Hand built submachine guns seized in Israel / Palestinian territories

An improvised submachine gun - formally bearing a plastic handle from an electric drill.

Pictured are various simple hand built submachine guns primarily recovered by police in and around Haifa District. Yet more examples of how an infinite supply of cheap and effective firearms will always be available to criminals and the wrongfully disarmed.

Homemade firearm

middleeasthomemademachinegun2 improguns

Home built machine gun

Submachine gun

Homemade gun





Hand built firearm


middleeasthomemademachinegun improguns


Machine pistol



homemademachinegunisrael improguns

Gun control fail




  • orly?

    So… Israel should just give up, lift the siege of Gaza, and lighten their restrictions?

    Either way, good Police work Israel.

    • Not hardly—keep up the pressure!

    • Cornelius Carroll

      I’ll leave this here. Palestine is even smaller now. Interpret it as you wish.

      It’s probably not a popular view around here but the Palestinians also have legitimate historical claims to much of that territory. A good friend of mine formerly served in the IDF. He did his mandatory tour plus a couple of years and then, one day, he had an epiphany that what they were doing to the Palestinians wasn’t that different from what the Nazis did to the Jews… quit the IDF, left Israel, rest is irrelevant.

      There’s a group of Jews (orthodox and… I’m not sure what mainstream practicing Jews would be called) that protest military aid to Israel every Sunday in Chicago on Michigan Avenue between Pearson and Chicago. Sometimes there’s only a dozen of them but the group has been 100+. They feel the same way as my friend.

      • orly?

        People that tend to use these maps tend to also conveniently forget the several failed Arab invasions of Israel that made them lose so much land.

      • Joe Schmoe

        As a Political Science student, I think I can help you out there.

        They are called the Neturei Karta.. They are an extreme fringe group that is rejected by every single other sect of Jews. They are the same ones that meet with those that call for the slaughter of Jews; so no one takes them seriously.

        As for your picture, it is downright false. I’ll start from left to right:

        1)- First of all, there was no “Palestinian land”, there was British Mandated land at the beginning. The Palestine given to the Jews in 1917 was supposed to include Trans-Jordan, an area that was then given to the Arabs to avoid the very problem we face today (Jordan today). In fact, most of the green colored areas were public areas owned by no ethnicity.


        2)- The Palestinians/Arabs REJECTED this proposal, which means those borders were never official or accepted by the Palestinians; don’t be a revisionist.

        3)- Afterwards, the area listed as “Palestinian land” was actually Egypt and Jordan respectively. In fact, the Palestinians themselves rejected their rights to this land in the PLO Charter:

        “Article 24: This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial fields.”

        4) – Then we land in the modern day conflict; which is still an ongoing dispute. First of all, all of Gaza is under Hamas control; so your map is already void there. Secondly, the West Bank is under international negotiations in accordance with U.N. Resolutions.

        And to understand all that, you have to understand International Law.

        Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country;


        Article 80 of the UN Charter preserves intact all the rights granted to Jews under the Mandate for Palestine, even after the Mandate’s expiry on May 14-15, 1948. Under this provision of international law (the Charter is an international treaty), Jewish rights to Palestine and the Land of Israel were not to be altered in any way unless there had been an intervening trusteeship agreement between the states or parties concerned, which would have converted the Mandate into a trusteeship or trust territory. The only period of time such an agreement could have been concluded under Chapter 12 of the UN Charter was during the three-year period from October 24, 1945, the date the Charter entered into force after appropriate ratifications, until May 14-15, 1948, the date the Mandate expired and the State of Israel was proclaimed. Since no agreement of this type was made during this relevant three-year period, in which Jewish rights to all of Palestine may conceivably have been altered had Palestine been converted into a trust territory, those Jewish rights that had existed under the Mandate remained in full force and effect, to which the UN is still committed by Article 80 to uphold, or is prohibited from altering.

        As a direct result of Article 80, the UN cannot transfer these rights over any part of Palestine, vested as they are in the Jewish People, to any non-Jewish entity, such as the “Palestinian Authority.” Among the most important of these Jewish rights are those contained in Article 6 of the Mandate which recognized the right of Jews to immigrate freely to the Land of Israel and to establish settlements thereon, rights which are fully protected by Article 80 of the UN Charter.


        Here is what the main architect of the oft-quoted U.N. Resolution 242 to had to say:

        Assuming the Middle East conference actually does take place, its official task will be to achieve peace between Israel and its Levantine neighbors in accordance with Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. Resolution 242, adopted after the Six-Day War in 1967, sets out criteria for peace-making by the parties; Resolution 338, passed after the Yom Kippur War in 1973, makes resolution 242 legally binding and orders the parties to carry out its terms forthwith. Unfortunately, confusion reigns, even in high places, about what those resolutions require.

        For twenty-four years Arab states have pretended that the two resolutions are “ambiguous” and can be interpreted to suit their desires. And some European, Soviet and even American officials have cynically allowed Arab spokesman to delude themselves and their people–to say nothing of Western public opinion–about what the resolutions mean. It is common even for American journalists to write that Resolution 242 is “deliberately ambiguous,” as though the parties are equally free to rely on their own reading of its key provisions.

        Nothing could be further from the truth. Resolution 242, which as undersecretary of state for political affairs between 1966 and 1969 I helped produce, calls on the parties to make peace and allows Israel to administer the territories it occupied in 1967 until “a just and lasting peace in the Middle East” is achieved. When such a peace is made, Israel is required to withdraw its armed forces “from territories” it occupied during the Six-Day War–not from “the” territories nor from “all” the territories, but from some of the territories, which included the Sinai Desert, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.

        Five-and-a-half months of vehement public diplomacy in 1967 made it perfectly clear what the missing definite article in Resolution 242 means. Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawals from “all” the territories were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the “fragile” and “vulnerable” Armistice Demarcation Lines, but should retire once peace was made to what Resolution 242 called “secure and recognized” boundaries, agreed to by the parties. In negotiating such agreements, the parties should take into account, among other factors, security considerations, access to the international waterways of the region, and, of course, their respective legal claims.

        Resolution 242 built on the text of the Armistice Agreements of 1949, which provided (except in th case of Lebanon) that the Armistice Demarcation Lines separating the military forces were “not to be construed in any sense” as political or territorial boundaries, and that “no provision” of the Armistice Agreements “Shall in any way prejudice the right, claims, and positions” of the parties “in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine problem.” In making peace with Egypt in 1979, Israel withdrew from the entire Sinai, which had never been part of the British Mandate.

        For security it depended on patrolled demilitarization and the huge area of the desert rather than on territorial change. As a result, more than 90 percent of the territories Israel occupied in 1967 are now under Arab sovereignty. It is hardly surprising that some Israelis take the view that such a transfer fulfills the territorial requirements of Resolution 242, no matter how narrowly they are construed.

        Resolution 242 leaves the issue of dividing the occupied areas between Israel and its neighbors entirely to the agreement of the parties in accordance with the principles it sets out. It was, however, negotiated with full realization that the problem of establishing “a secure and recognized” boundary between Israel and Jordan would be the thorniest issue of the peace-making process. The United States has remained firmly opposed to the creation of a third Palestinian state on the territory of the Palestine Mandate. An independent Jordan or a Jordan linked in an economic union with Israel is desirable from the point of view of everybody’s security and prosperity. And a predominantly Jewish Israel is one of the fundamental goals of Israeli policy. It should be possible to reconcile these goals by negotiation, especially if the idea of an economic union is accepted.

        The Arabs of the West Bank could constitute the population of an autonomous province of Jordan or of Israel, depending on the course of the negotations. Provisions for a shift of populations or, better still, for individual self-determination are a possible solution for those West Bank Arabs who would prefer to live elsewhere. All these approaches were explored in 1967 and 1968. One should note, however, that Syria cannot be allowed to take over Jordan and the West Bank, as it tried to do in 1970.

        The heated question of Israel’s settlements in the West Bank during the occupation period should be viewed in this perspective. The British Mandate recognized the right of the Jewish people to “close settlement” in the whole of the Mandated territory. It was provided that local conditions might require Great Britain to “postpone” or “withhold” Jewish settlement in what is now Jordan. This was done in 1922. But the Jewish right of settlement in Palestine west of the Jordan river, that is, in Israel, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, was made unassailable. That right has never been terminated and cannot be terminated except by a recognized peace between Israel and its neighbors. And perhaps not even then, in view of Article 80 of the U.N. Charter, “the Palestine article,” which provides that “nothing in the Charter shall be construed … to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments….”

        Some governments have taken the view that under the Geneva Convention of 1949, which deals with the rights of civilians under military occupation, Jewish settlements in the West Bank are illegal, on the ground that the Convention prohibits an occupying power from flooding the occupied territory with its own citizens. President Carter supported this view, but President Reagan reversed him, specifically saying that the settlements are legal but that further settlements should be deferred since they pose a psychological obstacle to the peace process.

        In any case, the issue of the legality of the settlements should not come up in the proposed conference, the purpose of which is to end the military occupation by making peace. When the occupation ends, the Geneva Convention becomes irrelevant. If there is to be any division of the West Bank between Israel and Jordan, the Jewish right of settlement recognized by the Mandate will have to be taken into account in the process of making peace.

        This reading of Resolution 242 has always been the keystone of American policy. In launching a major peace initiative on September 1, 1982, President Reagan said, “I have personally followed and supported Israel’s heroic struggle for survival since the founding of the state of Israel thirty-four years ago: in the pre-1967 borders, Israel was barely ten miles wide at its narrowest point. The bulk of Israel’s population lived within artillery range of hostile Arab armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again.”

        Yet some Bush administration statements and actions on the Arab-Israeli question, and especially Secretary of State James Baker’s disastrous speech of May 22, 1989, betray a strong impulse to escape from the resolutions as they were negotiated, debated, and adopted, and award to the Arabs all the territories between the 1967 lines and the Jordan river, including East Jerusalem. The Bush administration seems to consider the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to be “foreign” territory to which Israel has no claim. Yet the Jews have the same right to settle there as they have to settle in Haifa. The West Bank and the Gaza Strip were never parts of Jordan, and Jordan’s attempt to annex the West Bank was not generally recognized and has now been abandoned. The two parcels of land are parts of the Mandate that have not yet been allocated to Jordan, to Israel, or to any other state, and are a legitimate subject for discussion.

        The American position in the coming negotiations should return to the fundamentals of policy and principle that have shaped American policy towards the Middle East for three-quarters of a century. Above all, rising above irritation and pique, it should stand as firmly for fidelity to law in dealing with the Arab-Israeli dispute as President Bush did during the Gulf war. Fidelity to law is the essence of peace, and the only practical rule for making a just and lasting peace.

        Are the settlements legal? Resolved
        By Eugene W. Rostow,
        Copyright 1991 The New Republic Inc.
        The New Republic, October 21, 1991


        I hope this helps you on your future endeavors.

        • Cornelius Carroll

          Your arguments date to the early 1900s and the mandate of a declining empire. The history of the region goes back much much further. I suppose, in your opinion, the settlers didn’t steal the Native Americans’ land either, right?

          • iksnilol

            I agree with Cornelius and I dont feel remorse or pity for IDF troops killed. They are IMO killed because they are stealing land and oppressing people. More I cant say since I dont want to be banned.

          • Sadler

            Firearms, not politics, folks.

          • Joe Schmoe

            So basically, you are just saying that you wish to pick and choose where to follow international law and where to ignore it when it inconveniences you.

            And if you want to play Historian, why stop there? If you want to be so righteous about history; then lets look at this as the ejection of the Arab invaders of Palestine in 635 AD. In fact, the last sovereign country in the area was Judea; a Jewish country.

        • Cornelius Carroll

          Also, as another aside, Israel has essentially been an American pawn in middle east. Our “foreign policy” there has been to divide and conquer by ensuring that peace and stability does not exist. The result being that the residents of MENA are forced to give up their birth-right (oil) for pennies. It’s been damn effective. A few more decades and we’ll have pumped the region dry, the wealthy will flee, and the rest will be left with nothing.

          • mikee

            Cornnelius – you have a very jaundiced view of history regarding the evolution of the State of Israel. You also show a naive understanding of US foreign policy. Historically, there were far more brutal determinations of nation state border creations. Just examine the refugee situation following WWII, which I personally can attest to. However, most of us lost souls just got on with it and started again. Ironically, in my case, the Soviets (oops Russians) have offered my land (ex land) back to me for cash. Go figure!!!

      • Mountain

        To add to the on going comentary, there was an influx of both parties to the region after the 1917 declaration. You will find that, like the Jews, many of the Arabs migrated from the surrounding areas (albiet some had been from nomadic peoples).
        The populations and statistics pulled from just prior to the Israeli Independence are an inaccurate representation of the historical population.
        As an end note: Both sides have had plenty of opportunites to resolve the issue but have chosen to continue the idiocracy (as Sayd Schmoe pointed out). I see it best that all auxillary parties (US, Iran, Russia, etc) agree to keep their hands out this country’s (or these countries’) affairs and allow them to dispute their own problems. Both sides will realize the importance of peace and compromise when they are on their own.

      • Les Legato

        There are no “palestinians” the3y are all ARABS.

        ALL OF Israel is for the jews, everyone else out or live / visit as registered aliens who get treated better in Israel than they do IN ANY OTHER MUSLIM COUNTRY.

        Name a muslim country that treats THOUSANDS OF HAMAS CHILDREN FROM GAZA the way Israel does.

  • mechamaster

    Remind me of sten-gun.

  • Graham 1

    I must say, the second one down from the top looks pretty sweet

  • Geoff a well known Skeptic

    I wonder how many date back to the 1940s and the Irgun? Geoff Who would be interested in the histories, but somehow, I suspect logbooks are too much to ask.

  • bbmg

    As always, the critical component is the ammunition, Once that is available, creating the means to fire it is relatively simple.

    I see plenty of Uzi magazines, well played Mr. Orlov.

    • ThomasD

      Isn’t there a kibbutz somewhere in Israel that offers tour of it’s secret underground ammunition factory that they used to operate back during the British occupation?

      Practically a how to…

      • Joe Schmoe

        I’m impressed you know of it.

        But all it really shows is massive machine hidden below a laundry building meant to turn out weapons by the hundreds; it’s an entirely different league.

        • bbmg

          Anyone who’s watched the IDF episode of “Weaponology” knows about it 😉

          Or possibly Battlefield Detectives: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ULCTDOToP4

          Don’t remember where I saw it exactly.

          • Joe Schmoe

            Or perhaps “Tales of the Gun”? 😉

          • bbmg

            Yes! Thanks 🙂

  • Joe Schmoe

    I would like to point out however that the costs for these weapon are astronomical compared to a legal counterpart. I don’t know the going rate in Israel, but I know that an M4A1 in Gaza costs around $20,000-$28,000 USD, and a single bullet goes for around $2.55. (and this was a few years ago, prices have probably gone up since then)

    Also, these have nowhere near the effectiveness (strictly speaking) of a professionally made and tested counterpart; leaving them mainly useful for close range drive-by’s and not shootouts.

    For the most part, gun crime in Israel is limited to fighting between the different mafia’s and the average citizen sees none of it. Don’t forget that to get into every mall, major bus and train station, government building, etc, you have to be scanned for weapons; which makes carrying around one on your person always a huge hassle if illegal.

    • erwos

      So, same price as a full-auto M16A1 here in the USA? Sounds like the Palestinians are getting a deal!

    • orly?

      “Don’t forget that to get into every mall, major bus and train station, government building, etc, you have to be scanned for weapons; which makes carrying around one on your person always a huge hassle if illegal. ” – Joe Schmoe

      Some people in America equates this to something very evil.

      Some believe just from that one sentence, Israel is not a Democracy.

      • Joe Schmoe

        That’s an amusing thought considering that it is only the criminals that are punished by this system; legal gun owners just need to show their ID card that shows they can carry.

        • orly?

          I see many people may now be calling you a heretic.

          I see nothing but truth in your words.

      • tincankilla

        well, i think there are a few other facts about Israel that would make me question their commitment to democracy…

        • Joe Schmoe

          Such as?

          • tincankilla

            I’ll make it easy, so you can pick your sources: http://bit.ly/H5qBGw

            I’d def take a peek at the democracy index scores, too, if you want to really get granular.

          • Joe Schmoe

            Sure thing buddy, let’s go to the number one source: FreedomHouse –

            Israel: Rated 1 (best) in Political Rights and 2 in Civil Liberties, same as Japan for reference. Right below it on the chart is Italy, which seems to have a 2 in PR and a 1 in CL. Oh dear, seems Italy has a bigger Democratic issue than Israel.

          • tincankilla

            Sure, its all about how you define the population. Don’t include palestinians and Israel is golden, not an ethnic state, and certainly not militarized against a radicalized population living in pretty deplorable conditions. Now, I don’t really care so much about the suffering of radicalized palestinians [f ’em, really, since they’re not exactly democracy enthusiasts], but lets not lie to ourselves about what’s real and what is not. There are those who say the Southern States were a stellar democracies under Jim Crow, as long as you understand their special circumstances.

            Finally, look to raw data (but don’t trust it entirely) and don’t rely on scoring by advocacy groups like FH.

            Anyway, back to guns!

          • Les Legato

            Suck some more jihad, moron.

      • floppyscience

        I’m confused. Democracy is a system of government. A country doesn’t stop being a democracy because they scan their citizens for weapons at certain places.

        • orly?

          Some Americans view practices mentioned earlier are indicative of a “Police State.”

          • gunslinger

            be that as it may, if the “people” voted in to have said “paper checks” it’s still a democratic action. american’s may “view” it as a police state, but in reality it’s not.

          • Les Legato

            So some Americans prefer a police state. Some Americans BELIEVED IN SLAVERY.

            Neither are sustainable; pray we don’t have to crush the police state the way we ended slavery.

            (yeah, yeah, I know, the CW was about states rights and power grabs, but it did end slavery).

          • floppyscience

            Those are the same people who think the US is a democracy, so I wouldn’t take their opinions too seriously.

      • Lior

        Actually, people who legally carry firearms don’t get scanned in Israel.

      • Sam Green

        It is a democracy and the tactics they use such as profiling are sad to say; a necessity. In America we don’t have Enemies on all fronts that want us dead. Last time I checked the Canadians and Mexicans were our friends.

        As far as claiming their not democratic; Hate to burst your bubble, but with no disrespect intended, your wrong and I’ll prove it.

        Last year the Boston Marathon bombers created an atmosphere where the entire city of Boston was put on lockdown.
        This goes beyond the scope of what’s allowed and what’s not. But the fact is, authorities shut down our constitutional freedoms. Does that make us less democratic, it’s tit for tat my friend and our freedoms will be diminished in the future as future threats nibble away at our freedoms.

  • ak1134

    not that impressed…. There are so many weapons in Israel. Haifa is in Israel.

    I’d be more impressed if they were making them in the west bank.

  • jeremy s

    reminds me of the homemade weapons in Chechnya particularly the “Borz” machine pistol.

  • Noah Killough

    This pics remind me of the old “loyalist” smg’s used by the UVF that we’re floatin around Northern Ireland a few year back.

  • DiverEngrSL17K

    The home-made SMG in the first photograph is an interesting example of improvisation using commonly-available materials. The foregrip is actually a detachable handle from a 1/2″ hammer drill minus the plastic hand grip and mounted in a fore-and aft position underneath the barrel, rather than in a transverse position.

    • bbmg

      One has to question the reasoning behind the silver paintjob though…

      • wetcorps


        • DiverEngrSL17K

          LOL :):):)!

      • DiverEngrSL17K

        Good observation, bbmg — However, it doesn’t appear that the weapon in question has a paint coating at all ; instead, it appears that it was left in a bare ( white ) metal finish ( maybe with a clear coat layer for some protection from corrosion? ). Hard to say sometimes with improvised firearms of this nature. The foregrip, modified from a detachable handle taken from a 1/2″ hammer drill, has the flat silver finish typical of a hammer drill handle ( the only other finish, depending on manufacturer, is flat, satin or gloss black ).

  • John

    Ah the beauty of open bolt, sheet metal machine guns/smgs: when one wants firepower for a low manufacturing cost, funny to think it took until WWII for people to figure it out.

  • Bryan McConnell

    I am unimpressed actually. The Pashtun tribes on the Afghanistan and Pakistan border region turn out beautiful counterfeits of about any firearm in the world using files, grinders and recycled steel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darra_Adam_Khel

    • vladtepesblog

      Don’t forget lots and lots of small children. Tiny hands you know.

  • bfj

    These look similar to a kit gun I saw online the other day. Can’t believe some people actually build and shoot these. http://www.buildyourownfirearm.com

    • EETPMC

      Wow, that website is a total rip off of Orions hammer website. That guy is the one who made it and his build details are shown on the weponeer forums, as well as being documented on youtube.

  • meljones45

    I found a booklet a number of years ago that the local library was removing from their collection titled “Improvised Weapons of the American Underground.” I have since loaned it out, but I remember it containing two variations of submachine guns. One was called a simple “Grease Gun” while the other was the “Zip Gun.” One of the photos looks like the Grease Gun. Apparently, they are super easy to build, however, these aren’t a replacement for your range gun. These will probably only fire once, but under any circumstances you would need these are surely to do seriously localized damage to escape such a situation that would warrant their use in the first place.

    • EETPMC

      Desert publications right? Their designs are actually a bit more complicated than necessary, but nevertheless effective. There are tons of homemade firearm builds for any firearm you want, including DD such as mortars, grenade launchers, dillon mini guns, it all depends how much your manufacturing skills are, how good your google searches are, and if you want to break the law to begin with.