosives.”
I’ve been unable to find any mention of silencers being used by ‘alien enemies’. Maxim’s military silencers, however, reportedly shipped around the world with orders from Mexico, South America, China, Japan, Britain, France, Belgium, Russia and Germany. One pre-war Maxim advert boasted that the design had been approved by the German military. During the First World War both the British and Germans reportedly deployed snipers equipped with Maxim silencers in small numbers. In February 1916, the Greek government wrote to the US War Department enquiring about obtaining the Army’s test results for what they called ‘Maxime Silencers’. The Ordnance Office provided the requested report in March but it is unknown if it was forwarded on.
Did the US Army Use the Maxim Silencer During WWI?
The extent of the use of silencers by the US Army during World War One is unknown but recently uncovered Ordnance Office documents show that silencers did reach France but the desire for them was mixed.
Both William Tantum and Clark Campbell suggest that an order for 9,100 silencers was placed. This is said to have been part of a plan to deploy silencers with rifles with accurate star-gauged barrels fitted with M1913 Warner & Swasey Musket Sights for sniper use. Alex MacKenzie, Curator of the Springfield Armory National Historic Site, notes that reports from the Armory show that 1,041 “U.S. Rifles, Cal. .30, Model of 1903, Fitted for Tel. Musket Sight” were assembled but with no mention of the rifles being mounted with a Model 1910 or a Model 15 silencer. He also notes that Springfield Armory produced 3,100 “Knife Bayonets, Model of 1905, for Use with Maxim Silencer” during the fiscal year of 1918. The production of these bayonets would suggest the use of the Model 1910, as the Model 15 could not fix a bayonet.
The documents recently found by researcher Andrew Stolinski, of Archival Research Group, suggest that Maxim silencers did indeed reach American Expeditionary Force (AEF) stores in France.
In June 1918, the Chief Inspector Machine Guns and Small Arms at the GHQ of the AEF suggested the supplying of “Maxim silencers for use with Springfield rifles”, this suggestion, however was rejected by General Pershing himself, replying that “Maxim Silencers not desired in Europe. Recommend that they be left out of equipment tables.” It seems that the Chief Inspector of Machine Guns and Small Arms may have made the suggestion at the behest of Major T.J. Hayes, Division Ordnance Officer for the US 5th Division, who wrote to the Chief Inspector again on August 17th to make the case for silencer use saying:
“I wish to make the recommendation that 15 of these be issued to each infantry regiment, to be used by the Scout platoons of each battalion. Their use would tend to increase the efficency [sic] of these Scout platoons and allow them to perform their work with less chance of detection… I urgently recommend that they be issued and given a thorough trial. I am convinced that some sort of flash arrester [sic] or Silencer is needed for dangerous night patrolling. The Shotguns [likely Winchester Model 1897s] have given most excellent results but the silencers should be provided in addition.”
On the 27th August, Lt.Colonel H.K. Hathaway, an Ordnance officer with the supply division, circulated a memorandum stating that Maxim silencers “are no longer an article of issue” but that “there are in stock at Intermediate Ordnance Depot No 2[in Gievres], 200 of these Silencers and from 100 to 150 Springfield Rifles fitted with these silencers.” While at “Advance Ordnance Depot No 1 [in Is-Sur-Tille], there are 20 Springfield rifles so fitted.” This confirms that silencers both individually (likely Model 15s) and mounted to rifles (probably earlier Model 1910s) were sent to France for use by the AEF. It seems, however, that very few of them left the Ordnance stores.
On the 30th August, a Major Herbert O’Leary, of the Ordnance Department, wrote to the Supply Division on behalf of the AEF’s Chief Ordnance Officer, to inform that “if Maxim Silencers are fitted to rifles, it precludes the use of bayonets as an essential weapon for raid purposes. It is the opinion of this Division that Silencers should not be issued.”
On the 7th September the matter appears to have been settled by a letter from Brigadier C.B. Wheeler, the Chief Ordnance Officer, to the Chief Inspector Machine Guns and Small Arms in response to his suggestion in June. Wheeler quotes General Pershing’s earlier rejection and states that “it is not considered desirable to issue them”. From these documents it appears to suggest that the silencers saw little to no use in France with the AEF, despite the enthusiasm for them among some more junior Ordnance officers like Major Hayes.
The 1918 Ordnance Storage Catalogue, Vol. V, listed the ‘SILENCERS, Maxim, M1910 for U.S. rifles, M1903’, ‘SILENCERS, Maxim, Model 15 for U.S. rifles, M1903’, and the ‘SILENCERS, Moore, for U.S. rifles, M1903’. Although no numbers are given.
After the war the silencer’s remained in US Army inventory well into the 1920s. In March 1922, Rock Island Arsenal requested spare parts to repair some Model 1915 silencers from the Chief of Ordnance’s office only to be told that “there are no repair parts for the Maxim silencers available. It is not believed necessary to repair the Maxim Silencer as they are more or less obsolescent.”
Campbell states that after the war some of the rifles fitted with Model 1910 silencers were offered for sale through the Civilian Marksmanship programme in 1920. Archival research has found later enquiries from the head of the programme requesting silencers to mount on Krag rifles. In May 1923, the Director of Civilian Marksmanship wrote to the Rock Island Arsenal enquiring if the Model 1915 silencer would fit the M1892 Krag and if they were available for sale. Rock Island Arsenal’s commanding officer Colonel D.M. King replied advising that only a small number were available. As a result the Ordnance Office refused to sell a substantial number of the Model 1915’s for fear of depleting “the small stock” still remaining.
In his 2016 Small Arms Review article on the Maxim silencers Frank Iannamico suggests that a small number were given to National Guard units for training purposes. A 1916 Maxim sales brochure mentions that it was sold “to individual members of the National Guard” but makes no mention of larger sales. Hiram P. Maxim himself also appeared on the front cover of the February 1910 edition of the National Guard Magazine, demonstrating his device fitted to a M1903 (see photo above).
On March 23rd 1925, the rifles mounted with silencers listed as ‘Maxim Silencer & U.S. Rifles Cal .30 fitted for same’ were declared obsolete. While the First World War offered a brief boom in sales of silencers this did not last and Maxim’s company continued to diversify after the war. The Maxim Silencer Company manufactured not only firearm silencers but also sound moderating devices for everything from automobiles to naval engines; from plant machinery to building silencers which were fitted to heating and air conditioning systems. Similarly Moore, like Maxim, also later developed silencers for automobiles filling a patent for an Exhaust Muffler in 1930.
A Closer Look at the Maxim Silencer
The Model 1910 silencer is 7.3 inches (18.5cm) long which when fitted gave the M1903 an overall length of 50.5 inches (128cm). Despite the attachment of the silencer this was still around an inch shorter than the French Lebel Mle 1886.
To fit the Model 1910 silencer to the rifle a coupling piece was used. First the front sight was removed, then the coupling piece slipped onto the barrel and was secured against rotation by the barrel’s front sight spline (a rib on the top of the barrel which the front sight sat upon). A pin was then passed through the standard front sight stud hole to secure the silencer to the muzzle. The front sight, which had a dovetailed base, was then fitted to the top of the coupling piece.
The Model 1910 had 18 baffles inside a steel outer casing with a blued finish. Unlike earlier Maxim silencers that had a central channel, down which the bullet travelled, the Model 1910 had a channel off set to the top the silencer, so as not to interfere with sight picture. Maxim’s silencer has a female dovetail on its underside, into which a specially adapted proprietary M1905 bayonet with a male dovetail was fixed. This mounting system rendered about half the bayonet’s length useless as the silencer projected out above it. While not a serious issue, when compared to the Moore’s attachment method, it did hamper the bayonet somewhat.
The Model 1910 silencer was sealed an could not be easily cleaned, the Maxim Silent Firearms Co.’s literature advised running warm water through the silencer and letting it soak overnight before drying it on a hot surface to evaporate the water inside and oil it thoroughly. Not the most practical method of cleaning.
A Maxim Silent Firearms Company brochure dating from 1916 priced the Model 15 at $8.50. Seven years later, in 1923, the Ordnance Office noted that the Model 15 was valued at $5.34.
If you enjoyed the video and this article please consider supporting our work here.
Specifications (taken from 1910 US Army Annual Report)
Weight: 11 ounces or 312g
Length: 5.9 inches or 15cm
Diameter: 1.3 inches or 3.3cm
Baffle Bore Diameter: .341 inches or 8.7mm
Special thanks to both the Cody Firearms Museum at the Buffalo Bill Center of the West for allowing us to examine and film their rifle and to Andrew Stolinski for his archival research into the US Army’s use of the Maxim Silencer. Check out his website, Archival Research Group, here.
Presidential Proclamation #1364, 6th April, 1917, US National Archives, (source)
Various War and Ordnance Department files at The National Archives in Washington, DC (Archive 1) and The National Archives at College Park, Maryland (Archives II) courtesy of Andrew Stolinski at Archival Research Group
War Department, Annual Reports, Report of Chief of Ordnance, 1909, Vol.6 (source)
War Department, Annual Reports, Report of Chief of Ordnance, 1910, Vol.1 (source)
War Department, Annual Reports, Report of Chief of Ordnance, 1913, Vol.1 (source)
M1903 Springfield with Maxim Silencer, Cody Firearms Museum, online catalogue entry (source)
M1903 Springfield with Maxim Silencer, Springfield Armory, online catalogue entry (source)
Moore Silencer, Springfield Armory, online catalogue entry (source)
The Springfield 1903 Rifles: The Illustrated, Documented Story of the Design, Development and Production of All the Models of Appendages and Accessories, W.S. Brophy (1987)
The ’03 Era: When Smokeless Powder Revolutionised US Riflery, C.S. Campbell (1994)
Silencers, Snipers & Assassins: An Overview of Whispering Death, J.D. Truby (1972)
Firearm Silencers, N. Wilson (1983)
Hatcher’s Notebook, J.S. Hatcher (1947)
History of the Maxim Silencer Company, Small Arms Review, F. Iannamico (source)
Held in the collection of the Cody Firearms Museum (CFM), at the Buffalo Bill Centre of the West, is a most intriguing Cold War submachine gun. The weapon came from the collection of the old Winchester Firearms Museum, which the CFM inherited, it is not a test & evaluation weapon made by another company but a submachine gun designed and developed by Winchester. Those who know their Winchester history will know the company had no prior background in submachine gun design, instead being best known for their rifles and shotguns.
Very little is known about Winchester’s submachine gun project, but two prototype examples survive, an early ‘in the white’ model labelled ‘N2’ and another which Herbert Houze, the CFM’s former curator, designated ‘N4’ . The documentary evidence for the Winchester submachine guns is sparse, amounting to just entries in the Winchester Museum’s inventory and a faded battered item tag attached to N2. A confusing element is that the inventory simply refers to the two prototypes as N-1 and N-2, with no mention of an N4.
There is also believed to be original engineering drawings housed in the Winchester Archival collection, currently held by the McCracken Research Library, but searches by myself and library staff have been unable to locate these.
It is unclear if the tag from N2 is contemporary, perhaps added when the gun was handed over to Winchester’s museum, or if it was added later. In under 100 words it give us a short potted history of the N2 itself and the company’s programme to develop a submachine gun.
Houze suggests the development programme began in 1955 and the tag attached the N2 suggests that development ceased in 1957, whether this is solely for that gun or the entire programme is unclear. This would make Winchester’s weapon a contemporary of the famous Israeli UZI.
The tag describes the N2 as a 9mm blowback ‘NATO Burp Gun’, followed by the name A.A. Arnold, a Winchester engineer perhaps best known for writing a series of manuals for Winchester firearms, followed by ‘dropped Dec ’57’. In his 1994 book, Winchester Repeating Arms Company: Its History & Development from 1865 to 1981, Houze suggests that the weapons were designed by A.A. Arnold and Melvin M. Johnson in 1955, for possible adoption by NATO. The association with NATO might also be the origins of the ‘N’ prefix. I have been unable to find any published patents attributed to Arnold, Johnson or the company relating to the experimental submachine gun.
I contacted NATO’s Archives who advised that they were unable to find any reference or documentation relating to a direct NATO submachine gun requirement. Another possibility is that the weapon was developed to market more broadly to NATO member nations. The submachine gun market at this time in Europe, however, was already saturated by both wartime surplus and a new generation of guns, including the Sterling, the UZI, the Madsen M50, and the Carl Gustav m/45.
The reverse of the N2’s label documents the prototype weapon’s reliability and feeding problems. The tag states that the N2 did “not eject well” and that the bolt slide assembly was too heavy. It also highlights failures to cycle properly with extracted cartridge cases catching under the firing pin. The label then gives a brief description of some of the N2’s features: “fixed firing pin, 33x Mag. Folding stock.” Interestingly, it also notes that the weapon would be cocked by a rod – the hole for which had not yet been added. The tag ends with a suggestion that the heavy one piece bolt assembly should be lightened.
N2 itself also has a piece of masking tape, on the recoil spring assembly cover, with its serial number and calibre written on it, along with A.A. Arnold’s name and some words that are too difficult to make out, but include ‘feed’.
Houze has also suggested that Melvin Johnson, designer of the Johnson rifle and light machine gun who joined Winchester as a designer and adviser in the early 1950s for a short time, and Stefan Janson, designer of the Brtish E.M.2 bullpup and subsequent Winchester engineer, both worked on the project. However, I have been unable to find any documentary evidence of their involvement.
Examining the N2:
We can learn a lot from hands on examination of the two Winchester ‘N’ prototypes. Examining N2 we find that the receiver is made up of a piece of shaped sheet metal with a rounded upper half containing the barrel, bolt and cutouts for the grip points on the bolt assembly that allow charging. The bolt assembly rides over the rear portion of the barrel and projects back into the receiver. The lower section of the stamped receiver is rectangular and has a cut out for a separate magazine housing and fire control mechanism consisting of a trigger and push through safety – which we did not remove during disassembly. The N4 is missing its safety.
In the N2, the magazine housing is held in place by the stamped metal trigger guard which rocks into a notch behind the trigger and at the front interfaces with a notch in the magazine housing which has to be placed in the receiver at the same time, both are then held in place by a screw. This was changed in the later ‘N4’ with the trigger guard as a separate independent piece.
Winchester N2 Prototype Reassembly:
The side plates, muzzle end cap and recoil spring assembly cover all made from Aluminium – ostensibly to reduce weight. The submachine gun prototypes both use a pinch cocking method similar to that seen in the earlier British BSA WELGUN developed during WWII. The recoil spring proved to be too strong to cock easily, the addition of ‘rod’ cocking handle is suggested on the N2’s tag. The blued, later N4 prototype, however, is still lacking a conventional cocking handle. The pinch cocking method is not ergonomic, the user’s fingers could easily be caught by reciprocating bolt in charging cut outs in the receiver.
Another ergonomic consideration is the Winchester’s submachine gun’s unusually swept back pistol grip angle, the angle of the forward grip made by stock when folded is also similarly angled. Both the weapons have a push though safety selector just above the trigger (likely safe & fully automatic, but could not check as gun unable/difficult to cycle the prototypes easily). The weapon likely fed from a double stack, single feed magazine – either of an similar pattern to the MP40 or proprietary. The N4 seen in Houze’s 1994 book is shown with an MP40 magazine. UZI magazines fit the weapon but don’t lock into place.
The basic design does not change substantially between the prototypes with the control configuration, folding wire stock, pistol grip angle and magazine housing dimensions remaining the same. The N4, however, differs from the earlier prototype in a number of respects. The N4’s nose cap now fits over the rounded half of the receiver, rather than sitting flush and the cut outs in the upper receiver to access the bolt assembly for charging have been moved back slightly.
The later N4 model has pins in place of some of the screws used on the N2. The side plates have been replaced by a one-piece recoil spring assembly cover which projects back further over the magazine housing to the rear of the receiver. The most fundamental difference between the two is that it appears that the front part of the N4’s receiver has been significantly altered with the lower receiver at the front of the gun removed. It appears to have been replaced by the recoil spring assembly cover which appears to slot into the receiver. Sadly, we didn’t have time to disassemble the N4 to examine this.
The N4’s bolt assembly also has more serrations, in a slightly different orientation, on its bolt assembly gripping area, but still no charging handle as recommended on the N2’s tag. The ejection port on the blued prototype is also at a position closer to 12 o’clock when compared to the N2s.
The N2 has a metal trunnion block, that the recoil spring guide rod screws into, this is held in place within the receiver by a cross pin. The bolt appears to be removed through the rear of the receiver once the stock assmbly/end cap is removed and the bolt assembly freed.
The folding stock was retained by spring tension of the wire metal stock against a wingnut-shaped catch that is riveted onto the recoil spring assembly cover. The stock is locked by a spring loaded push button system similar to the MP40s, this is not particularly sturdy. The shape of the wire stock itself is reminiscent of the US M3. When folded the butt of the wire stock acts as a front grip, the retention of the stock is surprisingly strong and stable.
Intriguingly, the Winchester Museum inventory notes that the guns are designated the N-1 and N-2, with an additional wooden model of the ‘Nato Burp Gun’ being transferred along with a box of duplicate parts in steel for the N2’s aluminium parts.
If you enjoyed the videos and this article please consider supporting our work here.
Winchester Repeating Arms Company: Its History & Development from 1865 to 1981, H. Houze (1994)
My thanks to the Cody Firearms Museum at the Buffalo Bill Center of the West for allowing me to examine and film the Winchester submachine gun prototypes. Special thanks to the CFM’s assistant curator Danny Michael for helping disassemble the N2.
All photographs taken by Matthew Moss, courtesy of the CFM & the Buffalo Bill Center of the West. Please do not reproduce photographs without permission or credit.
In this live fire video we’re going to take a look at the MAC Modèle 1950, a French 9x19mm service pistol. The Modèle 1950 replaced the earlier M1935A and M1935S pistols, both chambered in 7.62mm longue.
In 1946, the French Army began the process of selecting a new service pistol, chambered in the more powerful 9x19mm round. A number of designs were tested including the SIG P210. The Modèle 1950 was developed by Manufacture Nationale d’Armes de Saint Étienne (MAS) and while suffering initial reliability problems it was refined and eventually adopted.
The Modèle 1950 combined elements from the previous 1935 pistols but added a larger, more ergonomic grip. The pistol feeds from a 9-round single stack magazine, has a single action trigger and has a slide mounted safety which blocks the hammer.
Shooting the Modèle 1950
I enjoyed shooting the Modèle 1950, its large grip size makes it pleasant to shoot but felt like it should have held a larger double stack magazine. The pistol has a decent set of combat sights, easy to pick up in good light.
Through firing several magazines through the pistol it became clear that you had to be sure not to accidentally engage the safety when racking the slide. This is something I encountered and explain in the video. It took me a few of seconds to realise the problem, take the safety off and recock the hammer. In the safe position the catch juts out the back of the slide, while this is a good indicator of the weapon’s condition it seems possible it could be disengaged while in a holster.
Produced at both MAS and Manufacture Nationale d’Armes de Châtellerault (MAC), over 340,000 Modèle 1950 were manufactured. The pistol is still in limited French service but has largely been replaced in service by the PAMAS G1, a licensed version of the Beretta 92.
We will have a full video and blog looking at the earlier Modèles 1935A & S and the 1950, examining the design, development and history of pistols in the future. My thanks to my friend Chuck Kramer over at Gun Lab for helping us with this video, check out his blog here.
If you enjoyed the video and this article please consider supporting our work here.