#NATO

Heckler & Koch’s recently released P30SK is the subcompact version of their hammer-fired mid-sized P30 9mm handgun. The P30SK shares its basic design features with the P30, but has a shorter 3.27″ barrel and shorter grip with a 10-round double stack magazine. Roughly comparable to a Glock 26, the P30SK features the same ambidextrous safety as the P30S model, as well as a decocking button at the rear of the slide. The P30SK comes in six models with three different kinds of trigger groups (any of the three available with or without night sights), including P30SK LEM “V1” light DAO, P30SK “V3” DA/SA without safety but with decocker, and P30SKS “V3” DA/SA with safety and decocker. The model I received for T&E was the P30SKS V3 model with night sights.

The Taiwanese small arms industry has been showing off its most recent developments at press events and expos recently, including the new XT104 9mm submachine gun. From Two Birds Flying:

The M1 Carbine is certainly one of the most iconic American small arms of all time; historical photos chronicling everything from the storming of D-Day to Malcolm X depict the gun in action. It’s therefore no wonder that gun companies are eager to introduce replicas of the famous Carbine. One such replica introduced recently is the Chiappa M1-9, an unusual replica in that it fires 9mm Parabellum ammunition, rather than the more common .22 LR or the .30 Carbine of the more faithful reproductions. In a recent review, YouTuber Taofledermaus doesn’t seem too impressed with Chiappa’s Carbine, however:

As in all Small Caliber Book Reviews here at TFB, I will be covering the area of relevance and strengths and weaknesses of the book, as well as whether it is more introductory or advanced.

TriggerTimeTV shared a fantastic graphic showcasing the difference between the .308 and military-standard 7.62×51 cartridges. While some shooters understand that .308 (the civilian standard) is actually more powerful than its military cousin, few likely know the actual differences between the cartirdges.

DTIC is a wonderful resource for finding documents that are important records in firearms history. One such article, which we will be looking at today, entitled “A Comparison Test Between United Kingdom And United States Lightweight Rifles” documents the 1950 test between the .280 caliber EM-2 (Janson Rifle, later Rifle No. 9), .280 caliber FN automatic carbine (later FN FAL, after a caliber change to the American .30 Light Rifle cartridge), and .30 caliber T25 rifle.

For this week’s DTIC, we have a document that’s not so much significant as it is interesting. Round-Robin Comparison Test of Light Rifle Ammunition Caliber .30 is an early look into the program that would beget the 7.62x51mm NATO round.

Later this week the first class of Afghan students will graduate from the NATO basic armorer course. SSgt Rachel Martinez writes …

Most of you, I think, know what is meant by a term “STANAG magazine”. For those of you who do not, it refers to a specification prepared by NATO which describes the dimensions of an AR-15 / M16 compatible magazine. An example of the usage of the term is in the Magpul’s Masada spec document (emphasis added) …

MIL-STD 1913 aka. the Picatinny rail attachment system, is will eventually be replaced by STANAG 4694, otherwise known as the NATO Accessory Rail (NAR). On May 8 the powers-that-be at the NATO Standardisation Agency approved the new standard, which will now need to be ratified by individual NATO member countries.

Two months ago I blogged that the Norwegian Army suspected that the ammunition used in their new H&K 416 rifles were making soldiers sicks. Chief of Staff Brig. General Rune Jakobsen initiated an investigation after Army HQ received three different reports about groups of soldiers getting sick after firing the new rifles. Symptoms included headaches, fever and joint pain. The investigation has determined that the soldiers were experiencing mild heavy metal poisoning caused by the “green” lead-free 5.56mm NATO ammunition manufactured by Nammo.

[ This article was written by Sven Ortmann of Personal Defence Weapons Central, an excellent small arms resource. ]

by Sven Ortmann, lastdingo@gmx.de, 2008-01-05

There are too many misleading anecdotes and rumors about military rifle calibers floating in the air (and in the WWW). This short article is meant to help readers with a presentation of the results of my secondary source research on the rifle caliber discussion and terminal (wound) ballistics.

Caliber: 9×19 mm and .45ACP (= 11.43x23mm)

This is the standard NATO caliber for pistols and a popular caliber for submachineguns. The only ones who seem to have a strong dislike for this caliber seem to be those U.S. Americans who continue to compare it with .45ACP.

The U.S. American problems with the 9x19mm caliber seem to include a mix of emotions (a Colt M1911 in .45ACP feels much more powerful) and poor quality of the U.S. standard issue 9mm pistols. The latter is as far as I know more a magazine production quality problem than a pistol design problem. The origin of .45ACP is said to lie in combat experience around 1900 in the Philippines where determined Philippinos weren’t stopped reliably by smaller revolver calibers. Tests on live animals in 1904 showed better effects for heavier bullets, but little improvement with velocity. Bullet design has improved a lot since then, and hollowpoint bullets that flatten their nose in soft tissue to increase their diameter are much more effective than simple soft lead bullets. A good 9mm bullet enjoys a similar advantage over a .45ACP soft lead bullet than the latter over a 9mm soft lead bullet. There’s a fundamental problem, though: There’s not much difference in effect on the target if you hit the wrong places and the permanent cavities of pistol bullets are all relatively small. Many body parts are simply not essential enough – their destruction doesn’t stop a determined opponent immediately; no matter whether you hit with .45ACP or 9x19mm.