AK-53

     Notes:  I decided to include this weapon not because it was used in any great numbers (or any numbers at all), but because it is so weird.   The AK-53 is the only working example of a blow-forward automatic rifle.  When the rifle is fired, the barrel moves forward and back instead of the bolt.  This means that the overall length of the weapon is quite short despite a long barrel, but it also means that the firer’s aim can be easily thrown off.  It also lends itself to rapid barrel heating, which in the case of the AK-53, usually means that the remaining rounds in the weapon cook off, and then the reciprocating barrel jams in its sleeve until it cools again.  Needless to say, SiG could not get anyone interested in the AK-53 and it rapidly became a museum piece.

B-20

     Notes: This Czech battle rifle looks like a reworked AK, but in fact uses a form of delayed blowback instead of the gas operation of the AK series.  It also uses a larger caliber.  The B-20 is the variant of the B-10/20/30/40 series that seems to be the least in demand, though sales of the entire series is very low.

     Twilight 2000 Notes: The B-20 was often used in the Twilight War by Czech special forces operating behind enemy lines, since it could use captured enemy ammunition.  In the Twilight 2000 World, a version of the B-20 was also designed to use 7.62mm Nagant ammunition.  It was otherwise in very limited issue. 

Birdman Weapon Systems M-82B1K-PDW

     Appears in: This weapon is an internet hoax, but I have included it as a "what-if."  The site for “Birdman Weapon Systems” can be seen at http://www.birdman.org.

     Notes: The M-82B1K-PDW is a drastically chopped version of the Barrett M-82 heavy sniper rifle, with a barrel about 1/10^th the length of the standard Barrett M-82A1, a shortened, sliding stock, an M-16A2-style pistol grip front and back, and a different muzzle brake. It received some acceptance from special operations communities, who value it for its ability as a close assault weapon able to shoot through walls, doors, and armor, but most buyers were exotic weapons collectors and heavy-caliber firearm enthusiasts.  

Charlton Machinegun

     Weapon Type: Battle Rifle

     Notes: This odd weapon was the result of a need to arm New Zealand’s World War 2 Home Guard with automatic weapons in a hurry, while allowing more modern weapons to be put into the hands of the actual New Zealander troops.  After the Japanese takeover of Singapore and the attack on Pearl Harbor, it was felt that it was only a matter of time before the Japanese went after Australia and New Zealand, and New Zealand had an acute shortage of small arms of all kinds. 

     Philip Charlton actually began his work before World War 2; he had seen the engineering drawings of the work of GT Buckham and AT Dawson in England for their conversion of Lee-Enfield-type rifles to semiautomatic, and decided to improve on their work and come up with semiautomatic conversion of his own.  Then he took it one step further, converting the Lee-Enfield into a selective-fire weapon.  The resulting Charlton Machinegun was actually an incredible piece of engineering; the even more incredible part was that the conversion not only worked, it worked quite well.  The Lee-Enfield was converted from a bolt-action rifle to a gas-operated selective fire weapon (with an extremely low automatic cyclic rate of only 250 rpm), though it took until 1941 before Charlton was ready for full-scale conversion work.  He expected to be able to convert 200 Lee-Enfields per month; the actual rate of conversion was considerably lower, however.  Only 1500 such conversions were actually accomplished by the end of World War 2; this was mostly because Charlton was also tasked with the production of the higher-priority Owen submachinegun.

     Other changes went into the stock, which was given a pistol grip as well as a foregrip, in addition, the buttstock was modified slightly (the stock had to be lowered to clear the modified action), the rear third of the barrel was given cooling fins, sights were modified, and the magazine well was changed to take a modified Bren magazine was well as being still able to use a Lee-Enfield magazine.  The fore-end was also shortened to allow more cooling of the barrel and fit the gas operation, with the foregrip being attached to the gas tube shroud.  Barrel length was also slightly modified, and the barrel was also tipped with a muzzle brake.  The Charlton Machinegun could not take a bayonet, but a clip-on bipod could be added.

     After World War 2, the Charlton Machineguns were stored in a New Zealand military armory, without any of them having seen any actual combat.  In the late 1940s, that armory burned to the ground, with less than 200 of the Charlton Machineguns surviving the fire.  These were used for some years for training purposes, and then most of them were destroyed.  Today, very few of them are still around, and most of those are in museums.

     Twilight 2000 Notes (sort of): The Charlton Machinegun illustrates what sort of expedient weapons could be made during the Twilight War; it also shows that virtually any sort of small arm can be made over into an automatic or selective-fire weapon, given enough work.  This is the sort of “Frankenweapon” I would imagine would crop up all over the world in the Twilight 2000 timeline.

ISA Rail Gun Rifle

     Appears in: Several of the later Dale Brown books, including Warrior Class.

     Weapon Type: Battle Rifle/Sniper Rifle

     Fictional Notes: This weapon, probably developed by Dr. Jon Masters’ company of Sky Masters, is a radical departure and advance over present-day firearms.  Those who are familiar with the original Traveller RPG will recognize it immediately as an early version of the Gauss Rifle, a firearm that does not use chemical propellants to fire its rounds, but instead uses a charge of electromagnetism, similar to the manner in which a mag-lev train moves.  This causes the round to move at extremely high velocity, and be very destructive.  This also means that the entire round can be fired out of the barrel, with no cases remaining and allowing for a larger bullet.  And the bullets fired by the rail gun rifle are huge – about as large as a modest-sized cigar.  The rail gun rifle is large (over six feet long) and heavy, and one really needs the augmentation of a BERP suit (more on this, one of these days…) to handle it in a fluid combat situation, but it also makes a really good antimaterial rifle or sniper’s weapon. The magazines themselves weigh 2.45 kilograms, and include a battery pack to power the rifle’s electromagnets; a single round weighs 26.5 grams.  The weapon normally uses the sensors in the helmet of the BERP suit, but a special electronic sight may also be added, similar to that on an OICW.

     These guns were originally designed for use by the US ISA (Intelligence Support Agency) for use in their support of the CIA and military’s operations.  There are probably less then 20 in the world, total.

*Penetration against vehicles (armored or otherwise) or other structures is 10/9/7/5.

Madsen LAR m/62

     Appears in: An attempt by Madsen to produce a battle/assault rifle for domestic use and export, in the late 1950s.

     Weapon Type: Battle Rifle

     Notes:  After World War 2, the firm of Madsen tried to enter the NATO rifle competition with the m/62 (also known as the LAR, Light Automatic Rifle, or Madsen A-Carbine).  The m/62 was a very high-quality weapon with gas operation similar to that of the FN FAL (though developed independently) and a rotating bolt.  The original versions had no muzzle device except for being shaped to allow the use of the rifle grenades of the period.  The receiver was of advanced construction for the period, being made from high-strength aluminum alloy.  The bore, chamber, and part of the gas system were chrome-plated.  The 20.6-inch barrel was free-floating, something quite unusual in a rifle meant for general use.  The pistol grip handguard were made from wood, while the barrel shroud was of ventilated sheet steel.  The m/62 was originally designed with a folding steel-strut stock with a folding buttplate which folded to the side; versions were also designed with fixed wood stocks, sliding steel stocks, and fixed tubular metal stocks.  The m/62 could accept standard Danish bayonets of the period as well as a new bayonet designed for it, and also had a detachable bayonet which clipped to the bayonet scabbard when not in use.  Sights are simple aperture and post sights, with the rear aperture sight being adjustable and able to be flipped up or down.  The front sight post was protected by a ring.  The m/62 had a straight-line configuration, which made high-mounted sights necessary, but reduced felt recoil.  A muzzle brake was also designed for the m/62 for testing purposes, but Madsen decided it wouldn’t be used on future production weapons since the brake made it impossible to use the rifle grenades of the period.

     The m/62 was originally designed to fire the new (at the time) 7.62mm NATO round, using a proprietary 20-round magazine.  However, in an effort to attract Finnish customers (who were looking for a new infantry weapon at the time), they designed a version firing 7.62mm Kalashnikov ammunition and able to accept standard AK-47, AKM and RPK-type magazines.  The muzzle was re-designed to accept the types of rifle grenades the Finns used at the time.  (None were supplied with muzzle brakes.)  The Finns actually seriously considered adopting the m/62, and a version with the side-folding stock went through operational testing in small numbers in Finland in 1960.  In the end, however, they elected to go with their own version of the AKM.

     Unfortunately, the m/62 was essentially a victim of the market forces of its time – first prototypes appeared in 1957, and Madsen did not consider the m/62 market-ready until 1962.  By this time, it faced fierce competition from other NATO 7.62mm weapons – especially from the FAL, G-3, and CETME all of which had already been on the international market for several years.  Madsen realized the m/62 was never going to turn a profit.  Despite rumors of its use by some special operations and mercenary units, it was never officially used anywhere.  Despite this, reports of its use surfaced here and there in the world for several decades, always in very small numbers.  Despite the high quality, uncomplicated design, and reliability of the m/62, it never got a toehold in the international marketplace, and Madsen abandoned sales attempts in 1965.

     Note that on the combat portion of the tables below, the 7.62mm NATO versions with folding and sliding stocks are identical for game purposes, and the versions with fixed wooden and metal stocks are identical for game purposes.

Rukavishnikov SVR-38

     Notes: This was a competitor to rifles like the AVS-36 and SVT-38/40.  The rifle developed by Rukavishnikov was well-made, with machined steel parts, a pistol grip stock, a wooden handguard, and sheet-steel protectors over the gas system.  The testing authorities criticized the SVR-38 as unwieldy and cumbersome; however, the real strike against the rifle seems to have been the cost and time it took to manufacture, despite the quality of the weapon.  As a result, the SVR-38 was rejected after only 5 rifles were built.  It remains an interesting rifle, though.

Springfield T-20E2 Garand

     Notes: The T-20E2 was to be a selective-fire variant of the M-1 Garand battle rifle.  The genesis of the T-20E2 began in September of 1944; at that time, preparations were being made for an invasion of Japan (and the Manhattan Project was still a well-kept secret).  Springfield Armory first responded with the T-20 (with the modifications designed by John Garand himself), but it was essentially a technical mess that had mechanical problems as well as excessive recoil, extreme heating of the barrel (which was uncomfortable for the shooter during sustained fire even through the wooden handguard), and later, a muzzle brake which prevented the use of a bayonet or rifle grenade launcher attachment.  Needless to say, it was not accepted by the War Department, but it did serve to teach Springfield some valuable lessons of how not to go about the conversion.

     Remington was also asked by the War Department to submit its own modified M-1 Garand, which was designated the T-22, T-23, and T-24.  The T-23 and T-24 were essentially meant to prove that the idea of converting the M-1 to selective fire was possible; the T-22 was the version that Remington actually carried to (nearly) full development.  Like the T-20, it was fed by a modified BAR magazine, and it also encountered the same feed problems as the T-20 (later traced to the modifications made to the BAR magazines).  The T-22 was actually a reasonably-viable design; with a little more work, it could have been the needed selective-fire version of the M-1.  Remington’s biggest problem was actually with the War Department; they essentially wanted an unrealistically light weapon with unrealistically low felt recoil and unrealistically few modifications of the standard M-1 (to make production easier and allow rebuilding of existing M-1s); the War Department’s expectations essentially made Remington’s task impossible.  (Ironically, a few months later, with the projected invasion of Japan looming ever larger, the T-22 would probably have been accepted.)

     Springfield’s work on the T-20, along with shared experience from Remington gained from their T-22, led them to the T-20E1.  The operating system was vastly simplified, yet still quite similar to that of the standard M-1 Garand.  Springfield also solved (for the most part) the barrel heat problem with a pair of simple heat flow arresting grooves cut into the barrel at the chamber, allowing heat to disperse far more evenly.  Though at first the T-20E1 used the same modified BAR magazine, new purpose-designed magazines were eventually used instead, once the feed problems had been traced to the modified BAR magazine.  A folding bipod (not designed for removal in the field) was added at the gas cylinder.  The T-20E1 was almost right; Aberdeen Proving Grounds and Springfield suggested several changes, which would lead to the definitive T-20E2 version.

     The T-20E2 version differed primarily in the use of a slightly-modified receiver, an improved feeding and extraction mechanism, a muzzle brake which also allowed the attachment of a rifle grenade launcher and a bayonet, drilling and tapping for a telescopic sight, a modified bipod (still not field-detachable), a more ergonomic magazine release, and a few other small changes.  The only problem the War Department had with the T-20E2 had was the weight of a fully-loaded T-20E2, and they decided to ignore that.  The T-20E2 was therefore deemed ready for limited production in May 1945.

     Unfortunately, by the time tooling-up was completed, it was literally days before the atomic bombing Hiroshima.  Suddenly, the T-20E2 was no longer considered such a priority, and funds to produce the T-20E2 basically dried up and blew away.  Almost no T-20E2s were built in their final form, and apart from about 5 of those and the prototypes, no other T-20E2s were built. 

     All that work proved not to be in vain, however.  Springfield continued tinkering with the T-20E2, even developing a prototype chambered for the 7.62mm T-65 cartridge (which later became the 7.62mm NATO cartridge).  Most of this work helped or directly led to the M-14 battle rifle, which the US military adopted in 1957.

Springfield T-26 “Tanker” Garand

     Notes: The first thing I want to say in this entry is there is no such thing as a Tanker Garand.

     Now that I’ve probably confused you, considering the title of this section, let’s get to the meat.  The T-26 was in fact never called the “Tanker” Garand, and was never intended to arm tank crews or any sort of vehicle crews.  The “Tanker” appellation was a marketing ploy that was used much later (more on that below).  I used the name in the title of this entry simply because it is the name that this variation of the Garand is best known by, even though it is inaccurate.

     The T-26 was originally the result of two ideas that gelled together: a smaller, carbine version of the M-1 Garand for use by airborne troops, and a shorter, easier to handle Garand for use by US Marines and Army troops in the thick jungles of the Pacific. The test rifles were modified from existing M-1 Garands, and most sources say that only three such conversions were made.  One is in the Springfield Armory’s museum, one was re-made into a standard M-1 Garand and issued back out to some unknown soldier, and the other was reportedly destroyed during testing at Aberdeen Proving Grounds.  The modified rifles had shortened 18-inch barrels and a gas system modified for the shorter barrel length.  The results were unsatisfactory: a muzzle that spouted a blinding gout flame two feet long, markedly greater recoil, and of course, less accuracy.

     That said, it is relatively easy to find a “Tanker Garand” for sale these days.  And they’re all fakes.  (The “Tanker” name was coined in the 1950s by some arms dealer that thought it would improve sales – and it did.)  Some are stocked, some have pistol grips, some have folding stocks – but they’re all fake, every one of them.  If you’ve ever bought a “genuine Tanker Garand” or something like that, you’ve been taken, and you go to the gun dealer who sold it to you and give him a solid butt stroke to the chin with butt of that fake Tanker Garand.  The only genuine T-26 is in Springfield’s museum, it’s priceless, and they’re not giving it up.