Categories
Uncategorized

‘Gas-Trap’ Garand: The First M1 Rifle Design by Bruce N. Canfield, Field Editor

gasgarr.jpg

One of the most famous and respected U.S. military service rifles of all time is the “U.S. Rifle, Caliber .30, M1,” popularly known as the M1 Garand in recognition of its inventor, John C. Garand. The rifle is well-known due its widespread use in World War II and Korea, as well as its popularity with many present-day collectors and shooters.

What is not so widely known, however, is that the rifle as originally adopted in 1936 and manufactured for the first four years was markedly different in one aspect from the version so well-regarded today.

“Gas Trap” M1 Rifle

The genesis of the M1 began shortly after World War I in 1919, when John Garand was hired to work at Springfield Armory on the development of a semi-automatic rifle. Even before Garand was employed, a number of domestic and foreign semi-automatic rifle designs had been evaluated at Springfield, but none had proven to be satisfactory.

One of the more promising designs was the Danish Bang rifle, which featured a “muzzle cap” that trapped the escaping gas after it exited the muzzle and utilized it to operate the rifle’s action. First tested in 1911, several variations of the Bang rifle were evaluated at Springfield as late as 1928.

After some experimentation, including an unusual primer-actuated design, John Garand settled on a gas-operated mechanism for his rifle. Although the Bang rifle had not proven to be satisfactory overall, Garand undoubtedly was influenced to some degree by the rifle’s gas system.

His gas-operated T1 prototype rifle was chambered for the standard .30 Springfield (.30-’06 Sprg.) cartridge, but Garand was directed by Ordnance to scale down the rifle to a .276-cal. cartridge championed by John Pedersen, who also had a semi-automatic rifle in parallel development at Springfield Armory during that time.

Designated as the T3E2, Garand’s .276-cal. rifle subsequently edged out the Pedersen design and was recommended for adoption. Nonetheless, for several reasons, the War Dept. disapproved of the .276 cartridge and mandated the rifle instead be chambered for the .30-cal. cartridge, which had been John Garand’s preference all along.

In 1934, 80 such .30-cal. rifles, designated as the T1E2, were fabricated in Springfield Armory’s Model Shop and thoroughly tested with very good results at several Ordnance facilities.

experimental T3E2 Garand

An experimental T3E2 Garand (top) is shown with a variation of the Danish Bang semi-automatic rifle (bottom) tested at Springfield Armory in late-1918.

The rifle was adopted on Jan. 9, 1936, as the “U.S. Rifle, Semiautomatic, Caliber .30 M1.” “Semiautomatic” was soon dropped from the nomenclature as there was no need to denote the type of mechanism.

gas trap M1 rifle is fitted with a “square wire” operating rod spring and separate compensating spring

The follower rod on a gas trap M1 rifle is fitted with a “square wire” operating rod spring and separate compensating spring (above). Note how they differ from the follower rod and familiar “round wire” operating rod spring of a World War II-production M1 rifle, which is not accompanied by a compensating spring (below).

A signature feature of the new M1 was its Bang-influenced gas system, which has been dubbed by collectors today as the “gas trap” in recognition of the manner by which the escaping gas was collected.

The front sight on early-production rifles had straight protective ears, but it was found that inexperienced shooters sometimes mistook one of the ears for the sight blade—which was obviously deleterious to accuracy. The problem was soon corrected by making the ears flared so they were easily distinguishable from the front sight blade.

The rear sight was one of the best ever used on a military service rifle, before or since. It had a peep aperture and was easily adjustable for windage and elevation. The windage knob was secured to the pinion by a spanner nut.

A feature unique to the “gas trap” rifles was a metal “lip-type” ferrule that separated the front handguard from the gas cylinder. These rifles also utilized an operating rod spring and separate compensating spring that were of the keystone (square wire) configuration. As originally adopted, the M1’s stock did not have a recess in the butt for storage of cleaning implements, etc., and used a one-piece solid buttplate.

muzzle of a “gas port” Garand, Ordnance Dept. drawings

The muzzle of a “gas port” Garand (inset) will be familiar to most modern-day Garand owners. Ordnance Dept. drawings reveal internal views of the gas trap (below, l.) vs. gas port mechanisms.

When inspection of a rifle was successfully completed after manufacture, a Final Inspection Stamp, often colloquially termed a “cartouche” by collectors today, was impressed into the left side of the stock. The stamp consisted of “SA/SPG.” “SA” indicated manufacture by Springfield Armory and “SPG” represented the initials of Chief of Small Arms Inspection Stanley P. Gibbs, who was a civilian employee at Springfield. All of the “gas trap” M1 rifles bare Gibbs’ inspection stamp.

Another interesting feature of the gas trap M1s was the presence of “Drawing Numbers” on most components consisting of a letter prefix (“A” through “F”) that denoted the size of the component and a number that identified the specific part. As many of the parts were subsequently changed for better performance or easier manufacture, a “revision number” was added.

For example, the initial Drawing Number of the rear sight aperture was “B-8868,” and with the first revision of the component it was changed to “B-8868-1.” The Ordnance Dept. eventually came to the conclusion that the marking of so many parts wasn’t worth the effort, and, as production continued, fewer and fewer parts had Drawing Numbers applied.

Eventually, only the major components, such as the receiver, barrel, operating rod, bolt and trigger housing were marked with Drawing Numbers.

buttplate with hinged door

An Ordnance Dept. drawing shows the early, solid M1 rifle buttplate (l.) as found on gas trap rifles and very early gas port rifles. The later and more common buttplate has a hinged door to access the butt trap recess.

While many small nagging glitches cropped up and were solved one-by-one during the initial course of production, a major problem occurred when it was found that many of the new rifles jammed on the seventh shot.

Finding the cause of the so-called “seventh round stoppage” resulted in Springfield Armory engineers having to burn the midnight oil. It was eventually determined to be a slight deviation in John Garand’s original specifications. The tooling was changed, and most of the affected receivers were modified to rectify the problem, and the rifles remained in use.

The first M1 rifles saw very limited issuance in the fall of 1937 when a total of 48 rifles were sent to five different Army bases. Since only a small number of the rifles were starting to be issued, few soldiers had seen an example.

The new semi-automatic rifle was certainly a revelation to the relative handful of soldiers who had the opportunity to fire the Garand, and the vast majority of those preferred it to the bolt-action M1903 rifle.

U.S. Army infantryman firing a gas trap M1 rifle

This World War II-era photo shows a U.S. Army infantryman firing a gas trap M1 rifle. A surprising number of unaltered gas trap rifles saw active use during the war.

Many soldiers who had never been anywhere near an M1 bad-mouthed the rifle due to a lot of unfounded rumors floating around the barracks. Much of this angst was due to the simple fact that many people are reluctant to accept change, and the M1 rifle certainly represented change.

As the rifles began to see more field use, however, another problem surfaced. The “gas trap” gas cylinder proved to have several weaknesses. The screw that held the gas cylinder plug in place could become loose, thus causing the gas cylinder to become slightly misaligned. This could result in a bullet striking part of the gas cylinder and blowing it off the end of the barrel.

This wasn’t terribly common, but it did occasionally happen—and it needed to be fixed. Also, extensive firing could result in carbon build-up inside the gas cylinder. It was hard to get cleaning patches into the gas cylinder, and it was often necessary to disassemble the component in order to clean it properly. It has been said that it sometimes took a chisel to get out the accumulated carbon. Also, the gas cylinder was not a particularly strong attachment point for the bayonet.

John Garand, working in conjunction with the Springfield Armory Engineering Dept., developed a new gas system that was ready for preliminary testing in early 1939. Rather than trapping the gas after it left the muzzle, Garand’s new design had a port drilled into the bottom of the barrel through which the gas was channeled to impinge on the operating rod.

Interestingly, Ordnance Dept. and Springfield Armory documents of the period routinely referred to the gas systems as the old and new “front ends,” decidedly untechnical terms. A letter dated March 8, 1939, from Ordnance Maj. Guy H. Drewry to Lt. Col. Raymond Marsh at Fort Benning stated:

”The new front end has gone through a 10,000 round test and it has been found necessary to make some minor changes. These are primarily, however, to facilitate production. The functioning during the test was very good. We are planning to equip ten rifles with the new front end and send them to Benning for test and observation just as soon as we can. This will probably be some time within the next two or three months.”

worker assembles an early gas trap M1 rifle

A worker assembles an early gas trap M1 rifle at Springfield Armory. Note the Drawing Numbers on the rear sight aperture, rear sight cover, bolt and operating rod.

The refinements on the new gas system apparently took a bit longer than originally anticipated, and Maj. Drewry followed up with a letter to Capt. H.G. Sydenham at Fort Benning on June 10, 1939:

“The new front end for the M1 Rifle is coming along fine. We expect to send down shortly to Benning eight or ten rifles with the new front end for test. The main trouble that we have had has been in determining the proper size of the gas port for the most efficient operation.”

This letter was followed by one written Oct. 4, 1939, from Maj. Drewry to Col. Marsh: “The ten U.S. Rifles, Caliber .30, M1, with the new front end were shipped from Springfield Armory on September 27, 1939, by express, so I imagine they have probably arrived there by this time and are being tested. I hope these tests can be completed as early as practicable so that we may obtain clearance for this design.”

Testing at Fort Benning (and elsewhere) did indeed validate the new gas system, and the design was recommended for adoption by the Ordnance Committee on Oct. 26, 1939. The Springfield Armory Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1939 contained the following details regarding the new gas system for the M1 rifle under the heading “The following developments in technological processes and engineering practices have been developed by the department during the past year:

rear sight windage knob

The rear sight windage knob with spanner nut used on gas trap and gas port rifles manufactured prior to circa 1942 (l.) was somewhat lower-profile than that of World War II-vintage rear sight windage knobs, which used a “locking bar” that could be hand-tightened to hold adjustments more securely.

[N]ew method of securing Gas Cylinder Assembly to the Barrel of the M1 Rifle and an improved method of trapping gases required for operation. The newly developed gas cylinder assembly not only provides a more rigid and positive positioning of the gas cylinder on the barrel but eliminates variations in the size of the gas orifice and greatly improves the accuracy of the piece. Ease of maintenance has been of paramount consideration during the design of the assembly and the cost to produce it will be less than that of the previous model.

In addition to the rifles sent to Aberdeen, a number of others were distributed to Frankford Arsenal, the Cavalry Board and the Infantry Board. The Springfield Armory Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1940 (July 1, 1939 to June 30, 1940) stated the following regarding the new gas cylinder:

Delivery of the re-designed front end for the M1 rifle started in June, 1940. At the present the machinery for the old front end is rapidly being adapted to the manufacture of the new components in greater quantities.

Even though the new “gas port” barrel was 24″ in length as compared to the 22″ barrel of the “gas trap” model, the overall length of the revised rifle remained about the same since the “false muzzle” of the original design was eliminated. The rifle’s weight of approximately 9 lbs., 8 ozs., was not affected by the change in gas systems.

M1 rifle Serial No. 2126

M1 rifle Serial No. 2126, manufactured at Springfield Armory in April of 1938, still remains in its original “gas trap” configuration.

Even after the order was given to change over to the new design, M1 rifles with the older gas system continued in production so that the existing supply of earlier parts could be used up. Thus, it was not until August 1940 that the last of the gas trap M1s came off Springfield Armory’s assembly line.

By this time, some 32,000 additional rifles of this pattern had been manufactured. It should be noted that this figure represents the number of gas trap M1s made after the new gas system had been adopted but before the tooling was changed to incorporate it into the manufacturing process.

A memorandum from the Subcommittee on Small Arms to the Ordnance Technical Committee contained the following information pertaining to the adoption of the new gas system. The memo makes it clear that the gas trap rifles already issued were to remain in service until substantial repair, such as barrel replacement, was required. The memo also disclosed the number of rifles that had been manufactured with the older gas system:

Reference a. covers the adoption of a new gas cylinder for the M1 Rifle. It recommends the adoption of the new design of gas cylinder for current manufacture. However, no mention is made concerning the disposition of rifles having the old style gas cylinders after the barrels thereof become unserviceable and require replacing. There were approximately 48,119 of the subject rifles manufactured with the old style gas cylinders and barrels. 

Recommendations

This sub-committee recommends that the authorization be granted to replace the old style gas cylinders and barrels with the new style gas cylinders and barrels, as the old assemblies become unserviceable.

While this document reveals the number of gas trap rifles originally made, there are still some questions regarding the serial number range for these rifles. For example, it is known that some gas port rifles assembled in mid-1941 were in the 40,000 serial number range, and serial numbers as high as the 51,500 range have been reported by credible sources as original gas trap rifles.

This overlap in serial numbers between gas trap and gas port M1 rifles during this period was a case of the Ordnance Dept. using up gas trap parts still on hand in order to put as many M1 rifles into the hands of troops as possible, even if they weren’t of the latest design.

A surprising number of unaltered gas trap rifles saw service during World War II and were not updated to gas port configuration until sent to ordnance facilities to be rebuilt during, and after, the war.

After 1940, gas port M1 rifles that passed inspection at Springfield were stamped “SA” along with the initials of the Armory’s Commanding Officer. Unlike the “SA/SPG”-marked gas trap M1 rifles, the Final Inspection Stamps of the commanding officers of Springfield were also accompanied by the now familiar Ordnance Dept. “crossed cannons” escutcheon.

While the new gas cylinder was the most notable change in the design of the M1 rifle, numerous other modifications were made during the course of production.

These included elimination of the separate compensating spring, a change from a keystone spring to the more familiar “round-wire” spring and the incorporation of a buttstock recess that was accessed by a buttplate having a hinged trapdoor. It was found that the rear sight did not always hold the adjustments securely, and early in World War II the spanner nut on the windage knob was replaced by a “locking bar” that could be hand-tightened.

As the gas trap rifles were subsequently rebuilt and converted to gas port configuration, they were fitted with the updated parts. Typically, all that remained from a gas trap rifle after rebuild was the receiver, and even that part was modified to correct the “Seventh Round Stoppage” defect.

Despite the myriad changes made in the various components of the M1 rifle as production continued through 1957, the revised gas system was the only major modification of the rifle since its adoption in 1936.

It should be noted that even if the gas system had not been changed, John Garand’s rifle would still have been the best general-issue semi-automatic service rifle fielded in significant quantity by any nation during World War II. The change from the gas trap to the gas port system simply made a good rifle even better.

Today, the M1 rifle enjoys tremendous popularity with many collectors and shooters. For a collector, the acquisition of an original gas trap Garand is a worthwhile, but extremely elusive, goal. It is widely considered the “Holy Grail” of M1 collectibles, as well as a little-known, yet historically significant, U.S. military rifle.

Categories
Born again Cynic! Some Red Hot Gospel there!

Some Red Hot Gospel there!

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Gun Fearing Wussies

A Strong Contender for America’s Dumbest Gun-Control Law by Scott Witner

Colorado gun show entrance with lawful vendors and attendees
If there is a single, consistent strategy in the modern gun-control playbook, it is this: choke off youth participation.

The thinking is simple, even if it is deeply flawed. Discourage young people from hunting, shooting sports, and firearms culture today, and it becomes easier to erode public support for the Second Amendment tomorrow. It is a long game—and Colorado has just offered one of its most counterproductive examples yet.

Beginning January 1, 2026, a new Colorado law will prohibit anyone under the age of 18 from attending a gun show unless accompanied by a parent or legal guardian. The state claims this is about “safety.” In reality, it looks far more like another attempt to stigmatize lawful gun ownership and place barriers between young people and a constitutionally protected right.

To even host a gun show under Colorado’s new regime, organizers must submit detailed security plans to local law enforcement. These plans include vendor lists, projected attendance numbers, surveillance camera coverage, and other operational details. Promoters must also carry liability insurance tailored to the event. None of this is free, and none of it is accidental.

But the restriction on unaccompanied minors stands out as particularly misguided. Most young people who attend gun shows already come with family members. Forcing them to prove that fact at the door only reinforces the message that firearms ownership is somehow suspect or dangerous. For many teenagers—especially those inclined to question authority—this kind of treatment has the opposite of its intended effect. It does not discourage interest. It fuels it.

There is also a cultural blind spot at work here. Making something forbidden or tightly controlled has long been a reliable way to make it more appealing to young people. Turning gun shows into quasi-restricted spaces risks transforming them into something perceived as edgy or “off-limits,” which is hardly a deterrent to curious teens.
Meanwhile, the restriction itself is easily bypassed. An 18-year-old friend or sibling solves the problem instantly, and anyone tasked with enforcing the rule on the ground is likely to recognize its futility.

Where the law may succeed is in raising costs. The added regulatory burdens placed on gun shows inevitably drive up admission prices. Higher entry fees discourage families from attending and make it harder for first-time visitors, young or old, to participate. That, not safety, appears to be the real objective.

This gun show restriction is only one piece of a broader legislative push in Colorado. Additional measures, including permit-to-purchase schemes and mandatory training requirements for certain semi-automatic firearms, are scheduled to take effect as well. Each layer adds cost, delay, and friction for law-abiding citizens, while doing little to address violent crime.

Legal challenges are already underway. Last fall, the Colorado State Shooting Association, the official state affiliate of the National Rifle Association, filed suit against Senate Bill 25-003, dubbed by critics the “Polis Permission Slip”, which establishes a permit-to-purchase system for firearms.

Colorado lawmakers may believe they are shaping safer communities. What they are actually doing is reinforcing the perception that government views a fundamental right as a problem to be managed rather than a liberty to be respected. History suggests that approach does not age well—and it certainly does not win hearts and minds, especially among the next generation.

Photo of author

Scott Witner

Scott Witner is a former Marine Corps Infantryman with 2nd Battalion, 8th Marines, and served with the 24th MEU(SOC) during a six-month deployment to the Mediterranean. He’s completed specialized training in desert warfare, mountain warfare, and jungle operations across the U.S., South Korea, and Japan.
With over a decade in the firearms and outdoor industry, Scott has helped leading brands grow their visibility and reach through strategic marketing and content development. He currently resides in Northeastern Ohio, where he enjoys hiking, shooting, and testing related gear in the environments it’s intended to be used in.
Categories
All About Guns Ammo You have to be kidding, right!?!

Project Katie: Nuclear Naval Battles? By Friedrich Seiltgen

The nuclear arms race began during World War II, with the United States and the U.S.S.R. competing for supremacy for decades after the war’s end. Eventually, several other countries joined in, creating nukes for their own protection from their enemies. However, no country could match the scale of nuclear development of the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. superpowers.

Nuclear-armed battleships were designed to deliver devastating strikes against enemy forces and installations. The Mark 23 shells gave these WWII-era vessels a new lease on life as atomic weapons platforms.
Nuclear-armed battleships were designed to deliver devastating strikes against enemy forces and installations. The Mark 23 shells gave these WWII-era vessels a new lease on life as atomic weapons platforms.

After the U.S. destruction of Nagasaki and Hiroshima through the development of nuclear weapons as part of the Manhattan Project, the Soviet Union’s nuclear program went into high gear. While it was thought the Soviets would not be able to create a bomb for several years, they were able to complete their version of the Fat Man bomb, the RDS-1 (also known as the Joe-1 by the Allies in reference to Joseph Stalin) in 1949 due to espionage within the Manhattan Project.

USS New Jersey (BB-62) fires a salvo from her main guns during a deployment off the coast of Beirut, Lebanon, in January 1984. Image: PH1 Ron Garrison/U.S. Navy
USS New Jersey (BB-62) fires a salvo from her main guns during a deployment off the coast of Beirut, Lebanon, in January 1984. Image: PH1 Ron Garrison/U.S. Navy

In the 1950s, civilian views on nuclear weapons were a combination of fear and patriotism. Many Americans lived in fear of nuclear war with the Soviets, and the concerns of the long-term effects of radiation exposure was also high, prompting people to construct fallout shelters and stockpile food and supplies.

The Navy Needs a Nuke?

As a result of this arms race, the U.S. military had a prodigious amount of nuclear weapons. The U.S. Army had the Davy Crockett recoilless smoothbore gun, the Special Atomic Demolition Munition, aka the backpack nuke, the Honest John medium-range missile, and atomic cannons with nuclear artillery shells.

A practice round is shown as it would be loaded in the breech. A shell is inserted first, followed by 6 90-pound bags of powder loaded into silk bags. Image: U.S. Navy
A practice round is shown as it would be loaded in the breech. A shell is inserted first, followed by 6 90-pound bags of powder loaded into silk bags. Image: U.S. Navy

The U.S. Air Force had the Mark 4 and B43 gravity bombs, the Atlas ICBM, and, starting in the early 60s, the Titan II ICBM equipped with a single nine megaton warhead.

View of the shell deck below a turret on the USS New Jersey. Image: Mark C. Olsen/N.J. Dept. of Veterans Affairs
View of the shell deck below a turret on the USS New Jersey. Image: Mark C. Olsen/N.J. Dept. of Veterans Affairs

The U.S. Navy had the Polaris submarine-launched ICBM and the Regulus cruise missile for surface vessels and submarines. Additionally, the Navy employed a number of aircraft, including the Douglas A-3 Skywarrior strategic bomber, capable of delivering a nuclear strike. The only weapon system without a nuke was the U.S. Navy’s big guns on the powerful Iowa-class battleships, but that would soon change.

The Mark 7

The main armament of the Iowa-class battleships, the remarkable Mark 7 gun weighed 267,900 pounds, with the breech. The fired shells weighed between 1,900 and 2,700 pounds. When firing armor-piercing rounds, their muzzle velocity was 2,500 feet per second. When fired at its maximum range of 24 miles, the shell spent almost one minute and 30 seconds in flight.

This diagram shows a typical Iowa-class battleship with its three independently elevating Mark 7 guns. Image: U.S. Navy
This diagram shows a typical Iowa-class battleship with its three independently elevating Mark 7 guns. Image: U.S. Navy

The turrets were described as “three-gun” rather than “triple” because each gun could be elevated or lowered independently of the others. The battleships could fire any combination of their guns, including a broadside of all nine. From the powder-handling level to the magazines, the projectile handling floor, and the gun deck, each turret required 79 men to staff all four levels.

Project Katie

The origin of the “Katie” shell dates back to 1952, when the world’s first artillery-fired atomic projectile, the MK9, was fired from the 280mm M65 Atomic Cannon, also known as “Atomic Annie.” The M65 cannon and Mk9 shell had a significant drawback: their short range, which was limited to about 14.7 miles.

Only one Mark 23 shell remains today, preserved at the National Atomic Museum in New Mexico. This survivor represents a unique chapter in naval history. Image: National Atomic Museum
Only one Mark 23 shell remains today, preserved at the National Atomic Museum in New Mexico. This survivor represents a unique chapter in naval history. Image: National Atomic Museum

In 1955, the MK9 was superseded by the introduction of the W19 shell, which weighed a few hundred pounds less, increasing the range to 18 miles. It was also a gun-type nuclear weapon which contained a yield of 15-20 kilotons.

Shown here is the rail system used for transporting the 2,700 pound shells fired from the 16-inch guns on the Iowa-class battleships. Image: Mark C. Olsen/N.J. Dept. of Veterans Affairs
Shown here is the rail system used for transporting the 2,700 pound shells fired from the 16-inch guns on the Iowa-class battleships. Image: Mark C. Olsen/N.J. Dept. of Veterans Affairs

The W19 was quickly modified for use with the Mark 7 guns of the Iowa-class battleships. The W23 was the first nuclear shell designed for a naval gun. It was 16” in diameter, 64” long, and weighed between 1,500 and 1,900 pounds with a 15-20 kiloton yield — the same kiloton range as the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs.

The W80 nuclear warhead represented the next generation of naval atomic weapons after the Mark 23 shells were retired. Image: U.S. Dept. of War
The W80 nuclear warhead represented the next generation of naval atomic weapons after the Mark 23 shells were retired. Image: U.S. Dept. of War

If all nine guns fired a salvo, the yield would be approximately 185 kilotons. It is said that the Katie designation came from the abbreviation for kiloton, as in “getting some Kt”.

Under Project Katie, 50 Mark 23 shells were produced for the battleships Iowa (BB-61), New Jersey (BB62) and Wisconsin (BB-64), while the USS Missouri (BB-63) was not modified and left untouched as it was placed into the mothball fleet in 1955. Each battleship carried 10 Mark 23 shells, one for each barrel and one backup round, nine practice shells, and one loading drill round for gunner certifications. The device would be assembled just before firing.

Each ship had modifications made to its “Broadway” section. Broadway is the longest straight passageway on the Iowa-class battleship, with a length of 288 feet between the number II and number III turrets for the safe storage of these shells, and a separate locker for the nuclear warheads, which was secured by a Marine Corps security detachment.

Smoke and flames shoot out from 16-inch guns of the battleship USS New Jersey while firing off the coast of Beirut, Lebanon in December 1983. Image: JO2 Lance Johnson/U.S. Navy
Smoke and flames shoot out from 16-inch guns of the battleship USS New Jersey while firing off the coast of Beirut, Lebanon in December 1983. Image: JO2 Lance Johnson/U.S. Navy

The Katie-armed battleships were short-lived and sent back to the mothball fleet not long after their modifications, and the Mark 23 was completely withdrawn from service by October 1962.

Fortunately, no Mark 23 shell was ever fired in war, but one projectile was expended during Project Plowshare, which studied the use of nuclear weapons for peaceful purposes. There is currently one remaining Mark 23 shell on display at the National Atomic Museum in New Mexico.

The TLAM-N

In the 1980s, the Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM-N) came into service. The BGM-109A Tomahawk Cruise missile was fitted with a W80 200-kiloton nuclear warhead and had a range of approximately 2,500 kilometers, with a speed of 550 miles per hour. The missile is guided by a combination of GPS, inertial navigation, and Terrain Contour Matching (TERCOM), which compares the missile’s flight path with a stored map of the terrain to navigate. The Tomahawk is estimated to have an accuracy of five meters.

A BGM-109A Tomahawk missile loaded into a Mark 143 Armored Box Launcher. Image: U.S. Navy
A BGM-109A Tomahawk missile loaded into a Mark 143 Armored Box Launcher. Image: U.S. Navy

The Tomahawk missile is approximately 20 feet long, with a 21” diameter, and weighs 3,000 pounds. When fired, it begins the launch sequence powered by a solid propellant. When the solid propellant is expended, a turbofan engine takes over and propels the missile to the target. The missile is hard to detect due to its small size, low cross-section, and low heat signature from its turbofan, and it avoids radar by flying at an altitude of only 100 to 300 feet.

Tomahawk missiles, whether conventional or nuclear, were initially launched from the Mark 143 4-cell armored box launcher (ABL) mounted on the deck. The size and weight of the launcher with missiles were prohibitive, as a standard cruiser was only capable of carrying two launchers for a total of 8 missiles. To carry more ordnance, WWII battleships were chosen for their ability to support heavier armaments.

This 1983 test launch demonstrates the Tomahawk’s ability to deliver nuclear firepower from naval platforms with unprecedented range and accuracy. Image: U.S. Navy
This 1983 test launch demonstrates the Tomahawk’s ability to deliver nuclear firepower from naval platforms with unprecedented range and accuracy. Image: U.S. Navy

Starting with the USS New Jersey in 1982, all four Iowa-class battleships were modernized and retrofitted for the modern weapons systems, as they were capable of carrying eight box launchers for a total of 32 Tomahawk missiles. Another modification was the addition of the Mark 160 Fire Control system, which was used to guide the Mark 7 16-inch guns.

The box launchers were eventually phased out and replaced starting in 1984 by the Mark 41 Vertical Launch System. The VLS became the standard system installed on U.S. Navy ships, as they were capable of launching Tomahawks, Harpoons, and all other missiles in the Navy’s inventory.

A BGM-109 Tomahawk land attack missile (TLAM) is fired toward an Iraqi target from the battleship USS Missouri at the start of Operation Desert Storm. Image: NARA
A BGM-109 Tomahawk land attack missile (TLAM) is fired toward an Iraqi target from the battleship USS Missouri at the start of Operation Desert Storm. Image: NARA

The TLAM-N served as a deterrent for approximately 10 years until 1991, when President George H.W. Bush began removing the nuclear Tomahawks from the Navy’s inventory and putting them in storage. In 2010, the Obama Administration had the inventory dismantled after its Nuclear Posture Review.

The Legacy

U.S. battleships were designed to fight the Axis powers in World War II and were a symbol of U.S. strength. They played crucial roles in the defense of the country, while ushering in the aircraft carrier as the dominant naval power.

The USS New Jersey fires her main 16-inch guns and secondary five-inch guns in the northern Pacific Ocean during a training exercise in October 1986. Image: U.S. Navy
The USS New Jersey fires her main 16-inch guns and secondary five-inch guns in the northern Pacific Ocean during a training exercise in October 1986. Image: U.S. Navy

With continuous modernization and technological advances, they proudly served well into the nuclear age, while still deploying serious firepower in the old-fashioned way. While never fired in war, the nuclear-armed battleships were a unique deterrent to Soviet aggression during the Cold War.

Categories
Well I thought it was funny!

Well I thought it was funny!

Categories
All About Guns

A Inland Original M1 Carbine WWII in .30 Carbine Caliber

Categories
All About Guns Ammo Dear Grumpy Advice on Teaching in Today's Classroom

The Story of Gunpowder By Wayne van Zwoll

Accepting command of the Continental Army in 1775, General George Washington requested an inventory of gunpowder stores. The report of 90 barrels left him speechless.

His mood brightened a bit in March of ‘76 when a Congressional Committee of Secret Correspondence shooed Connecticut merchant Silas Deane to France, with an appeal to American sympathizer Pierre-Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais, confidant to Louis XVI. Result: Roderique Hortalez & Co., a group organized to smuggle Dutch, French and Spanish arms and other supplies to the colonies. These included gunpowder from Antoine Lavoisier, whose factory produced powder for the French government

Firearms changed warfare forever, and this medieval illustration shows a very early example in Europe. The crude design tells you everything about how experimental gunpowder weapons were back then.
Firearms changed warfare forever, and this medieval illustration shows a very early example in Europe. The crude design tells you everything about how experimental gunpowder weapons were back then.

Lavoisier had earned his credentials by refining the ratios of black powder’s ingredients. He declared his powder, of 75 percent saltpeter and 12.5 percent each of charcoal and sulfur, “the best in Europe.” But to American rebels, availability mattered as much as quality. By the end of 1777, France had shipped two million pounds to the Continental Army. This powder and 60,000 donated infantry arms (roughly one for every soldier) helped secure a pivotal victory at Saratoga in October that year.

While crude explosives date to ancient China, the English Friar Roger Bacon is credited with the first description of gunpowder in 1249. Rudimentary firearms soon followed.

From the 14th century to the late 19th century, black powder furnished the high-pressure gas that hurled all manner of projectiles, from rocks to jacketed bullets, at animals and adversaries. Its varied blends of fuel and oxidants all contained saltpeter (potassium nitrate), charcoal and sulfur.

In 1846, an Italian, Ascanio Subrero, discovered nitroglycerine. A clear, oxygen-rich solution of nitric and sulfuric acids plus glycerin, “nitro” could quickly rearrange itself into stable gases.

No need for spark; a bump would set it off. In 1863, Swedish chemist Alfred Nobel and his father, Emmanuel Nobel, learned how to put this volatile, explosive compound in cans. Still, it punished inattention. In 1875, after it leveled Nobel’s German factory, Alfred developed the relatively docile Dynamite.

By the 17th century, gunpowder weapons had become relatively commonplace. A musketeer is shown here handling one of these somewhat temperamental firearms.
By the 17th century, gunpowder weapons had become relatively commonplace. A musketeer is shown here handling one of these somewhat temperamental firearms.

By then, the Swiss chemist Christian Schoenbein had discovered that cotton treated with sulfuric and nitric acids burned so fast, it turned to ash without igniting its bed of black powder!

Efforts to throttle it and carelessness proved costly. John Hall’s guncotton plant in Faversham, England blew up. Stateside, German immigrant Carl Dittmar lost his New Sporting Powder factory to an explosion that erased much of Binghampton, New York. Some accidents tallied more victims than survivors.

In the 1890s black powder gave way to nitrocellulose-based smokeless. Single-base propellants contained no nitroglycerin. England’s cordite, named for its spaghetti-like strands, was initially a double-base powder, with guncotton, nitroglycerin, petroleum jelly and acetone. Addition of nitroguanidine in the 1930s made it a “triple-base.”

Shown are examples of early smokeless powder used in modern firearms. Good luck finding a pound of fresh powder for $2.75 today!
Shown are examples of early smokeless powder used in modern firearms. Good luck finding a pound of fresh powder for $2.75 today!

Long ago, DuPont powder guru Larry Werner assured me that double-base powders have more energy per grain than single-base. “But to see that edge, you need about 10 percent nitro.” He noted that double-base spherical powders are especially useful in cases of limited capacity. “Their drawback is residue; they don’t burn as cleanly as single-base.”

Diphenylamine or a similar stabilizer is present in nearly all smokeless powders to extend shelf life. Some have flame retardant to reduce muzzle flash. Another additive — graphite — gives powder its gray color, though that coating’s main job is to ward off static electricity as grains rub against each other.

Physically, powder comprises grains, as does sand. Powder charges are given in grain weight — entirely different. There are 437 ½ grains per ounce, 7,000 grains per pound, the unit dating to the Bronze Age and its wheat. Black powder for muzzle-loading rifles is measured by bulk (a cup is a bulk measure). But an adjustable powder measure is pre-set by the shooter to hold a given weight of powder when filled.

Black powder doesn’t just produce smoke — it leaves behind a serious mess that fouled barrels and could affect accuracy.
Black powder doesn’t just produce smoke — it leaves behind a serious mess that fouled barrels and could affect accuracy.

Pyrodex, Hodgdon’s black powder substitute, is only about 70 percent as heavy as black. Both are measured in bulk 1:1. Convenient pellets in specific equivalents make loading easy. Two 30-grain pellets, for instance, comprise a 60-grain charge. Ditto for the Triple Seven substitute and its Firestar pellets.

A Matter of Interpretation

Powder designations are usually meaningful but often beg interpretation. Early DuPont smokeless powders came in cans marked “MR” (military rifle). Improvements brought the IMR series in the 1920s as four-digit DuPont numbers replaced two-digit, beginning with 4198. In 1934, DuPont introduced IMR 4227. IMR 4895 would fuel the .30-06 in M1 Garand infantry rifles. IMR 4831 for 20mm cannons would prove a top choice for medium-bore magnum rifle cartridges of the 1950s and ‘60s.

M1 Garand fired by US Marine in Korean War
A U.S. Marine aims his M1 Garand rifle during the Korean War. The Garand was the primary battle rifle carried by U.S. troops in World War II and in Korea. Image: NARA

Aware that huge quantities of military powders had been dumped at sea after WWI, Brewster E. Hodgdon had a better idea. After his U.S. Navy service in the ‘40s, he set about buying up surplus powder to supply handloaders. First step: borrowing against his life insurance to sock 25 tons of IMR 4895 away in a salvaged boxcar on a rented field. Customers who responded to his modest ad in American Rifleman got 150 pounds for $30!

Sons Bob and J.B. crated it and took it to REA and Merriam Frisco terminals on the Kansas City rim in a 1940 Ford. Brisk demand birthed the Hodgdon Powder Co. in 1966. Magazines appeared on 160 acres west of its headquarters in Overland Park, Kansas. They’d become a staging area for four million pounds of propellant!

Modern spherical powders look deceptively simple, but those tiny balls contain incredibly sophisticated chemistry. The additives controlling burn rate represent over a century of refinement since the first smokeless propellants appeared.
Modern spherical powders look deceptively simple, but those tiny balls contain incredibly sophisticated chemistry. Additives control the burn rate, representing more than a century of refinement.

His bonanza in surplus powders almost gone by 1959, Bruce turned to military sources offshore, one of them having supplied British forces from a plant in Scotland.

He also tapped commercial powder houses stateside — notably the Olin Corp., which furnished a line of spherical powders pioneered by John Olin in 1933. “Ball Powder,” by the way, is a trademarked moniker owned by Winchester, then an Olin asset. Spherical powders from other sources are best called … well, spherical.

Now Hodgdon sells 13 Winchester canister powders under a licensing agreement. While DuPont did not release its extruded (“stick”) powders to Hodgdon during Bruce’s search for commercial partners, it would sell Hodgdon its business in 2003, with a stable that now comprises 15 IMR powders. Hodgdon, meanwhile, was growing its rifle, pistol and shotgun series to offer handloaders 35 options. Its Extreme line, led by Varget in 1996, performs across a wide temperature range. Hodgdon also sells Superformance and LEVERevolution powders, which sprang from Hornady’s work with specific cartridge classes.

Having welcomed ADI (Australian Defense Industries) propellants into its fold, Hodgdon added 22 more from Accurate Arms. In 2020, Ramshot joined, with a dozen offerings — plus Blackhorn 209 to complement Hodgdon’s Pyrodex and Triple Seven for muzzle-loaders.

Hodgdon once distributed Finland-bred Vihtavuori propellants. This brand catalogs more than 20 superb single- and double-base powders, now marketed by Capstone Precision Group.

Another popular powder brand stateside is Alliant, whose roots run to Laflin & Rand in 1872. DuPont’s divestiture in 1912 brought about the formation of Hercules Powder Co., then Alliant, now part of Vista. With 21 propellants for shotguns and handguns, Alliant lists 19 (in Reloder and Power Pro lines) for rifles.

Pyrodex gave muzzleloader shooters a cleaner alternative without abandoning traditional firearms altogether. It’s less dense than true black powder, but measures the same by volume.
Pyrodex gave muzzleloader shooters a cleaner alternative without abandoning traditional firearms altogether. It’s less dense than true black powder, but measures the same by volume.

Hodgdon manufactures no powder. Instead, its chemists develop products with the staffs at powder factories like St. Mark’s. With over 120 propellants in its group of companies, the business Bruce Hodgdon started with a loan on his life insurance and a boxcar of surplus propellants on a rented pasture accounts for about 70 percent of gunpowder sold to U.S. consumers!

Reading the Tea Leaves

Apowder’s label may say nothing useful about its behavior in any given cartridge. After a career at Hodgdon, Ron Reiber told me Bruce renamed one powder because in his pet .22-250 “he discovered 38 grains drove 50-grain bullets at 3,800 fps. So WC852 is now H380. But if you’re not shooting a .22-250, H380 is still a versatile powder!”

Burn rate is charted in “closed bomb” tests. Ignited in a chamber of known volume, each powder yields a distinctive pressure curve. Larry Werner, whose work at DuPont began in the ‘50s, told me IMR powders were given Relative Quickness values. IMR 4350’s RQ of 100 shows it’s slower than IMR 3031, with an RQ of 135. IMR 4227 is fast, with an RQ of 180.

Fast-burning propellants best serve small, wide-mouthed cases and short, light bullets. Think 9mm Luger. Its case capacity is modest, its base generous for the bullet’s small bearing surface. The bullet imposes little resistance at launch; a short barrel dumps pressure quickly. Slow powders excel behind long, heavy bullets. Instead of a slap, they give a muscular shove to overcome substantial mass and bore friction. Think 7mm Magnum. In gas-driven self-loading rifles, burn rates and pressure curves must ensure proper thrust at the barrel port.

Extruded powders burn from both inside and outside at once thanks to the brilliantly engineered hollow tube design.
Extruded powders burn from both inside and outside at once thanks to the brilliantly engineered hollow tube design.

Grain shape affects gas release as powder burns. Grains of flake and spherical powders shrink as they’re consumed; they burn regressively. Extruded powders are tubes (some grains have multiple tubes). Flame reduces outside area as it increases inside diameter. Grains whose total surface grows more than it shrinks are said to burn progressively. They extend thrust down long barrels. Spherical powders compete in this arena too, additives replacing grain structure to throttle gas release. Chris Hodgdon pointed out that “extruded powders are usually more consistent across temperature ranges than are spherical powders.”

Handloaders have debated differences in burn rate between IMR and Hodgdon propellants of the same number — 4831 for instance. Slight blending differences show up in load data. “When not specified, in data, assume the powder is IMR,” Chris advised. With charges of 70 to 80 grains in magnum hulls, I’ve found IMR 4831 a tad faster than H4831. But IMR 4227 and H4227 are essentially identical.

Gunpowder can stay potent for decades in its original capped container in a cool, dry place. Keep it above freezing. Old powder with red dust is deteriorating. Flush it down the drain.

IMR 4350 remains one of the most versatile and popular powders ever for powerful medium-bore rifles.
IMR 4350 remains one of the most versatile and popular powders ever for powerful medium-bore rifles.

While compressing a powder column with the bullet causes no harm, crushing grains by jamming a bullet deep into a tall charge can affect burn rate and pressures. The press of the powder can even cause bullet creep in the rifle’s magazine during recoil. Spherical powders, like marbles, don’t compress well.

Ideally, a powder column should comfortably fill a case. Dead space allows powder to change its position and perhaps its behavior. Reduced charges of slow powders in big cases have delivered pressure spikes. These may be caused by primer flame skating across the powder surface, igniting both ends of the charge. The burn then collides in a violent finish. Inert filler makes sense in reduced loads.

Hodgdon’s family comprises over 120 powders — and all brands here, save the Vihtavuori and Alliant offerings.
Hodgdon’s family comprises over 120 powders — and all brands here, save the Vihtavuori and Alliant offerings.

Powder leaves evidence of its action. Beware signs of high pressure: difficult extraction, flattened primers, bright ejector marks. Other signals can mislead. Muzzle flash may not mean there was too much powder; in fact, it’s more common with low-pressure loads and slow powders. Blackened case necks tell of pressures too mild to seal case necks against the chamber. Tracking velocities, a chronograph reflects pressures and shows when increasing charges reach a “performance plateau.”

Conclusion

Whichever powder you use, or how much of it, only about 30 percent of its energy will shove the bullet. About that amount is lost as heat inside the case and barrel, and nearly 40 percent leaves as useless exhaust! Even after 13 centuries of improvements!

Categories
This great Nation & Its People War

Operation Rolling Thunder (1965 – 68)

Categories
Ammo

.338 Spectre?

Categories
A Victory!

What I call a victory!