Defense Articles

THE U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency has been safely eliminating America’s stockpile of chemical weapons since 1990, and has reached a milestone with the destruction of half of its stockpile of chemical munitions. This accounts for more than 1.7 million munitions in the original stockpile.

“We’ve overcome many obstacles to reach this 50-percent milestone and are on the downhill slope moving closer to the overall goal of getting rid of all of the chemical weapons in the U.S. stockpile,” said Kevin Flamm, program manager for elimination of chemical weapons.

The United States produced a variety of chemical weapons from World War I through 1973 in an effort to deter other countries from using chemical weapons on U.S. troops. The most common agents the Army made were the mustard blister agent and two nerve agents, sarin–also known as (GB)–and VX. Mustard agent produces severe burns and can be fatal, while satin and VX are potent nerve agents that can kill within minutes by attacking the central nervous system.

Although commonly referred to as gasses–because during World War I some chemical weapons were dispersed as vapors–these agents are liquids, each with different physical characteristics.

In the early 1970s the Army began researching ways to safely eliminate the national stockpile to reduce the risks associated with aging weapons. During this time the Army destroyed some of its chemical weapons by incinerating and neutralizing them.

Current efforts to eliminate the U.S. stockpile began in 1986 when Congress required the safe destruction of the entire stockpile, in keeping with a law that predates the Chemical Weapons Convention by more than a decade. Two years later, in 1988, the Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program was formed to better prepare nearby civilian communities for any potential chemical-stockpile accident.

By teaming the Army and the Department of Homeland Security, CSEPP provides funding for chemical-accident response equipment and warning systems. It also oversees yearly community-wide emergency preparedness exercises at all of the stockpile sites, and works with communities to provide training that will help residents respond appropriately to a chemical-stockpile incident.

America’s 1997 ratification of the CWC provided additional impetus for the destruction program. As a signatory, the United States agreed to comply with requirements to stop producing, stockpiling or transferring chemical weapons, and also agreed to do its part to eliminate the entire chemical-weapon stockpiles of all signatory nations. As of 2006 officials of more than 170 countries had signed the treaty.

In 1990 the Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System, the U.S. Army’s first disposal facility, began disposing of the U.S. chemical-weapon stockpile stored on the island, which is about 800 miles southwest of Hawaii.

The pilot facility completed its mission in 2000 after eliminating the more than 412,000 chemical weapons stored on the island. Today, Johnston Atoll is a wildlife refuge, providing habitat for endangered and threatened waterfowl and marine species.

Another chemical-stockpile site, CMA’s disposal facility at the Edgewood Area of Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., completed disposal of the entire Edgewood Area mustard-agent stockpile in 2006.

This was the first facility within the continental United States to completely destroy its stockpile.

Other states with chemical-weapon stockpiles and accompanying disposal facilities include Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Oregon and Utah. In addition, weapons are also stockpiled in Kentucky and Colorado, where disposal facilities are in the design phase as Department of Defense disposal projects.

“With our teams working across the country, we are able to move forward, knowing that we will reach 100 percent destruction in a safe and environmentally sound way. We remain dedicated to eliminating the national stockpile while protecting our communities,” said CMA Director Michael Parker.

Parker said not only does CMA have the chemical-weapon storage and disposal mission, but at the Pine Bluff Arsenal in Arkansas CMA provides specialized products and services that support Soldiers. The arsenal produces, renovates and stores more than 60 types of special conventional ammunition products.

These products include munitions for smoke, non-lethal, riot control, incendiary, illumination and infrared uses. PBA is also the only facility in the Western Hemisphere with the capability to fill white-phosphorous munitions.

The remaining U.S. chemical-weapon stockpile includes bombs, rockets, mortars, projectiles, land mines and spray tanks filled with blister agent or one of the nerve agents.

Argie Sarantinos-Perrin works for URS Coleman under contract with the Chemical Materials Agency.

Universal Guardian Holdings Inc. (OTCBB:UGHO), a homeland security and defense technology company is pleased to announce the formation and launch of a new non-lethal technology subsidiary. Shield Defense Corp., the new subsidiary, plans to introduce a series of non-lethal products over the next few months that can effectively incapacitate assailants from zero to more than 300 feet. Shield Defense Corp. has appointed Dennis Cole as president due to his background as a former chief of police, sheriff’s captain, SWAT commander and an internationally recognized non-lethal and chemical agents expert. The company plans to leverage professional user credibility for release to the private security and consumer markets.

“Shield Defense Corporation non-lethal weapons provide safe, accurate and effective alternatives to deadly force to subdue assailants in a number of sensitive environments, ranging from airplanes and airline terminals, homes or autos, crowded shopping centers, to checkpoints in Iraq,” said Michael Skellern, chairman and CEO of Universal Guardian. “A lethal weapon in an airplane or automatic weapon in a crowded airport or shopping center is a prescription for disaster.”

President Dennis Cole stated, “Professional and consumer markets are increasingly demanding more effective methods to defuse civil unrest and subdue criminals without causing permanent injury to law enforcement personnel, innocent bystanders, homeowners, or criminals.” Cole also remarked, “With more than 5 million police officers worldwide and over 120 million households in the United States alone, the potential market for Shield Defense non-lethal products is well defined and very sizeable.”

About Shield Defense Corp.

Shield Defense Corp., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Universal Guardian Holdings, Inc., designs and produces non-lethal weapons and projectiles that are designed for use in environments where mobility, accuracy, and dependability are paramount, and meet existing consumer, homeland security, military and law enforcement use of force requirements. Shield Defense non-lethal weapons will provide military commanders with a variety of offensive and defensive options to address appropriate threat conditions in today’s growing security and terrorist environment.

About Universal Guardian Holdings Inc.

Universal Guardian Holdings Inc. (UGHO), and its subsidiary corporations provide products, systems, and services to mitigate security and terrorist threats worldwide. From integrated and intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance systems and interoperable command and control platforms to non-lethal weapons, UGHO companies cover a wide range of security applications and markets, merging cost-effective technology and ease of use, to secure entire threat environments. The U.S. Navy assigned its non-lethal projectile patent to UGHO.

Safe Harbor Statement

In conjunction with the provisions of the Safe Harbor section of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, this news release contains certain forward-looking statements pertaining to future anticipated projected plans, performance and developments, as well as other statements relating to future operations and results. Any statements in this news release that are not statements of historical fact may be considered to be forward-looking statements. Written words such as “may,” “will,” “expect,” “believe,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “intends,” “goal,” “objective,” “seek,” “attempt,” or variations of these or similar words, identify forward-looking statements. These statements by their nature are estimates of future results only and involve substantial risks and uncertainties, including those detailed from time to time in Universal Guardian Holdings Inc.’s reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. There can be no assurance that actual results will not differ materially from expectations.

Universal Guardian Holdings, Inc. (OTCBB:UGHO), a provider of integrated homeland security and personal defense solutions, today announced its 2004 strategic plans to increase its focus and investments in multi-dimension non-lethal and less-lethal weapons program through its subsidiary, Shield Defense Corporation. Shield Defense Corporation’s new product range offers law enforcement, military, and consumers effective non-lethal and less-lethal defense products designed for a multitude of threat environments

Shield Defense Corp.’s defense product portfolio include Cobra StunLight(TM), a patent-pending ruggedized flashlight, delivering a high-pressure stream of debilitating chemical deterrent and LED light source integrated with laser targeting; a U.S. Navy patented non-lethal projectile system and projectile launcher pistol; and a patented amplified acoustic device, called The Acoustic Defender.

Cobra StunLight(TM)

In October of 2003, Universal Guardian submitted its application to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for its proprietary non-lethal flashlight, Cobra StunLight(TM). The Cobra StunLight(TM) flashlight is a non-lethal, ruggedized flashlight that uses high-intensity LED light source and a built-in laser aiming device to identify and mark its target. Users of this device can defend themselves within 21 feet of their assailant by releasing high-pressure chemical stream through the flashlight. This device can accurately and effectively target and temporarily blind and paralyze attackers, while enabling users to remain at a safer distance.

“The Cobra StunLight is a breakthrough development for non-lethal defense products. Military, security guards, law enforcement officials and individuals can use this product for applications ranging from self-defense to crowd control, while minimizing the accidental death that is caused by today’s less-lethal weapon products,” stated Michael Skellern, CEO of Universal Guardian Holdings.

Python Projectile Launcher

The Python Projectile Launcher, a non-lethal semi-automatic pistol, has been developed, based on the exclusive licensing of U.S. Navy’s non-lethal frangible projectile patent that was assigned to Universal Guardian. The Python Projectile Launcher has the capacity of 10-shots or 180-round carbine and can be supplied with a laser aiming device for better precision and accuracy. This launcher has an exceptional and effective range for a 9 inch circle at a 54 plus feet distance.

“Our law enforcement and military personnel are increasingly called upon to manage volatile situations without the potential for escalation and accidental death of using live firearms. The Python Projectile Launcher is a versatile, effective tool for a wide variety of law enforcement and crowd control scenarios. This product meets the increasing demand for cost effective methods for individuals to protect themselves, while keeping their families safe from lethal weapons,” commented Michael Skellern.

“Universal Guardian continues to strengthen its relationships with the U.S. Navy and remains in good standing on this license,” stated Michael J. Skellern.

The projectile patent, No. 6145441, assigned to Universal Guardian by the U.S. Secretary of Navy, is an exclusive licensing agreement for 20 years, starting in 1998, that includes the right to six different projectiles based on, PAVA or OC Powder, Olfactory Stimuli, Inert Liquid, Glass Shattering, Marking and Kinetic Impact.

The Acoustic Defender

The Acoustic Defender is a patented amplified acoustic device that delivers clear and audible broadcast warnings in any language at ranges up to 1,000 yards, and can be used as non-lethal use-of-force to debilitate an intruder at ranges from a few feet to 150 yards. Product applications include security perimeters around military bases, port facilities and national borders.

“Shield Defense products are designed to offer professionals and consumers the right non-lethal product for the right situation at the greatest standoff distance possible,” stated Dennis Cole, President of Shield Defense Corporation.

“We believe our immediate non-lethal and less-lethal products provide tremendous growth opportunities for us,” commented Michael Skellern. “Universal Guardian Holdings is in the process of negotiating the manufacturing of its projectiles and launchers with contract manufacturers in the U.S. and Asia. Concurrently, we are working to develop the sales and marketing channels to bring these products to the law enforcement, military and consumer markets worldwide.”

About Shield Defense Corporation

Shield Defense Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Universal Guardian Holdings, Inc., designs and produces non-lethal weapons and projectiles that are designed for use in environments where mobility, accuracy, and dependability are paramount, and meet existing consumer, homeland security, military and law enforcement use-of-force requirements. Shield Defense non-lethal weapons will provide military commanders with a variety of offensive and defensive options to address appropriate threat conditions in today’s growing security and terrorist environment.

WASHINGTON–A representative of the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) recently told the U.S. Congress that the Export-Import Bank (Eximbank) should have the flexibility to finance the export of U.S. non-lethal, dual-use products used primarily for civilian purposes.

At a hearing of the House Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs Committee’s Subcommittee on International Development, Finance, Trade and Monetary Policy, AIA vice president-international Joel Johnson said restrictions on Eximbank encourage countries to purchase dual-use products from competitors or duplicate their commercial and military expenditures. He indicated this is occurring at a time of declining U.S. defense budgets, when major defense contractors and their subsidiary companies are looking for commercial applications on their products and technologies.

“Many governemtns face stringent financial limitations on their defense and civilian budgets, and cannot afford to have separate infrastructures to support civilian and defense needs… This is likely to mean that in many cases, items developed for commercial purposes will be acquired overseas by governments to perform both defense and civilian functions.”

Recommended legislation would modify the Bank’s charter to clarify that nonlethal dual-use products, which will be mainly used for civilian activities in a particular application, should be eligible for Eximbank programs. Mr. Johnson warned the time was right to discuss the issue as it would intensify over the near term for several reasons, such as conversion strategies and budget restraints.

With U.S. defense budget cutbacks, defense companies and subsidiaries are looking for commercial applications of their products and technologies. “Many in Congress and the administration have encouraged them to do so… A number of companies are succeeding, particularly in areas closely related to products and technology they are already producing, such as air traffic control, surveillance, night vision, communications, simulation, and data processing. Defense firms are being urged to look at commercial technologies and incorporate them into military applications as ways to reduce both development and procurement costs. This trend is likely to continue, and in the same kinds of areas….”

He added that in many high-tech areas, the commercial sector is driving technology and “given the increasingly short product cycles of such commercial products, the military will increasingly have to turn to the commercial sector for its needs. This is likely to mean that in many cases, items developed for commercial purposes will be acquired overseas by governments to perform both defense and civilian functions.”

In addition, with many governments facing stringent financial limits on their defense and civilian budgets, they cannot afford to have separate infrastructures to support civilian and defense needs. “Thus a country contemplating an upgrade to its commercial air traffic control system may also want that system to serve an air defense purpose…the prime operator of such systems may be a civilian or military agency,” Mr. Johnson said. “Particularly in developing countries…the military often performs functions that are handled by civilian government organizations or the private sector in industrial countries.”

Mr. Johnson made the point that even if a new and separate export financing guarantee program for defense products were to be established, the issue of how Eximbank should deal with dual-use items would still need to be addressed.

“An air traffic control system, for example, which would be used on a day-to-day basis to land commercial aircraft, but which would also serve as part of an air defense system, would most logically be financed by Eximbank, not by a defenseoriented guarantee facility. Eximbank has extensive experience in financing air traffic control systems, and in evaluating whether a potential buyer was structuring the program in a way that would likely generate the income stream needed to pay off the loan. This is not the kind of analysis that would be conducted by a facility oriented toward defense equipment,” he said.

Political support may be a problem, however. Mr. Johnson said industry believes it ought to be possible to provide Eximbank with more discretion to provide financing for dual-use products, while assuring that the bank maintains its commercially focused character. Many members of Congress have made clear their belief that Eximbank should restrict its programs to supporting the export of U.S. commercial products. There is thus some apprehension in the industry that it would be difficult to define a range of dual-use products or applications which would be eligible for Eximbank financing. “Such a definition should assure that U.S. exporters are not shut out of legitimate commercial markets, while at the same time protecting the bank’s current and future public support,’ he said.

Another concern is the question of the bank’s resources, and whether expanding the bank’s mandate might reduce the loans and guarantees available for current users. “We do not believe this is likely to be a problem,” Mr. Johnson said. “The volume and value of products which fall into the current gray area is not large, and is likely to involve activities already financed by the bank. For example, in 1993, the bank financed four air traffic control projects, which is the product area most likely to immediately benefit from a change in the bank’s charter. Adding another system or two a year would not be a major resource problem,” he said.

“I helped her out of a jam, I guess, but I used a little loo much force.”

Bob Dylan, “Tangled Up in Blue” 1974

I. INTRODUCTION

The governmental mechanisms that exercise a state’s physical coercive power-various cadres of military and law enforcement agencies-often face a difficult dilemma. In confrontations with recalcitrant opposing forces, the authorities must recognize that if they exercise too much power, they incur an unacceptable danger of “collateral damage,” unintended casualties to civilians and unnecessary destruction of valuable property. On the other hand, if they exercise too little power, they may risk the safety of their own personnel and compromise the accomplishment of an important and legitimate mission.

In recent years, this dilemma has arisen with painful frequency inside the United States and elsewhere. Officials increasingly express frustration at having only an impoverished array of tools at their disposal, especially regarding confrontations in which the specific target of the police or military forces is intermingled with civilians or innocent bystanders. Government actors may have only “bullhorns or bullets” to choose from; if emphatic verbal instructions and warnings do not suffice, the only recourse official forces have is the application of deadly force, which often cannot be applied with anything like the desired surgical precision.

This Article presents that dilemma in the context of the imminent development of a novel toolkit of so-called “non-lethal weapons” (NLW), which promise to radically alter the existing Hobson’s choice. These armaments-a wide range of technologies, new and old, incorporating different types of physical mechanisms, capable of both anti-personnel and anti-materiel operations-seek to provide a viable intermediate capability, for the first time affording governmental actors additional options in volatile situations. These emerging capabilities include a breathtaking array of devices such as enhancements of the traditional “rubber bullets”; foam sprays that make a surface either impossibly slippery or impassively sticky; millimeter wave “heat rays” that peacefully repel people without inflicting lasting harm; projectile netting or other entangling devices to capture individuals or vehicles; chemicals that temporarily irritate, repel, or becalm a person; biological agents that embrittle metal or contaminate petroleum products; and many more.

This Article examines three representative recent confrontations: the 1993 shootout and siege at Waco, Texas, involving federal ATF and FBI units against the Branch Davidians led by millennialist David Koresh; the 2002 seizure of the Dubrovka Theater in Moscow by Chechen separatists; and the 2003 Gulf War II fighting by the British Army against indigenous resistance in Basra, Iraq. Although in each of these episodes government forces “prevailed” in some crude sense, each was at least partially unsatisfactory, resulting in more carnage and more destruction than anyone would have wanted. Therefore, the goal of this Article is to determine whether the availability of a richer configuration of non-lethal weapons might have made a difference.

These three case studies provide an array of contrasts: they occurred on three different continents, they involved three different countries and three different types of resistance units as protagonists, and they engaged notably different genres of armaments and tactics. In addition, the three selected incidents are usefully diverse in yet another regard. The first, Waco, was clearly a law enforcement operation, initially occasioned by the effort to serve ordinary arrest and search warrants. In contrast, the third, Basra, was plainly a conventional military operation, occurring in the midst of a broad-gauged international armed conflict. The second, Moscow, presents a sort of middle ground, containing aspects of both law enforcement and military counter-terrorism operations, thereby illuminating the rainbow of legal and policy considerations at play.

This Article does not argue that non-lethal weapons shouldhave been applied in these confrontations, or that they necessarily would have made a profound difference in resolving the clashes at appreciably less cost. It may be that these instances were simply intractable, that the opposing forces were so resistant, fanatic, or entrenched that even improved technology and tactics would have proven unavailing. Still, the hypothetical inquiry remains: in these three tragic cases, what might have happened if the respective governments had been able to try something else-something non-lethal?

The Article proceeds in the following steps. First, Section II surveys the emerging world of non-lethal weapons, beginning with the observation that the very name “non-lethal” is at least partially misleading; any application of force by police or military units inherently carries the potential for death. Although this new family of technologies at least attempts to reduce greatly the probability of mortality and widespread destruction of property, it offers no absolute guarantees.

With self-loading pistols fast becoming the rage at the turn of the last century, Colt and Fabrique Nationale were at the forefront. Since both companies used designs patented by John Browning, they initially agreed Colt would concentrate on recoil-operated pistols while FN would make models operating by simple blowback. However, with FN’s overwhelming success with the 9mm Browning Long caliber Grand Modele. Colt arranged to have Browning take out a U.S. patent on the pistol in 1902.

The result was a smaller version of the Grand Modele in .32 ACP for which Browning would be paid a royalty of 40 cents each. Called the 1903 Hammerless Pocket Automatic Pistol. or Model “M” by the Colt factory, the gun would be made in a number of variations from that year until 1946 with a total production of more than 572,000 pieces in that initial caliber. Let’s look at the breakdown.

Divided by collectors into five issues, the First Issue Model “M” had a 4″-barrel with a removable barrel bushing. Made from 1903 through 1910, this version in .32 ACP had a narrow extractor, black checkered hard rubber grips with a scalloped band with the word “COLT.” above a rampant horse and ran from serial number one to 71.999. During this time changes were also made in the patent date (about serial number 10,000) and the cocking serrations (about serial number 30.000).

From 1910 to 1926. beginning with serial number 72.001. he Second Issue Model “M” had a 3.75″-barrel, but was otherwise identical to the First Issue. At serial number 95,801 the extractor was widened to accommodate both the .32 ACP and the new .380 ACP round (detailed below). Beginning with serial number 100,459 the separate barrel bushing was omitted and a few changes were made within the slide and to the recoil spring group. In addition to the bushing change, the Second Issue also saw several grip variations. The version ran to serial number 105.050.

Number Three

Except for its checkered walnut grips with nickel Colt medallion, the Third Issue Model “M” was identical to the Second Issue. and was made from 1926 to 1945 beginning with serial number 105,051. During production of the Third Issue the Tansley magazine disconnect safety was added with serial number 468,097, creating what most collectors, recognize as the Fourth Issue Model M. This variation ran to serial number 554.000.

As part of the standard commercial Fourth Issue Model “M” is the Military counterpart that ran from serial number 554,001 to 572.214. All of these .32 ACP caliber Military Model “M” pistols are stamped “U.S. Property” on the right side of the frame and have the Ordnance Department “flaming bomb acceptance mark. Initially finished in blue, the Military Model “M” was Parkerized beginning in 1944 at about serial number 562.000.

After World War II a few Military Model “M” .32 ACP caliber pistols were left over with the U.S. Property stamp, but without the Ordnance mark, and a few more were assembled from left-over parts. The latter had polished blue slides with grip straps in matte blue. The last number of the .32 caliber Model “M” pistols is believed to be 572,215.

.380 ACP Model “M”

Not only was the 1903 Pocket Model “M” made in .32 ACP, but also .380 ACP, a cartridge believed to have been conceived especially for it. However, because this variation has its own serial number sequence, it’s dealt with separately for the sake of clarity.

Making its debut in 1908, the First Issue .380 Model “M” was made until 1911 from number one to 6,251 when the Second Issue .380 was introduced. This version was made until 1926 from serial number 6,252 to 92,893. The Third Issue .380 ACP Model “M” is the same as the Fourth Issue .32 ACP, and was made through 1945 with the Tansley magazine safety added at serial number 92,894, and running to 133,349.

As with the .32 ACP Fourth Issue Military version, the Third Issue .380 ACP ACP Model “M” was made for the Military and was also stamped U.S. Property, but had a blued finish with serial numbers running from 133,350 to 138,009, some of which were preceded by the letter “M.”

Most Collectible

Even more collectible than any of the above versions of the Colt Model “M” are special order pistols, namely those with special grips, or that are engraved; various engravers applied their art to these pistols through the years. Some of the most famous included Gough, Kornbrath and Cuno A. Helfrict.

Model “M” pistols engraved between 1910 and 1913 were listed as having 1/4, 1/2, and 3/4 coverage, while those engraved from 1913 to 1929 were described as grade one, grade two and grade three coverage. From 1929 through 1941 the grades were changed to “A” through “C.”

Factory records indicate that of the early Model “M” .32 ACP pistols, 50 were engraved with 1/2 coverage and only three were given 3/4 coverage. The pistol illustrated is in the number 135,322, having been made in 1912, and is one of the three early Model “M” .32 ACPs engraved with 3/4 coverage. This includes the top, back and front of the gun. This outstanding example of Colt factory engraving is believed to have been done by Cuno A. Helfrict. The grips are Colt mother of pearl with the Colt medallion, indicating the pistol did not leave the factory until 1913, the first year medallions were used.

The Great Rock and Roll Swindle (1980) and The Filth and the Fury (2000) are both about the Sex Pistols. The Swindle came in the aftermath of the implosion of the Sex Pistols, and told their story mostly from manager Malcolm McLaren’s point of view. Because of that it’s pretty biased, but highly entertaining–with footage of some of the band members trying to act parts in the plot thread of the film and some great animated stuff.

For a better Sex Pistols film, try the much more recent The Filth and the Fury (2000). It’s directed by the same guy who made Swindle, but it’s a much more evenhanded look at the Pistols, with the participation of all of the band members (but not manager McLaren). One of the best scenes is the archival footage of the band and groupies (including Siouxsie Sioux) being interviewed by a lecherous Bill Grundy of the BBC, and spouting filthy words in reaction to his lechery, which garnered them a ton of press and turning them into overnight sensations. And of course the film follows their demise on their American tour.

Readers have commented they enjoy my articles on black powder cartridge rifles (BPCRs). That’s pleasing. Now how about a column on another type of BPCR–the black powder cartridge revolver? But to keep things sorted let’s call them BPCPs: black powder cartridge pistols. (Sure, I know there’s a difference between pistols and revolvers, but even the Old West gunfighters often called their revolvers pistols, so just bear with me.)

Colt didn’t begin to warranty any of their handguns for smokeless powder shooting until 1900, and Smith & Wesson began the metallic handgun cartridge era circa 1858 for rimfires, and 1870 for centerfires. Therefore, during those four decades which actually comprise the “Wild West” of fact and fiction the only propellant used in handguns was black powder. To the surprise of many shooters today, black powder can perform very well in cartridge handguns. If the ammunition is loaded properly it delivers power, precision and reliability.

Foul Fouling

What’s with this “reliability” thing? Let’s look at that first. As anyone who has fired a cap-and-ball revolver knows, black powder leaves a lot of crud upon firing. So much it can gum up a sixgun to the point its cylinder won’t even turn. Therefore, in loading black powder cartridge ammo two things are desirable: reduce fouling as much as possible and keep whatever fouling still produced soft. That latter point is accomplished by the bullet lube–it should be soft so it mixes with fouling and makes it greasy. And the more lube a bullet carries the better. There are many BP specific bullet lubes on the market today, but I’ve stuck with SPG because I used to own half the company.

To reduce the amount of fouling left by BP cartridges, I rely on primers, but even more on how the powder is dispensed. In my testing I’ve found hot primers help reduce BP fouling and I always trickle the powder into cases by means of a long drop tube. That compacts it so more powder fits in the cases, and for some unknown reason drop-tubing BP makes it burn cleaner. No, I don’t weigh out each and every charge. They are thrown from one of the new Montana Vintage Arms powder measures and then trickled down the 24″ copper tube.

Fill The Tank

An oft-asked question is, “How much black powder should I load for cartridge ‘X’?” It doesn’t matter. Just fill up the case so the bullet’s base compresses the powder slightly–say about 1/16″. The brand of case and seating depth of the bullet will determine how much powder fits. Don’t worry–you can’t get in too much black powder to harm a handgun in good condition. If it’s not in good condition you shouldn’t be firing it anyway?

In machine-rest testing I’ve done with many BPCPs over the years, it turns out the best groups were often delivered with CCI brand small or large pistol magnum primers, as the case might be. Other brands often did well, but it seemed like the CCIs usually had the edge. Along with drop-tubing the powder I made them my standard for BPCPs. Admittedly it’s not a critical factor, but since they cost no more, why not use them?

Chatter Matter

Now, on several Internet chat rooms it’s been said, “Venturino recommends all that stuff, but it’s not really necessary at the distances cowboy action matches are fired, and all you have to do is squirt down the guns with water to keep them working?” That’s all true enough, but in my mind it’s just as easy to load the ammo correctly and leave the squirt gun at home. All of the BPCPs I use will go all day without gumming up. Once at the big Arizona cowboy shoot called Winter Range, I let my pair of Colt Frontier Six Shooters (.44-40s) go uncleaned for the entire three days and they still functioned –albeit a little stiffly–at the end.

Something else I don’t do with BPCPs is “load them down.” Some shooters reduce the powder charges to a pinch and take up case space with inert fillers. My attitude is, “If I want a big bore, then I’ll shoot it big.” Maybe the sort of cowboys of Brokeback Mountain like pipsqueak guns, but most cowboys of the real “Wild West” shot .44s and .45s. And powerful .44s and .45s they were! Colt made more Peacemakers in .45 Colt than any other, and it was followed by .44 WCF (.44-40). Smith & Wesson used punier cartridges, initially due to their Model No. 3’s shorter cylinder. Eventually they got it adapted to .44-40, too. Still, they sold more Model No. 3s in .44 Russian caliber than any other, and the US Army actually issued the .45 S&W “Schofield” cartridge for use in the big Colt Single Action more than .45 Colt.

The .44-40 and .45 Colt are powerhouses in BPCPs. Original factory loads used 40- and 35-grains of BP in the same order. Today .44-40 and .45 Colt cartridge cases will still hold that much, but a little powder compression might be required. That won’t hurt anything. And if you want the utmost in power then I recommend you go to FFFg Swiss BP. That’s the hottest stuff on the market. A case full will push a 200-grain .44-40 or 250-grain .45 Colt bullet to 1,000 fps from a 7 1/2″ barrel.

Have you noticed everybody and his brother makes a 1911 pistol? To the uninitiated it is imponderable and even a cause for wonder among we who do this for a living. Some readers gripe about the amount of coverage we give the 1911, but the reason is simple: they sell. I’ve been doing this a long time and have chronicled the 1911’s history through two World Wars, a police action, countless skirmishes and the Great Southeast Asia war games.

I learned how to work on it, won me some stuff with it and it is largely responsible for me having this job. My fondness knows no bounds, but very few current buyers know–let alone care–about any of that because they buy the gun for its current utility, reliability and ability to do the job asked of it. Whether it’s seeking the elusive soda can or putting an exclamation point on a dirtbag’s last words it can do either job equally well.

The marketplace has undergone several shifts, first when Springfield Armory began to offer Colt some competition. Today, the folks who made the whole thing possible are probably the smallest player, and upstart Kimber continues to grow. When S&W entered the 1911 playground everyone wondered why and what would happen. The “why” is easy. They correctly judged there was room for them in the market and the long-term effect seems to have been positive. We’ve also seen the market divide into several distinct segments: plain-Jane GI. middle-of-the-road factory, high-end factory, custom and high-end custom. All are identifiable by various features and accessories, but each category now has an established place and price range.

Nobody knows precisely what the long-term effect on market share will be for the various players, but different 1911 s keep showing up on my doorstep and all are welcome. Which brings me to the latest arrivals: A pair of stainless steel pistols from Dan Wesson. These guns fall into the category of guns with the desirable bells and whistles, but no fancy extras. The first of them is the Pointman 7, which is a basic full-size pistol with adjustable sights.

In a way, the Pointman 7 is remarkably plain, which may just hide some of the neat stuff. The slide has only the smallest of markings on the left with the “DW” logo and PM7. It has forward grasping grooves, which seem to be a real polarizing factor these days. People love or hate them with little middle ground. The top of the slide is matte and the sides are nicely polished. In fact, the finishing on both frame and slide is really excellent. The amenities are nice, too. There’s a beavertail grip safety with a “memory groove” hump, flat, checkered, stainless steel mainspring housing, modestly extended magazine release and a single-side extended thumb safety.

The frame bears only the markings “Dan Wesson Firearms Norwich, NY U.S.A.” and the serial number. The markings are electro-etched and much nicer looking than today’s more common pin stampings. It is impossible to tell who really makes what these days, but several informed sources report the frame is imported in a partially complete condition with no slide rail cuts (therefore it is not a firearm) and all further machining and fitting completed at the Wesson shop. And they do a really bang-up job with those rails too. The slide-to-frame fit is comparable to what you would expect on an expensive custom pistol. There is no play at all–either horizontal or vertical.

In fact all the typical fitting points are very well done. The headspace extension of the barrel shows only a tiny sliver of daylight in the slide, the bushing is snug–not too tight–but it clearly marks the barrel as it should. Only the bottom barrel lugs lack the contact with the slide stop identifying a well-fitted barrel and those don’t miss by much, for when the barrel is locked in battery you can’t move it.

The other pistol is a Commander size with all the same compliments given the full-size pistol with extra credit for having the Ed Brown Bobtail treatment of the frame. For those who haven’t felt this modification, I think it is one of the best things done to the 1911 since people learned how to fit barrels and do trigger jobs. It is especially effective for a concealed pistol because it eliminates the sharp corners of the butt known often to print when concealed. It think it also is very comfortable to shoot and might be attractive for someone with smaller hands who still likes the 1911.

Two valuable additions to the Commander size pistol are Novak-style night sights and checkering of the front strap. The pattern looked a bit unusual and it took a ruler and fingers and toes to determine it is cut at 16 lpi. Of course your hand can’t tell the difference.

Shooting both pistols has been entirely uneventful. They went bang only when directed, functioned without complaint and produced groups some custom guns would find enviable. The accuracy was entirely predictable because of the nice fitting of the slide and barrel components and this illustrates something involving both these pistols and the entire generation of new 1911s as well. Back when I first started shooting them you would be lucky to get 5″ to 6″ groups from a new gun and they simply had to be accurized for any kind of serious target shooting. Some needed considerable help just to function at all.

Once a stepchild among the more popular gun stages, Enhanced Service Pistol (ESP) fell just one contestant short of CDP. Eighty shooters chose ESP, which encompasses single-action semiautomatics in 9mm through .40 S & W.

An example of an “enhanced” firearm is a Glock that has been modified with a Robar-type grip. Ditto all variations of the increasingly popular Springfield Armory XD pistol, since ATF has ruled the XD to be a single-action, semiauto pistol. Originally geared around the Browning Hi-Power, ESP is now ruled by single-action 1911 pistols, chambered for 9mm Parabellum or .38 Super. Those who prefer .38 Super generally choose ammo loaded down to 9mm power factor.

IPSC ace Taran Butler took the ESP champion plaque this year. If one of your customers wants to do the same in ‘07, he’ll be off to a good start with a target-grade CZ 75, S & W Performance Center 9mm single-action like the Model 952, or a match-grade 9mm 1911 from Para, Springfield Armory, STI, etc.

For most of IDPA’s history, there was only one class for “wheelguns,” the Stock Service Revolver (SSR). Almost from the beginning, this category was dominated by the Smith & Wesson Model 625. The gun’s .45 ACP ammo can be loaded into the 625 with full moon clips faster than any conventional rimmed revolver cartridge can be loaded using even the most modern and efficient speedloaders. A couple of years ago, these guns were placed into their own category: Enhanced Service Revolver (ESR). This year, nine contestants entered ESR.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Revolver great Jerry Miculek is the once and future king of this corner of IDPA. His choice is that of almost all the ESR winners: the S & W 4″ Model 625 in .45 ACP.

Obviously, if you have a customer who wants to shoot the ESR category, sell him a 4″ 625. It’s also a fun gun for anyone who likes the caliber, and a “garbage disposal” for .45 ACP reloads that are too light to work in the customer’s autoloader. Good home defense revolver, too.