Request For Proposals For Ergonomic Services: Fill & Download for Free

Working with industry experts, military laboratories such as the U.S. Army Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center, also known as the U.S. Army Natick Soldier Systems Center, or simply as Natick Labs may indeed take the lead on developing new technologies. These may include new technologies (at the time) such as GORTEX, or existing equipment, such as protective eyewear. Within the industry, these are referred to as GOTS (Gov't off the shelf) and COTS (Commercial off the shelf).Generally, however, only the concept for new technology may be developed by the military, but it is eventually designed and built by civilian companies.Usually, it works like this: a military leader or civilian at the Department of Defense/Army/Air Force/Navy determines a current equipment shortfall. It may be that current equipment does not meet future mission needs. For example, a larger transport aircraft may be required to airlift a heavier tank developed to support what the planners see as a potential future conflict. Or, it may be that a technology gap was identified. Hypothetically, we could imagine that a potentially unfriendly government or group may have developed a new piece of equipment or tactic that we might currently lack the ability to counter.The government then publishes a request for proposal (RFP) seeking industry responses. The RFP clearly outlines the requirements and specifications of the equipment, technology, or service to be provided. Conversely, companies may also be invited to provide a concept or prototype for testing. The winning company or group of companies are awarded the opportunity to develop, build, test and perhaps field the new technology.There are strengths inherent to this system, as well as a few weaknesses. One strength is that having many minds working a problem from different perspectives offers a far greater “out of the box" potential than would be found under only a single organization. Another is that many, perhaps even most of the civilian program managers tasked to develop the technology are former war-fighters who have a continued interest in protecting the nation and our military members. They often also have a background in the same area - bringing crucial insights such as support capabilities, ergonomics and functionality to the table.One weakness to this approach may be that the winning organization was usually the one that proposed the lowest price. This means that the government may not get the best that could be, but rather often gets the lowest priced product that is still within the technical specifications.

AK-203: A Boost for the Army and Make in IndiaNearly 10 years after the Army expressed a strong desire to replace the INSAS with a modern assault rifle, the government has zeroed in on AK-203 as the basic weapon for the vast majority of the Indian defence and security forces. The new weapon, the most advanced version of the famous AK series of rifles, will be manufactured in the country by the Indo-Russian Rifles Pvt. Ltd, a Joint Venture (JV) between the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) and Russian partners. The AK-203 will not only boost the Army’s fire power and morale but will also further the Make in India initiative in defence manufacturing through the 100 per cent indigenisation of the rifle in a few years. The Ordnance Factory Board’s Project Korwa in Amethi, Uttar Pradesh, which will manufacture the rifles as the main JV partner, is the major beneficiary as its volume of business is set to increase manifold with a firm order of at least 750,000 rifles.The Army’s Long Search for an Assault RifleEver since the 5.56x45mm INSAS was inducted in 1994, the Army has been dissatisfied with this rifle designed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and manufactured by the OFB. The rifle’s limitations in terms of lethality and reliability, as well as weight and lack of integrated sighting system, led the Army to look for an alternative even though a number of improvements were made over the years. In November 2009, the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC), the highest decision making body of the Ministry of Defence (MoD), gave in-principle approval for procurement of 1,87,825 assault rifles (including 16,056 for the Navy) under the ‘Buy and Make’ category with a provision of license production by the OFB. Post the DAC approval, the Army issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) in November 2011 for the procurement of a dual calibre (capable of firing both 5.56x45mm and 7.62x39mm ammunition) assault rifle. The RFP did not, however, fructify as no vendor could meet the stringent technical specifications – called the General Staff Qualitative Requirement (GSQRs) in procurement parlance. Consequently, the RFP was retracted in June 2015.Following the retraction of the RFP, the Army along with the OFB, DRDO and Directorate General Quality Assurance (DGQA) attempted to develop a new 5.56x45mm assault rifle. Although the new rifle, named INSAS 1C and produced by the Rifle Factory Ishapore (RFI), could meet the required technical and operational parameters including reliability test with firing of 2400 rounds, it did not progress further. In August 2016, the Army changed the specification of the calibre to 7.62x51mm based on its revised operational philosophy that gave prominence to ‘Shoot to Kill’ over ‘incapacitation’, which was the major design consideration behind the INSAS 1C development. With the revised operational philosophy in place, the Defence Minister, in a meeting held in September 2016, directed the OFB to develop a 7.62x51mm assault rifle under the guidance of the Project Monitoring Team (PMT) set up under the chairmanship of Director General Infantry (DG-INF) with members drawn from the DRDO and DGQA. The first prototypes, produced by the RFI, were ready by May 2017. But the initial trials were apparently not up to the Army’s expectations.With the PMT-led development of a rifle not satisfying the army, and with the latter in urgent need of a modern long-range rifle for frontline troops deployed on the borders, the DAC on January 16, 2018 decided to procure 72,400 rifles along with 93,895 carbines on a fast track basis. The following month, on February 13, 2018, the DAC gave another approval for 740,000 assault rifles for the three Services under the ‘Buy and Make (Indian)’ procurement category, with the provision that both the OFB and the private sector would licence-manufacture a portion each. The tender for the procurement of 72,400 rifles has fructified, with the American Firm, Sig Sauer, signing the contract valued at nearly Rs 700 crore with the MoD in February 2019.The procurement of bulk rifles took a new and decisive turn when India and Russia reached an agreement to set up the Kalashnikov production centre in India during President Vladimir Putin’s visit in October 2018. An Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) soon followed on February 18, 2019 to set up a joint venture to produce at least 750,000 7.62x39 mm AK-203 rifles in India. As per the IGA, the JV, which was registered on February 25, 2019, will have a 50.5 per cent equity stake by the OFB and the balance by the Russian partners. The equity structure emulates that of another India-Russia JV, BrahMos Aerospace, and is designed to allow the firm to operate as a private company rather than as a public sector enterprise.India’s choice of AK-203 was influenced by the rifle’s modern design and potency. It was selected over other AK series of rifles – AK-103, AK-103 (Modernised) and AK-15 – which were all evaluated by a team of Army officials who, along with OFB officials, visited the Kalashnikov manufacturing centre in Russia in early December 2018. The Army found that the AK-203 has better accuracy, more picatinny rails (required for mounting various types of day/night sights and grenade launcher on the rifle), reduced flash and recoil, better ergonomics and greater ease of operation in combat. The AK-203 was developed in 2016 and supplied to the Russian armed forces in 2018. India will be the first country to which Russia would be transferring the design/manufacturing of this rifle. The signing of the IGA and the formation of the JV have finally brought to an end a decade-long saga involving an arduous process for inducting a modern rifle for the Indian armed forces.Boost to Make in IndiaWhile the Army will finally get its long-waited weapon, the AK-203 is also an attractive proposition for the Make in India initiative, and for the OFB in particular. The objective of higher indigenisation, as enshrined in the Make in India programme, is set to be achieved in the course of producing the rifle in India. As per the IGA, the indigenous content (IC) is to be progressively increased in each phase of production. All rifles to be produced beyond the first 120,000 will have 100 per cent indigenous content (see Table 1). More significantly, 100 per cent indigenisation is to be achieved in 32 months from the contract date, and all the future technological upgrades to the rifles, as and when required, will be done by the JV in India. The OFB, which is facing increasing competition from the private sector, could not have asked for more as it is assured of nearly Rs 5,000 crores of order through the production of the AK-203. Moreover, given that the JV is a first involving an ordnance factory, it will open up opportunities for the OFB to explore other international partnerships to stay ahead of its competitors.Table 1. Planned Indigenisation of AK-203PhaseNo of RiflesIndigenisation Level (%)120,0005-15220,00015-30340,00030-70440,00070-1005Balance No.100The major beneficiary of the AK-203 deal is clearly the Ordnance Factory Korwa which was set up in 2007 with a sanctioned investment of Rs 408 crore to manufacture Close Quarter Battle (CQB) Carbine under Transfer of Technology (ToT). Earlier, because of the non-fructification of ToT due to a variety of reasons, the factory, which has over 200 employees on its payroll, has been operating well below capacity, with output limited to the manufacture of low-value Bore Action Guns for the Ministry of Home Affair and State Police Forces, and various parts and components for sister factories (see Table 2). With a voluminous order of Rs 5000 crore and an annual targeted production of 75,000 rifles, the company will be able to fully utilise its available production capacity for at least a decade. With its volume of business set to increase by nearly 30 times on an average in the next 10 years, it may well seek an expansion of its present capacity. The order will also allow the factory to play the role of an anchor investor for creating a local supply-chain for parts and components, which will create employment opportunities and boost economic growth in and around Korwa. More significantly, with an order to manufacture the most contemporary rifle in the world, the factory stands a good chance of becoming the centre for small arms manufacturing in the country besides breaking into the lucrative export market.

Now that is something that can be very interesting.A few months ago, I used to write some articles about some sometimes very obscure firearms which were trialed by the French military from the turn of the 20th Century to the early coldwar. It went from just very unknown firearms that actually saw service, but were very uncommon and which are almost never mentioned in English language litterature, to very obscure prototypes, including some who had very original elements.I tried to class all those articles from the least obscure to the most obscure. So we’re going to start with rare and rarely heard off service firearms, to the most obscures prototypes. I tried to make those as complete as I can, but several cases, I could barely find anything about the said firearm - sorry for the uncompleteness of some of the following weapons.STA 1924 SMGhe STA 1924 was a french submachine-gun developed shortly after World War One, after the french discovered the extremely effective german MP 18; there was simply nothing in the French arsenal that could compete with the said weapon in the trench-cleaner roles, with the french army usually being using either Berthier bolt-action carbines, pistols, or simply the long rifles of the soldier, to clear trenches from enemy presence. The first prototype of the STA was ready by October of 1921. It was designed by the Service Technique de L’Armée (STA; Army’s Technical Service) on the basis of the MP18 itselfThis weapon fired the 9x19mm Parabellum round. It had a rate of fire of 650 rpm, wich was 150 rounds faster than the MP 18, for the same capacity of 32 rounds. The muzzle speed was 735 m/s, wich was comparable to the 750 m/s of the MP 18.However, the STA/MAS had the advantage of being much lighter than the MP 18, with 3,4kg fully loaded, around 1.5kg lighter than the MP 18. It also had a further pratical firing range (200m) and was more accurate. The first prototypes were actually fitted with a bipod, which would have been used to minimize the recoil in static position, but it was removed pretty quickly from the prototypes and was never found on the production model, as it was judged an additional weight that was useless most of the time8250 of these submachine-gun were ordered during 1925, however, only a thousand would finally be produced. They were used during the Rif War in Morocco, where they proved being sucessful, but no additional order were made, as the french army staff was underestimating the role of submachine-guns in modern warfare; those had little to no use in the doctrine of the French Army prior to 1940. The STA submachine-guns were still in service during 1940, but were used by fortifications crews on the Maginot line, and were not intensively used during the Campaign of France. Some would resurface during the Liberation of France, which was the last campaign the STA submachine-gun took part in.MAS 40 & MAS 44 semi-automatic riflesThe MAS 40 was developped during the late 30s, to arm the french infantry with a semi-automatic weapon (The French Army had already experienced semi-automatic rifle, and quite early, with the R.S.C Model 1917/1918, but those did never even come close to replacing older bolt-action rifles).This rifle had a 5-rounds stripper-clip fed magazine, but there were variants that could use detachable magazines, including the 25-rounds magazine of the FM 24/29 light machine-gun. In good conditions, the MAS 40 could achieve a solid 40 shots per minute. Intensive testing on the produced rifles proved that it was overall a reliable and sturdy rifle, that would rarely if ever not work properly. The cartridge was the classic 7.5x54mm MAS (Already used in the MAS 36 bolt-action rifle), which could, with this gun, be sent at a speed of 820m/s. The (practical) maximum range was 300 to 400m. The MAS 40 weighted 4.1kg, wich was comparable to the Mauser 98K, and lighter than the M1 Garand.Only 50 prototype/pre-serie MAS 40 were ever made. This rifle was ordered by the french army in March 1940, however, none series rifles were delivered before the capitulation of France in June of 1940; it was actually inteded to become the new standard rifle of French forces, with the bolt-action MAS 36 only serving as an intermediary rifle aswell as a second-line weapon.With this rifle, the french infantry could have been equipped with a rifle that was within the most effective of the conflict. However, the few rifles that survived to the war (The german were not interested by this rifle, however, most were stolen by the FFI and used during the 1944 insurrections) were used to design the MAS 44 and MAS 49, wich, finally, saw service in the French army.After the Liberation of the French territory, it was clearly becoming urgent for France to developp a new semi-automatic rifle (The MAS 36, altough far from being the worst rifle of the war, was not as good as would have been a semi-automatic).This new weapon was developed by MAS on the basis of the MAS 40 prototypes. The main improvement was the clip: The original MAS 40 had a five rounds magazine (But 10 and 25 rounds clips could be mounted), while the basic MAS 44 had a 10 rounds stripper-clip fed magazine.A small number (6,200) of MAS 44 were produced during 1945, and were given to the French navy's commandos during the war of Indochina. After the end of the war, some were left over and used by the South Vietnamese and Cambodian states. Syria also received some of those rifles; in the French Navy, they would be used well into the coldwar, being replaced by the FAMAS only in the 80’s and 90’s.The MAS 49, an evolution of the MAS 44, would, finally, be produced in important numbers (near 300,000), finally making the MAS semi-automatic rifle, wich was originally conceived almost 15 years ago, the standard rifle in the french army. It was replaced by the FAMAS through the second half of the coldwar.Puteaux machine-gun:The Puteaux machine-gun was developped by Puteaux/APX (A national french firm) as a counterpart to the Hotchkiss gas-operated machine-gun. The latter was an formidable weapon (arguably the best WW1 medium machine-gun), and was presented during 1897. It was relatively fast-firing, and very reliable, even in bad terrains such as mud, but it had two majors problems for the french army (none being about the weapon itself)First, it was too expensive, with around 5000 francs, and second, it was developped by a civilian corporation, on the basis of a original concept conceived by a Austro-Hungarian captain. For the french army, who always wanted to be as secret as possible, it was too much, and the Hotchkiss machine-gun was, before 1914, only built in small numbers. Puteaux started to conceive a entirely french gas-operated machine-gun by 1901, with 10 prototypes being ordered during 1902. Trials started during April 1903.The APX gas-operated machine-gun was firing the 8x50mmR Lebel, standard french cartridge, at a rate of fire of 600 rounds per minute (100 more than the Hotchkiss, and pretty respectable rate of fire for that time). However, it had major problems. First, the cannon could only fire 6 000 "M" or 2 000 "D" cartridges before being used, but dismounting and replacing it was hard and long. The Puteaux was also very prone to overheating: After one minute of fire at a reduced rate of fire of 200 rpm, the barrel was reported to be entirely red and insanely hot.The APX machine-gun was sightly improved during 1904-1905, with a barrel made of special, finely refined steel, able to fire 10 000 M or 3 000 D cartridges before the replacement, but the Hotchkiss machine-gun was still far better than the Puteaux, and now as cheap, as it not require such expensive materialsA small number of Puteaux (300 to 400) were produced between 1905 and 1907, when they were phased out of production, replaced by the Saint-Etienne (MAS) mle 1907 machine-gun (That was not as good as the Hotchkiss, but far better than the Puteaux). The APX were mostly sent to the colonies (Around a hundred in Africa) and as a fortification machine-gun, but, when WW1 broke out, as the french army was far outclassed by the german one in terms of machine-guns, most Puteaux were given to infantry regiment. They would be used untill August 1916 (There were, by that timek around 200 in service on the front), before being phased out, replaced by the Hotchkiss... The same weapon that could have been adopted as early as 1897.Gnôme-Rhône R5 (The Resistance’s Sten)The "mitrailette" Gnôme-Rhône was produced from August 1944 to September 1945 by the Gnôme-Rhône factory of Limoges, in South-West France. Following it's liberation ( by members of the French Resistance, and not regular allies forces) in August of 1944, numerous units made of former resistance soldiers were created to encircle the French harbours fortified and held by the German forces on the Western coast. Those units vastly lacked weapons; therefore, the Gnôme-Rhône factory, previously producing aircraft engines and parts, aswell as motorbikes, was tasked by the new french state to produce copies of the Sten Mk.II, a very easy to produce submachine-gun of British origins.This weapon was designated R5, for Cinquième Région de la Résistance (5th Resistance region), one of the sectors of the resistance, where Limoges was located.The R5 kept most characteristics of the Sten Mk.II (550 rounds per minute, 32-rounds 9mm Parabellum box magazines, blowback-operated open-bolt action), but in a considerably different package. Unlike the usual Sten, the R5 was given a wooden stock, a forward grip (pretty similar to the one on the Sten Mk.V). One of the least noticeable from the eye, but certainly most important features of the R5, was the addition of a sliding block safety, solving the problem of accidental discharges that were quite common with the usual, fastly and cheaply produced Sten Mk.II (May they have been manufactured in Great-Britain or in secret workshops inside occupied Europe). Other change included phosphate finish, and much sharper, easier to see, forward iron sights. A factory from Brives produced special magazines for the R5, fitted with four small holes, usually small enough to not let foreign elements enter, yet large enough to allow soldiers to see their remaining level of ammunitions. Classic Sten or MP40 magazines could still be fed, however. Stocks were produced by the Tulles factory.Overall, the R5 was an huge improvement over the basic Sten, offering better reliability, ergonomics, and Lower chances of failures and accidental discharges; at the cost of a more important lenght (838mm instead of 760mm) and weight (3.5kg unloaded, in comparison to 2.95kg for a Sten Mk.II). Still, for a copy of what is meant as an extremely iow-cost submachine-gun, the R5 is close from excellence.Seen here in Algeria, during the 1954–1962 war.20,000 R5s were produced during 1944-1945. They were used by French Resistance units near the German pockets, and also made their way into Indochina and even Algeria, their last operationnal battleground. Today, this little submachine-gun, while having known a noticeable production, is very little-known, which is a shame.Hotchkiss mle 1934 light machine-gunThe Hotchkiss mle 1934 was one of the last developpement of the famous M1909 "Benet-Mercié" light machine-gun, which was adopted by the United Kingdom and USA before WW1, and used intensively during the war. After WW1 ended, Hotchkiss made numerous export derivates of it's machine-gun, and sold them to numerous Latino and European countries.Those light machine-guns kept the characteristics of the M1909, being fed by rigid ammunitions belts, and gas-operated, but were a lot lighters, weighting 9,5kg loaded instead of nearly 12. The rate of fire was also improved regarding the original Hotchkiss, with 550 rpm in replacement of 500.Those light machine-guns were proposed, and sold, in a large variety of cartridges: 7mm or 7,92mm Mauser, .303, 30-06, Greek 6,5mm, or 7.5mm mle 1929C, for example. The french army never went for a Hotchkiss LMG, and adopted the FM24/29, developped by the MAC. However, during 1934, the Hotchkiss light machine-gun (in standard french cartridge, the 7,5mmx54mm mle 1929C) was adopted by the Guard of Indochina and Lebanon troops. Those forces were not relevant to the Minister of War, but the Minister of Colonies, and therefore, there are no trace of those in the military archives (explaining why the fact french armed forces had some Hotchkiss is so little-known, this weapon being usually tought as a strictly export one).The main reason why the Minister of Colonies adopted the Hotchkiss was the lack of FM24/29: It was surely a excellent gun, but the army had the priority on getting it, and there were huge stocks of old Chauchat light machine-guns to phase out of serviceOnly a few tens or hundreds (the exact number is unknown) of Hotchkiss mle 1934 were bought by the french colonial troops. It remains of the most frequently forgotten french weapon, altough it's technical detail are well-known. (This is the only picture of a french M1934 I could find)Chauchat-Sutter mle 1911 machine rifleHere being tested by Louis Chauchat himselfThe Chauchat-Sutter (CS) machine-rifle was developped by french engineers Louis Chauchat and Charles Sutter, who started to work on machine rifles and self-loading rifles during 1903. Their machine rifle was based on the studies of Rudolf Frommer, a Hungarian engineer, and used the rather uncommon long recoil system.When it was first presented, during 1903, the FM CS was chambered for a 7x59mm cartridge developped by Chauchat. 7 were ordered by the french army to the MAS during 1907, but the testing were deceiving. However, Chauchat and Sutter continued to work on their machine-rifle, and presented a updated version during 1911. It was chambered for the 8x50mmR Lebel cartridge (which needed a curvy mag, who made it's first appearance on the CS) and was shorter than the original weapon. 100 examples were ordered by the french army, however, following deceiving trials, the order was suspended after only a few were produced. The french army never had much interest in the Chauchat, as it never had a role in it's doctrine: For the french high command, the main force of Infantry wasn't it's firepower, but it's movement. Therefore, full automatic weapons were not considered as interesting, and would rather be a waste of supply capacity that could be used for field artillery.Chauchat and Sutter, working with the workshops of APX and MAS, created an improved version, which was presented during January 1913. It presented a much better reliabilty (The two prototypes fired 2.500 rounds each without any major failure, while the 1911 model fired only 1500 rounds, and had several parts damaged during the trials). As the FM CS was now a reliable weapon, the order was re-activated, and production continued, but at a very slow rate (Around 20 were made by August 1914). The Chauchat were not sent to frontline infantry, but to the aviation, who used those on Farman and Nieuport aircraft.Altough war started, and the disatrous combats of August 1914 showed how the firepower was superior to the movement, the CS was not adopted, altough it had a respectable reliability. The total number of CS produced was inferior to 200, but the CRSG mle 1915 "Chauchat" machine-gun, adopted the next year, was based on it. However, because of the high need and intensity of production, FM Chauchats suffered quite a lot of failures, and were generally considered as unreliable weapon (Altough most of the sources avaible higly underestimate the Chauchat, as they are based on reports of American soldiers, who used (for training, but they based their opinions on those examples) bad 30-06 conversions), especially in comparison to it's ancestor.Gevarm D4 submachine-gunThis weapon was developped by the Gévarmoise company, dependant of the larger Gévelot company, a important ammunition producer. The Gévarmoise company was always a small firm, which had only produced civilian carbines before working on submachine-guns. During 1956, the firm developped two submachine-guns, the D3 and D4, the main difference being that the D3 used a wooden stock, with the D.4 was entirely metallic.Gevarm submachine-guns used blowback action and fired from an open bolt. This was a configuration suited for full automatic fire, and the weapon had a rate of fire of 600rpm. It used the 9x19mm Parabellum cartridge, the new standard french pistol cartridge (replacing the 7.65x20mm from the interwar), fed from a 32-rounds mettallic magazine (which was actually specific to the Gévarms, and not french army standard). The D4 used a retractable stock, allowing easy transport and usability in close range. With the stock, both weapons had a lenght of 80 centimeters, and without, the D4 had a lenght of 50 centimeters. Magazine-less, the D3 had a weight of 3.65kg, and the D4 of 3.20kg. It is known a fully loaded D4 had a weight of 3.92kg.Two Gevarm prototypes (A D3 and a D4) were presented to the french army during February 1957. A few problems were noted (notably feeding issues, and the sights were considered as poor, although the weapon itself was accurate), but overall, the army's impression was positive: The Gevarms were very pleasant for shoulder or hip firing, easy to produce and maintain (they were mostly made of sheet metal). Overall, all problems could be rather easily solved, but the Gevarms wouldn't, in the end, be adopted by the french army: the MAT-49 submachine-gun was already adopted since several years, and replacing it was too costly. While an Gevarms with problems solved would bring some improvements (the D3 and D4 were easier to maintain than the MAT-49), starting a whole replacement project wasn't considered as worthy, especially with war raging in Algeria.Nonetheless, small quantities of D4 were bought by the french police, and used by highway or suburbs units until they were phased out during 1985. Some did make their way into the Middle-East during the 70s, for a total production of between 3000 to 4000 Gevarms, making this submachine-gun one of the rarest french weapons of this type.A quite interesting fact, while being a very minor submachine-gun, the D4 appeared in quite a lot of movies, 17 in total. This was because the french police accepted to lend some for movies, and because the D4 had a pretty standard and good submachine-gun look.FA-MAS Type 62 battle rifleThe FA-MAS Type 62 was the result of nearly 10 years of experiment (With the MAS 54 prototype being the first french prototype battle rifle) in order to create a French-made battle rifle able to compete with foreign models such as the Belgian FAL. The Type 62 was chambered for 7,62x51mm NATO rounds, with a 20 cartridges clip. It was 1.04 meters long, and had a weight of 4.530kg unloaded. Iron sights ranged at up to 400 meters, and a scope could allow fire at up to 800 meters. A grenade launcher could be mounted, allowing fire of anti-infantry grenade at up to 400 meters, and anti-armor grenades at up to 75 meters.During 1962, comparative tests were performed between the FA-MAS Type 62 and the FAL. Two training centres and three operational units were given 5 FAL and 5 FA-MAS, aswell as 15 000 cartridge. Four of those five preferred the FAL over the FA-MAS; the first being superior to the latter in terms of accuracy and maintenance. In terms of sight, it was faster to learn how to use the FAL's one, but in case of full automatic fire, the FA-MAS Type 62’s ones were considered easier to maintain on the target. Both weapons were considered reliable; The Type 62 was, however, considered as highly superior as a grenade-launcher.In the end, only 50 FA-MAS Type 62 were built, and the model remained a prototype. While overall inferior to the FAL, the Type 62 was still far from catastrophic, as no huge problems appeared, the most important of the existing ones being the dispersion. Some more developpement could most likely have solved those problems, but the project was abandonned; The AMX-30 Main Battle Tank projet was taking an already too important place in the french military budget. Small quantities of FAL were acquired by France, but the Belgian battle rifle never got near the state of standard weapon in the french army.CEAM 50 assault rifleThe CEAM 50 was the first recorded postwar french assault rifle prototype. It's design was based on the Sturmgewehr 45 prototype assault rifle, and was developped by german engineers Theodor Löffler and Ludwig Vorgrimler, from Mauser (which had developped the StG 45) The whole project was led thanks to Mauser facilities, which were located in the french occupation zone of Germany.(Loffler model)Loffler and Vorgrimler proposed a design each. While Vorgrimler produced a near-copy of the StG 45, with a folding stock, Loffler, while keeping the roller-delayed blowback action, made important changes to the design: An folding bipod located under the bareel, different rear sights (which were theirself different between each of Loffler's prototypes) and a charging handle over the bareel. While the first prototypes were chambered for the 7.92x33mm Kurz cartridge, and two french prototypes bullets, the Cartoucherie de Valence's 7.65x35 and 7.65x38mm, the final cartridge chosed was the American .30 Carbine (7.62x33mm)Loffler's design was recommended for adoption, under the name of CEAM 50. It, in it's final form, had a weight of 4.33kg, a lenght of just 90.5 centimeters (potentially reduced to 65.8 thanks to a foldable stock). The bareel itself was 42.5 centimeters long. The weapon fired at a rather controllable 520 rounds per minute, and was fed from 30-rounds box magazines. The muzzle velocity was 610 m/s.Overall, the CEAM 50 was a good design for it's era, controllable and powerful, while remaining accurate, and using a cartridge the French army already used in great numbers. However, it wouldn't be adopted, because France had already two priorities taking nearly all the army's funds: the Indochina war and it's participation in NATO (french was the second contributor, just behind the US). Therefore, the CEAM 50 never became France's standard weapon, and the french army would have to wait untill 1973 for adoption of an assault rifle.However, the work made on the design wasn't lost: Vorgrimler left France during 1950, and enterred the Spanish CETME. There, he developped a battle rifle, from the StG 45 and the CEAM 50, of which he admitted the quality. This would become the CETME battle rifle, which would itself give birth to the G3 battle rifle, the second most common weapon of this type in Europe after the FAL, during the coldwar.MAS 48 submachine-gunThe MAS 48 was the result of a new request for a submachine-gun sent by the french government to the three stade-controlled workshop, of Saint-Etienne (MAS), Tulle (MAT) and Châtellerault (MAC). The objective was to replace the MAS 38, which, altough accurate and easy to use, was heavily lacking power (it was using the 7,65mmx20mm cartridge, the standard french pistol bullet of the interwar, which was more accurate but much less powerful than the Parabellum). The well-known and proven 9x19mm bullet was to be used on the new weapon.The MAS 48 was presented during 1948, and included several great improvements in comparison to the old MAS 38. It had a folding magazine, who could be kept on the gun in the transport mode:As a result, the gun only required to be de-folded in order to be put in combat-order, a great feature to fight ambushes. The magazine was a 32 rounds one, inspired from the MP 40.The MAS 48 had a folding stock, and, a interesting feature was that the gun could be fired when it was folded. In such conditions, the weapon was even smaller and manoeuvrable, but the recoil was more important for the user. The MAS 48 had two sights, one for 100 and one for 200m. Sadly, no data about the rate of fire or the muzzle velocity seems to be avaible on Internet - The MAS 48 is a very little known weapon-. Altough it was not adopted for mass-production, some of it's features were added in the definitive french postwar, the MAT 49 - a iconic weapon of the end of the Indochina and the Algeria war-. However, a preseries batch of MAS 48 was still produced, and used operationally (mostly for experimental reasons) in the 1st BCCP (Bataillon Colonial de Commando Parachutistes/ Colonial airborne commandos battalions) and the 2nd BEP (Bataillon étranger de Parachutistes: Foreign Airborne Battalion, a part of the Foreign Legion)MAC 47 submachine-gunThe MAC 47/1 was studied by the Manufacture d'Armes de Châtellerault (Châtellerault Arms Workshop, mostly known for their very efficient FM 24/29 light machine-gun) as a new submachine-gun to replace the MAS 38, STENs, Thompsons and MP 40 that armed the french army after WWII. The MAC's engineer put their main focus on creating a weapon as light and compact as possible, which they did manage to achieve: The MAC 47 had a weight of only 2.1kg and a lenght of just 40cm folded (both stock and magazine could be folded) which makes it one, if the the most compact and light submachine-gun of the era.Even unfolded, the MAC 47/1 was one of the most compact submachine-gun, with 63cm. It fired the 9x19mm Parabellum cartridge from a magazine taken straight from the MP40 (France had a lot of those magazines around after WWII).But this compactness and iow weight came with consequences: The MAC 47/1 was all but an pleasant submachine-gun to fire. No pistol grip or handguard were avaible, making the weapon very unpleasant and hard to shoot. Moving the stock around required a lot of space, too.The MAC 47/1 was tested by the STA (Section Technique de l'Armée - Army's Technical Section) during May 1948. The STA reported the problem shown above, and as more efficient designs were proposed (notably the future MAT 49 and the Hotchkiss Universal), the MAC 47/1 did not enter mass-production. Today, the prototype is preserved in the army musem of the Invalides, from which those photos come.MAC 58 heavy machine-gunOn the 23 of September 1950, the manufacture d'armes de Châtellerault (MAC) received a request for the developpement of a .50cal heavy machine-gun, that could replace the Browning M2.The french army requiped a weapon that could be used both by infantry and on vehicles, with the ability to fire against helicopters and aircraft at ranges of 1km and less, with sight ranging at 1 and 2km. They also required a weapon that was lighter, easier to handle, maintain and operate, in comparison to the M2, while being able to use every .50cal cartridges. The design, aswell as a date for the construction of a prototype, was requested to be ready for the 25 of August 1956. On the 23 of August 1956, MAC sent a response to the demands of the french army, sending the specifications and confirming the machine-gun answered to most demandsThe MAC 58 fired the classic .50cal cartridge, at a rate of fire of 500 to 600rpm. Most technicals solutions were based on the AA52 light machine-gun, adapted to fire a more powerful cartridge. Their machine-gun was perfectly able to fire any French or NATO .50cal ammunition, and was as effective as the M2 in anti-aircraft role. In comparison to Browning's machine-gun, it was significantly lighter, with 26kg using standard bareel and 27.5 using heavy bareel, while the M2 had a weight of 39kg. It used the same M3 tripod as the M2 BrowningFirst prototype of the MAC 58 was tested from November 1956 onward, with a second, improved one being ready during May 1957. Three more were sent in June.In terms of performance, the MAC 58 was good. Accurate, reliable and powerful, yet much lighter than the previous M2. However, it had a pretty important drawnback: the configuration of it's trigger did not allow use in armored vehicles, because it had no handles. Two prototypes were sent to APX during December 1959, in order to fix this problem, but it is unknow if APX ever managed to make a vehicle-friendly version of the MAC 58. Although well-performing, the MAC 58 wouldn't be adopted by the french army: While not as great, the M2 Browning could still do most of the things the MAC 58 could do, and so replacing it was not needed.As of today, the MAC 58 is an extremely forgotten weapon. I was only able to find a single picture of it, and it is unknown if any of the dozen of prototypes that were made survived up to this day.Ribeyrolles “Carabine Mitrailleuse” automatic carbine/early assault rifleDuring 1915, three french industrials, Chauchat, Sutter and Ribeyrolles, decided to form a firearms developpement team, who would study modern armament, especially automatic or semi-automatic-firing weapons. The main product of this association was the Chauchat (conceived before the war, but modified by the group), but the RSC 1917 semi-automatic rifle also come from it. However, outside of those mass-produced weapons, the team also studied some weapon that never reached massive service, altough being fascinating, and the 8mm Ribeyrolles is the best example.Studied from 1916 onward, mainly by Ribeyrolles, this weapon was designed as a "automatic carbine", but it have a lot of similarities with assault rifles. Fire, it fires the first (purpose-built) intermediate cartridge: A 8x35mm, based of a necked down 351. Winchester ammunition, but also using some elements of the Lebel's Balle D bullet. This cartridge could be fired in full automatic mode, with a rate of fire of around 550 rpm. The magazine contained 25 rounds. The 8x35mm had a power of 1900 joules, well-under the 3400 of the Lebel cartridge used on Chauchat light machine-guns, but much over the 9x19mm Parabellum of weapons such as the MP18 (who had around 1000 joules). This advantage of having this average joules power that the weapon had an handable recoil (The Chauchat's recoil, altough the weapon was 4kg heavier than the Ribeyrolles, was much more problematic for the gunner), but was much more powerful than the pistols rounds of submachine gun. The 8x35mm was also relatively accurate at ranges up to 400m, which was under the average fire range during WW1 (Around 300m), enabling the Ribeyrolles to be a very polyvalent weapon: It could both be a very good close-quarter combat weapon, but also a acceptable semi-automatic rifle. (The weapon could, of course, fire in both auto and semi-auto mode, thanks to a selector)Notice that the 8mm Ribeyrolles could also be fitted with a bipod, in order to serve as Squad-Level automatic weapon. The weapon itself was relatively heavy (5,1kg), but had a quite impressive firepower for this weight; The Chauchat, firing 8x50mm in 30-rounds mag (but with a magazine vulnerable to mud, and a much slower rate of fire), was around 4kg heavier. Overall, the weapon was still light enough to be operated by a single infantrymen.After the first prototypes were presented most likely during 1917, the Carabine Mitrailleuse Ribeyrolles was accepted for service on the 6th of July of 1918, and the first weapons were possibly engaged during the last weeks of World War One. Overall, feedback was positive, although the problems of the weight and of the recoil, limited but existing, were mentionned by soldiers.Production of slow batch of Carabine Mitrailleuse modèle 1918 continued untill 1920, with around 4000 being produced in total. Finally, after intensive testing in Chalons, during 1921, the 8mm Ribeyrolles was rejected by the army, because of the weight, and of the accuracy, limited to "only" 400 meters (which was already enough for trenches warfares, what the high command intended in future conflicts...)This is the perfect example of how in delay with it's time was the french high-command. The Carabine Mitrailleuse surely wasn't perfect, but it was, for it's time, a incredibly modern weapon. It is very likely that if, instead of focusing on constructing the Maginot Line, the french army high-command would have gave more money to firearms developpement, weapons that would solve the problems of the Carabine Mitrailleuse could have been developped before 1940 -most likely as early as the late 20s-. This was a case out of many: Altough French engineers had developped modern and effective submachine-guns and semi-automatic rifles, those were rejected, the only modern weapon entering production during the 20s being the FM 24/29 light machine-gun. Altough I don't know if it would have been enough to change the fate of France during 1940, a french army largely equipped with automatic firearms, including assault rifles, and which had developped tactics for them, would have been a extremely bad surprise for the Wehrmacht, during 1940. When you see the losses french soldiers managed to inflict to the German army while they were all armed with bolt-action rifles or carbines, you can easily guess how terrible the Campaign of France would have been for Germany if the french high-command had spent it's money on right things.Chauchat-Ribeyrolles “Machine Pistol” firing port weaponDuring 1915, three french engineers, Chauchat, Ribeyrolles and Sutter, decided to work together on new firearms, creating the RSC group. It is mainly knew for the Chauchat (which was, however, designed before WW1) light machine-gun and the RSC 1917 semi-automatic rifle, but later in the war, the group started to study new kind of weapons (including one of the very first Assault Rifle-ish firearm)The Chauchat-Ribeyrolles Pistolet Mitrailleuse ("submachine-gun", but that's only it's designation) was studied as a weapon for tank crew, in order to used them from the firing ports of their vehicle and, potentially, outside the vehicle. The weapon was not, as it may be tought, based off the Chauchat light machine-gun: Most of it's mechanism were coming from the RSC-1917 semi-auto rifle (It was gas-operataed). However, the Chauchat-Ribeyrolles could fire in full automatic mode (It had the 8x50mmR "Lebel" cartridge, a standard and powerful french cartridge). This was a relatively incredible capacity: A SMG-sized weapon, weighting 4kg, able to fire a rifle round in full automatic !This firearm was fitted with two different magazines: A 8-rounds Mannlicher–Berthier, and one taken directly from the Chauchat LMG, holding 30 rounds .In the trenches, the Chauchat's magazine was a big issue: The holes, used to watch the ammunition level, let mud enter in, jamming the firearm, but this was not the case in a enclosed armored vehicle.Mannlicher-Berthier magazine model on top, Chauchat magazine model on the bottomAs a weapon intended for tank crew, the main fonction of the Chauchat-Ribeyrolles would have been to equipp the driver of the FT light tank, who could fire the weapon from the vision slots or by opening the frontal part. Several prototypes were manufactured during and after the war, with studies and trials lasting untill 1929, but finally, the weapon was considered as uninteresting, and it was never mass-produced or used as standard weapon. It reamins one of the least-know, but also (In my opinion) most interesting french WW1 firearms.Petter mle 1939 submachine-gunThe PM Petter was conceived by the engineer Charles Gabriel Petter, for the submachine-gun programm of the french army (This programm was around since 1921, and was completly revised during the 30s; the result was the MAS 38). The first version of his submachine-gun was presented and patented during November 1936.It fired the 7,65mmx20mm round (standard pistol round of the french army) at a rate of fire of 570 rpm, without a fire-selector. The capacity of the magazine was 32 rounds. A quite interesting feature of the Petter was it's closed bolt, while nearly all automatic weapon of WW2 had a open one. This brang several avantages: Dust and dirt could hardly enter in the gun, giving a overall better reliabity in desert or muddy fields. The closed bolt also assured a much better accuracy than the open one in semi-automatic mode... something the PM Petter was absolutely unable, as it never had a selector. However, it made the gun more complicated and hard to manufacture, and it was prone to overheat.The first variant of the Petter had a weight of around 2,1kg empty, and a muzzle speed of 380 m/s. Several close derivates were constructed and tested during 1937, but the weapon was not adopted for service.Charles Gabriel Petter was not, however, discouraged, and presented a new version of the Petter submachine-gun by March 1939. The Petter mle 1939 was, in comparison to the first version, smaller, with a lenght of 64,5cm in comparison to 72 on the original version. The bareel was, however, longer, with 22cm in comparison to 20. The mechanism were the same, however, the magazine could now be folded for transport. It was also larger, with 36 rounds instead of 32. The rate of fire was sightly higher, with 600 rpm, however the Mle 1939 could now slow down the rate of fire, something impossible on the first variant. Semi-automatic fire was still impossible, however. The Mle 1939 was heavier than the original, weighing around 2,57kg with the magazine but without bullets, and 2,9kg loaded.Altough it had original and modern features, such as a closed bolt or the folding magazine, the Petter mle 1939 was not chosen for mass-production, because of it's complexity: The MAS mle 1938 could be as effective, for a much cheaper cost. However, it appear small batchs were still produced, for around 50 guns in (experimental) service by May 1940, and possibly 3000 in order (In comparison to 19 500 MAS mle 1938). The few guns in service were used during the Campaign of France, and disappeared during or following it. The only remaining picture of the Petter on Internet appear to be this picture, taken during the production. It is one of the least-known french weapon, but it might have influenced some postwar weapons, such as the MAS 48 C-3, and maybe even the MAT 49 (mainly for the foldable vertical magazine)E.T.V.S submachine-gunThe PM ETVS was conceived by the french Etablissements Techniques de Versailles (Versailles Technics Workshop) for the PM (pistoler mitrailleuse, "machine pistol) requirement. (This project was around since 1921, but was completly changed during the 30s, with the replacement of the 9x19mm Parabellum by the 7,65mmx20mm cartridge). The weapon developped by the E.T.V.S , and presented during 1936, was a relatively classic design, with a open bolt (one of the competitors for the requirement had a closed one). It had a folding 32 magazine and stock for transport (the weapon could still fire without the stock, but at the cost of accuracy). The 7,65mmx20mm cartridge could be fired at 500 rounds per minute (without a fire selector, not allowing semi-automatic fire), at a muzzle velocity of 380 m/s. The PM ETVS was 67cm long, the bareel was 21cm. The weapon itself weighed 2,7kg without the magazine, and 3,3kg with it loaded.The PM E.T.V.S was not accepted for service, the MAS 38 being chosed instead (As it fired faster, and MAS could produce much more submachine-guns than E.T.V.S). Production was limited to a small batch of 50 units, for trials. Those were taken from the depots during the Campaign of France, and used during the last fights of the campaign, alongside diverse other weapon of this class: Prototype Petter mle 1939 SMG (same situation as the E.T.V.S), EMP that were seized from the Spanish Republican Army when it retreated into french lands, STA mle 1924 interwar weapons, aswell as MP 18 captured back in 1918, MP 28 bought to Belgium, 3000 Thompson mle 1921 delivered druing June, 50 Steyr SMG bought for trials, a few Suomi M/31 from retreating Spanish forces, and some MP 34.MAS 54 battle rifleFew informations are avaible on those three models, others than that they were proposed by MAS to the french army around 1954. An interesting fact about this familly of gun, the MAS 54B, intended as an carbine, used the bullup configuration, which would later be found in the FAMAS. The MAS 54A and C were standard battle rifles, in classic configurations.Those weapons were chambered for the french 7,5x54mm cartridge. They may have been tested with 7,62x51mm NATO, but this is not sure. Those were not accepted for service anyway, but were a step in the developpement of the french battle rifle, which would culminate with the FA-MAS Type 62 (that never enterred service). French finally adopted the bullup FAMAS after the new 5,56mm cartrige appeared, cancelling the idea of a full-power rifle. The bullup configuration was chosed, but is it not known if the MAS 54B had any influence over the design of the french assault rifle.In total, 40 assault/battle rifles designs were proposed to the french army between the 50s and 1962.Rossignol ENT B1 mle 1900 Machine RifleThe ENT B1 is an obscure rifle developped during the late 1890s and early 1900s in France. In those day, France was experimentating Semi-Automatic rifle, in order to replace the Lebel modèle 1886-1893 bolt-action rifle.The Rossignol B1 was, apparently, originally a autloading rifle, which was developped into an automatic rifle around 1900. It used a new 6x60mm cartridge, allowing an high-velocity and a long effective point-blank range. It was fed by an detachable box magazine of unknown exact size (judging by the picture 10 to 20 rounds are likely), which could be reloaded by stripper clips. The machine rifle had a overall weight of 9.7kgThe ENT machine rifle variant also featured a bipod for substained fire and a shoulder rest on the stock. A quite interesting feature of the Rossignol rifle was it's operating: It used a gas direct-impingement system, which allowed lighter construction and reduced complexity (this system did not require a gas cylinder), but can cause easier fouling in some cases (altough most weapons using this system, such as the MAS 40, 44 and 49 rifles, had several ways to reduce fouling).The B1 rifle and machine rifle was followed by several improved prototypes, the B2, B3, B4 and B5. The Rossignol rifle was not adopted by the french army, as it had several issues which didn't allow it to become a standard-issue rifle, notably the cost of adopting a entirely new rifle and the weight. However, it was a truly revolutionnary weapon: It achieves the first recorded use of the gas-impingement system, which was later used on the french MAS 40, 44 and 49 aswell as the Swedish AG-42 Ljungman, and on which the M16's action is partially based. Thanks to the creation of both a semi-automatic and an automatic rifle version, it may aswell be the first battle system of history.Faucon Meunier A5 (pre-WW1) bullup semi-automatic rifleFrance is quite well-known in the world of bullups thanks to it's FAMAS, but few people knows one of the very first bullups of history was also French; the WW1 Faucon (Falcon) rifle.The Faucon was conceived by Captain Armand-Frédéric Faucon of the French Army's colonial infantry during 1908, being originally designated the "Fusil Equilibré" (Balanced Rifle). This design he developped was not a new rifle, but rather a new configuration, a special stock that could fit the internal mechanics of any rifle which isn't too large for the frame. The objective was to produce a rifle which would be easier to carry for the soldier, and even able to be fired accuractly on the move, while retaining the original rifle's performances.The Faucon was a bullup, and used a pistol grip similar to the Cauchat light machine-gun. It was just 101.6 centimeters long - The Lebel mle 1886/93 was 130.7.Trials were held with a mockup from 1909 to 1911, but the French army officials were not enthutiastic at all about Faucon's creation. To be fair, the Faucon still had a vast issue: It had a weight of 5.5kg, even more than the 4.4kg Lebel, which was already a very heavy rifle.Study of the Faucon was halted, but it started back during, apparently, 1918. Two Faucon stocks were fitted with mechanisms from Meunier semi-automatic rifles (interestingly enough, those appeared not to be from the somewhat mass-produced Meunier A6 and it's 7x59mm cartridge, but instead the A5 prototype and it's 6.5x61mm cartridge).The two Faucon-Meuniers were first presented in July of 1918. It is sometimes claimed a small batch of Faucon-Meuniers were produced and sent to the front in the last days of the war, but this appears pretty unlikely.Trials of the Faucon-Meuniers continued for some time after the war (at some point new Faucon stocks, with a more rectangular shape, were fitted:). They actually had pretty satisfactory results, as the shooters were usually less tired after a long firing session with a Faucon, than with a normal rifle; but this revolutionnary design was never adopted by the French Army. It is still one of the earliest record of a bullup design, if not the earliest;So, is that it ? Well, no. After reading all of this, you may think it’s a very weird french gun nut (who didn’t fire a round in his life, but whatever).But wait. There’s more. I also happen to be an Italian guns nut. And I also did similar short articles about some rare Italian firearms. I guess I could also post those here, so here we go; as with the French firearms, this will go from the least to the most obscure, from my observations.FNAB-43 submachine-gunThe FNAB-43 was conceived during 1942 ( patent "Scalori") as a high performance submachine-gun, to potentially replace the MAB 38. It used the same caliber and magazines as the previous machine-gun, but was meant to improve it in nearly every other way.The FNAB-43 would not be put into production untill Italy was split between the Facist and Royalists. Altough conceived by a Revelli engineer in Cremona, it was finally manufactured by the Fabbrica Nazionale Armi di Brescia, installed in, well, Brescia. The factory gave the FNAB's it's name.The FNAB-43 used a lever-delayed blowback action and fired from a closed bolt. A quite rare feature in WW2 submachine-guns, closed bolt is well-suited for accurate fire, but weapons using this sytem tend to overheat rather easily, and are rather complex, although If well-conceived, most overheating can be balanced. Thanks to the lever-delayed blowback action, the FNAB had a rate of fire of 400rpm which was frankly iow for a submachine-gun. A lot may think this iow rate of fire was an issue, but in practice, it really wasn't. In comparison to faster-firing submachine-guns, the FNAB was considerably more controllable, while having a rate of fire that was already sufficient for ground combat. The relatively high weight of the weapon (3.7kg) also helped keeping the recoil iow. The FNAB fired the classic 9x19mm Parabellum cartridge at a velocity of 381 m/s. Overall, the weapon was considered, thanks to the closed bolt, as very accurate, for a submachine-gun. Sights were provided for up to 500 meters. It could fire in both full automatic and semi-automatic modes thanks to a selectorMagazines were taken straight from the previous MAB-38, as those had no perticular problems. A quite innovative feature, they could be folded under the weapon itself, in order to make the FNAB even more compact. A similar way of thinking led to the addition of a retractable stock, which could eitheir be used to improve stability, or retracted to make the weapon handy for close-range combat or for transport. The muzzle break and compensator were built around the bareel, as on the famous PPsH-41.Overall, the FNAB-43 was considered as a successfull design. Altough not the best submachine-gun out of the RSI (this place would belong to the Armaguerra OG43), it was surely a high standard weapon, that could be most submachine-guns of WW2. However, the FNAB was rather complicated to produce, mainly because of the delayed-blowback action and closed bolt. Therefore, only a small number were produced: The most commonly used number if 7,000, but serial number found back were only ranging from 5,000 to 5,999. The weapons produced from 1944 to 1945 were distributed to RSI and German troops, and were, overall, well-liked.MAB 18 submachine-gunThe MAB 18 was developed from the Villar-Perosa aircraft weapon. This weapon was meant as an observator's defensive weapon, and was, in fact, more a combination of two guns than a single one. It fired 9x19mm Glisenti rounds at an enormous 3000 rounds per minute (1500 from each barrel).This weapon was first proven unsuccessfull as an aircraft weapon, because of it's limited range. However, it was used as an infantry support weapon, and it was tought it could be developed into an personnal weapon , by taking the mechanism of a single gun and putting it into the stock of old Vetterli rifles, creating the MAB 18 submachine-gun. This gave a new use to the old, obsolete Vetterli rifle and made production faster, as the stock was already avaible.The new weapon still retained mechanical changes in comparison to the Villar-Perosa: The rate of fire was reduced from 1500 to 900 rounds per minute, for the sake of controlability, and to avoid discharging the 25-rounds magazines (same as the Villar-Perosa) too fast. (900 rounds per minute was still a rather high rate of fire, the MP 18 fired at only 550 rpm). The barrel was exactly as long, with 32 centimeters, giving the same muzzle velocity of 365 m/s. The weapon itself had a lenght of 85.5 centimeters and a weight of aproximately 3.3 kilogramms, making it very handy and easy to carry (the MP 18 had a weight heavier of almost 1 kilo, for very close dimensions). A bayonet was fitted to the MAB 18, as it was considered neccessary by the offensive-minded Italian army. It was a foldable bayonet, as used on previous Carcano carbines, supressing the need of carrying a bayonet separated from the gun, while not risking accidental damages with the bayonet remaining forward when not in use.In terms of sight, the MAB 18 was equipped with iron sights ranging at up to 500 meters, which was rather overkill, considering this weapon (and submachine-gun in general) was rather inaccurate over 100 meters. (But considering how new the concept of submachine-gun was, the Italian army couldn't really be aware of that). As the Villar-Perosa, which had almost exactly the same mechanics, the MAB 18 used blowback action.Production of the MAB 18 started during late 1917, with the first examples being delivered to operationnal Arditi assault troops in July 1918. MP 18 were first delivered to German troops the same months, and it is unclear which of the two submachine-guns saw operationnal use first (although, most likely because of how popular Germany is, MP 18 remained, for most, as the "first submachine-gun of history"). The exact date of the end of MAB 18 production is unclear, although 1919 is most of the time accepted. A semi-automatic variant, the MAB 18/30, would emerge during 1930. It was meant for police use, and was used in such role by Argentina and possibly Italy.MAB 18 were kept operationnal during the interwar, and would see fire first during the Spanish Civil War and the Italian Conquest of Abyssinia, before being engaged during 1940-1941, when it was phased out. However, this weapon had a minor influence on the two World Wars, as only small numbers were produced (several thousands to several tens of thousands, at best). However, as the first operationnal submachine-gun alongside the MP 18, it had a considerable influence on latter designs.Breda modello 1935 PG (burst-firing) battle rifleThe Breda modello 1935 PG was conceived by Breda engineer Sestilio Fioriniduring the early 30s. By that time, the Regio Esercito was looking for a semi-automatic replacement to the old Carcano bolt-action rifle. This original PG rifle was firing the 6.5x52mm Carcano cartridge, in semi-automatic fire only. It already had a pretty vast box magazine (20 rounds)A feature of the PG was it's open bolt, which reduced overheating, allowing high volumes of fire, but also tend to quite reduce accuracy at long range. This was partially a consequence of Italy's doctrine, according to which most infantry fight would happen below 400 meters, with most under 200 (which was proved right during WW2). Overall the rifle could still be accurate at up to around 500 meters, which was largely sufficient. Sights were provided for up to 2000 meters nonethelessA default of the PG is that it was rather heavy, with 5.25kg loaded. On the other hand, it was rather compact for a rifle, with a lenght of 91 centimeters, while the bareel was 45.47 centimeters long. The weapon itself was gas-operatedAlthough rather modern and having an enormous capacity, the PG was not adopted by the Italian Army, mainly because it was very expensive and complex. (It did also have some issues: there were holes in the magazines so the soldier could see how many ammo remained, but it also allowed dust to enter in; the weight was also too important). However, an export variant was developped for Costa Rica, which saw interest in this rifle.The Costa Rican PG was modified to fire Costa Rica's standard rifle cartridge, the 7x57mm Mauser. Not only was the caliber changed, but the rifle was also given an impressive improvement in terms of volume of fire: From a simple semi-automatic, the PG was developped into a weapon able to fire 4-rounds bursts, and, according to some sources, in full automatic fire, while keeping semi-automatic capacity. This is the first recorded burst-firing firearm of history.Costa Rican modello 1935 PGThe 4-rounds burst ability was added for two main reason: First, the 7x57mm cartridge produced a recoil significantly more important than the Carcano cartridge, making the weapon inaccurate in full automatic fire. Second, it allowed to reduce ammunition consumption while keeping the advantage of firing multiple rounds. When firing in full-automatic mode, the Costa Rican PG had a rate of fire of 600 rpm. It was also modified to carry the same bayonet as Costa Rica's standard Mauser rifle.Overall, the Costa Rican PG was a huge improvement over the original, turning the Breda modello 1935 into one of the first true battle rifles of history. Only 400 were produced, as Costa Rica had both a small military and small funds. In the Costa Rican army, the PG supplemented the Mauser rifles, adding a quite considerable amount of firepower in the infantry.It should be noted that, while the original rifle in 6.5x52mm Carcano was never officially adopted by the italian military, several hundred of those semi-automatic rifles would be manufactured for the RSI (Italian Social Republic, facist Italy post-1943) during 1943 and 1944. The total number of Breda modello 1935 PG produced, in all variant, was of around 850 rifles, making it one of the rarest weapon of World War Two.Perino modello 1908 machine-gunThe Perino is the rarest italian machine-gun that saw service during WW1. It was developped by Giuseppe Perino, a technician of the italian cavalry's artillery, to serve as a mechanical-opered machine-gun. Perino worked with Maxim and Bergmann, and offered a prototype during 1903. It wasn't adopted by the italian military, which preferred to adopt an Maxim machine-gun during 1906. But Perino pursued work on his machine-gun, gaining reliability and quality. During 1908, as an effort to encourage national production, the Perino was adopted by the italian military. 150 were ordered, and built by Terni, with support from Maxim. Another variant, the modello 1910, but it wasn't accepted, as FIAT put pressure on the italian government;Here seen used by elite Arditis during WW1The Perino modello 1908 fired the standard italian rifle round, the 6.5x52mm Carcano, at a rate of fire of 450rpm. Inspired from Maxim's work, the Perino was water-cooled, and had a muzzle velocity of 700 m/s. The ammunitions were originally plate-fed, but some were later modified to be belt-fed. The weapon itself had a weight of 27kg, and the carriage added 56 other kilos. The modello 1910, which wasn't adopted, had a weight of only 17kg, which was quite admirable for a water-cooled machine-gunPrior to WW1, the 150 Perino built were used in fortifications on Italy's border. When the war broke out, the guns were taken out and used by the Arditi elite units against Austria-HungaryArmaguerra OG 43 & OG 44 submachine-gunsThe OG-43 was a high performing assault submachine-gun, developped by engineer Giovanni Oliani, from the arm manufacturers Revelli (which was re-named Armaguerra, but is more known as Revelli). It was made of compressed steel and was conceived to be higly performing in an short range, assault role; it was relatively short (72 centimeters, 47 if the stock was retracted) and had a front handle in order to help two-hands operationg (quite ironically the other handle is... the magazine). The weapon was relatively light, with 3.18kgThe OG-43 fired the 9x19mm Parabellum round at a quite good muzzle velocity of 480 m/s, and at a quite standard rate of fire of 500rpm. It offered an effective accuracy of 150 meters, which was more than acceptable for a submachine-gun. Magazines were the exact same as on the previous MAB 38 and could house 10, 20, 30 or 40 regarding the one which was used. As said previously, the magazine served as rear handle. The recoil spring was located in a cylinder just over the bareel. The OG-43 fired from an open bolt, which was great for automatic firing, and was able to perform both full-automatic and semi-automatic fire. Sights were provided for 100 and 200 meters, and it was judged useless to make some for further range (which was quite right; most WW2 fights happened at range closer than 200 meters).The OG-43 was designed during the last months of 1943, and offered to the facist government of Northern Italy. Considering how good it performed, the OG-43 was adopted, but couldnt enter in production (the italian industry was already producing several weapons, and considering the OG-43 was relatively complicated, it would be hard to start a new production line). In the end, and although a more "classic", yet very modern variant was designed (the OG-44), the OG-43 would remain a prototype of very little series weapon, which is a shame, considering how modern it was: It could actually hold it's ground against most early cold war submachine-gun, which is not the case of the more classic MP-40, MAB 38, STEN or PPsH. The OG-43 is sometimes even claimed to have been an inspiration for the Israeli Uzi, considered by a lot as the first "modern" submachine-gun.The OG-44 was a derivate of the previous OG-43. The OG-43 was revolutionnary... but too revolutionnary, actually. It used a very uncommon shape that could be very unfamiliar to soldiers and for the production processes. History would prove that the OG-43 had the right design, as the submachine-guns that followed had a quite similar architecture, and outclassed WW2 submachine-gun, but they couldn't be sure of that in 1944 Italy.The OG-44 used the same bareel, cartridge and firing mechanism as the OG-43: basically everything over the grip and magazine was left unchanged, outside of the stock: A new and more classic (but still retractable) wooden buttstock was added, aswell as a pistol grip (the previous OG-43 used it's magazine as a grip). The magazine was the same as the OG-43: Eitheir 10, 20, 30 or 40 rounds magazine straight from the previous MAB 38, or a new 25 rounds magazine. The overall lenght was incrased, with 787mm, aswell as the weight, which raised from 3.18 to a still acceptable 3.5kg. The firing performances were exactly the same: As said previously, the inside was nearly the same, it is the packaging that was really changed. If you want those, refer to the previous post, please.The OG-44 had the same fate as the 43: Considered as well-performing (and it was, but the 43 was even more) and adopted, but not put in production because starting a new production line would be too costly and complicated.Franchi LF-58 automatic carbine/assault rifleThe LF-58 was developped by the italian firm Franchi during the second half of the 50s, as a potential replacement for US M1 and M2 carbines, which were used and loved by Alpine Troops, but started to become obsolete in comparison to some other weapons (notably the AK-47). It used the same .30 carbine cartridge, and was partially inspired from the famous German STG 44The LF-58 was gas-operated firearm able of full automatic and semi-automatic fire. It use a gas-operated piston located over the bareel in order to launch the reloading process.A notable issue with the full-automatic M2 carbine was that the high rate of fire (750 rounds per minute) and the light weight caused the recoil to be far too important for accurate fire at close range. To solve this problem, the LF-58 was made heavier, but still lighter than a standard rifle (I was not able to find accurate statistics for this weapon's weight) and was fitted with a twin-hammer mechanism in order to reduce the rate of fire to a more manageable but still great 520 rounds per minute. Magazines were rather similar to the carbines's ones, but curved, and could house eitheir 15 or 30 roundsThe LF-58 could be fitted eitheir with a wooden stock or a lighter, "empty" metallic stock, which could be folded to make the weapon more compact or, at very close ranges, practical.Although a handy and effective weapon, the LF-58 would end up not being adopted by the Italian army for two main reason.First, a few months before the carbine was realeased, it was decided to adopt a standard NATO cartridge, the 7.62x51mm. Second, the italian army lacked funds for the adoption of a entirely new weapon. This would be very noticeable during 1959, when the Esercito Italiano had to choose the BM-59, a full-automatic and NATO derivate of the Garand, instead of the more performing, but also more expensive, Franchi LF-59 (which was of a quality so great it was compared to the Belgian best-seller FAL)Cei Rigotti automatic/battle rifleThis weapon was developped by the Bersaglieri Captain Amerigo Cei Rigotti during the 1890s. It was a rifle, originally firing 6.5 x52mm Mannlicher-Carno cartridge. The Cei Rigotti could fire both in semi-automatic (Wich was already pretty damn modern at that time) and full automatic mode. It could have a 20 or even 50 rounds clips, arguably making it the first Battle Rifle of history. At maximum rate, it could fire 900 rounds a minute.The Cei Rigotti was first presented during 1900. In addition to it's excellent firepower, it also had a reliability wich was rather nice for a early semi-automatic: The original prototype fired 300 rounds without stopping before beraking down, and the conditions were pretty bad (It was June in Rome, the temperature was hot). In comparison to the Carcano, it was a bit heavier, with 4.3kg, but much more compact (Around the size of a carbine).The Cei Rigotti wasn't adopted by the Regio Esercito, mainly because of it's complexity. It was still tried by the Royal Navy, Russia, and even Austria and Hungary after the war (The Hungarian version was chambered in 7.65x53mm Mauser), but never accepted by one of those countries.Scotti “ultra-light” aircraft machine-gunVery few informations are avaible on this italian machine-gun prototype, outside that it was made of a alloy of magnesium designated "Electron". Without the magazine, it had a weight of only 4.5kg, which was quite admirable for a machine-gun. I was unable to find any further informations, outside of the fact that this machine-gun was meant to be used on aircrafts.Scotti Anticarro anti-tank rifleThe Scotti Anticarro was developped at an unknow time between 1935 and 1943; the most plausible if for me 1937 to 1941. It fired a 8x99mm cartridge, which was based on two different cartridges: The case was the one of the 13x99mm Hotchkiss heavy machine-gun cartridge, and the core itself was from the 8x59mm Breda machine-gun cartridge, introduced in 1935 and used by Breda aircraft machine-guns. The cartridge used in Anticarro bullets was the Breda's anti-armor ones.The rifle itself was a bolt action, with a most likely 5-rounds magazine. A more clear picture of the bolt:show it is different from the Carcano rifle's one, which make the Scotti anticarro completly independant from Italy's standard rifle. The exact lenght of the Scotti Anticarro is unknown, but a picture comparing it to the German Kar98K show it is significantly longerThe performances of the Scotti Anticarro are, apparently, impossible to find on the net. This rifle is most likely a prototype; The 1937-1941 era is, for me, the most plausible era when this rifle was developped (1937: After the first experiences of the Spanish Civil War, Italy realizes it lack anti-tank armament, and 1941, the tanks fielded on all front, including the North African one, become too armored for anti-tank rifles)That’s pretty much everything I can give you in terms of obscure firearms. There are, of course, much more; Even in terms or French or Italian weapons, there are some I left out, because my articles were too old and basically hilariously bad, because I didn’t write something about those back in the days, or simply because I never hard of them. And remember than those are only two countries. There are a lot more which developped their own firearms. Even some that you wouldn’t expect (For example, while Bulgaria mainly used foreign-made weapons for it’s entire history, some very obscure prototypes were actually developped by Bulgarian engineers; same goes for quite a lot of countries, actually)If you want to hear more about uncommon weapons, i’ll recommend you check out Forgotten Firearms’s youtube channel (from which you can also find a link to their website): Forgotten WeaponsAnd if you really want to find the most obscure things possible… I could recommend you to check your jmantime’s channel. Those videos are not as well made as Forgotten Weapons (though i’m not well placed to say that, as I couldn’t do better), nor do they go deeply into details about mentionned firearms… However, in some (such as the one about “rare weapons” of each country), there were weapons of which litterally no other reference could be found on Internet. If you are really, really into obscure stuff, then i’ll recommend you to check it out.jmantime