UNCLASSIFIED

AD NUMBER
AD373879
CLASSIFICATION CHANGES
TO: unclassified

FROM: confidential

LIMITATION CHANGES
TO:
Approved for public release, distribution
unlimited

FROM:
Distribution: No Foreign.

AUTHORITY
Group-4 per document markings; USAARDC
ltr., 28 Mar 1978

THIS PAGE IS UNCLASSIFIED

 M06 tttA&Kt. Its PUS. JC0.6

soR;~i S*lll*sA"LIt' A b il

tfl&Iibu~f&1
A*ft&

ILI
 CONFIDENTIAL

I,

"i

SWINCHESTER-WESTERN DIVISION
~NEW HAVEN. CONN.
CONF IDENTIAL

I!
 CONFIDENTIAL

NH-2604 J
This document consists
ofjhPages, No.k of
.4.?Copies, Series A

FINAL REPORT
OLIN SPIW LAUNCHER
DA-19-058-AMC-1103 (Y)
PO-19-058-M5-T5654 (Y)
Period Covered
12 July 1965 thru 12 June 1966

This document contains information affecting the

national defense of the United States within the
meaning of the Espionage Laws, Title 18, U.S.C.
Sections 793 and 794. Its transmission or the
V revelation of'its contents in any manner to an
unauthorized person is prohibited by law.

12 July 1966
OLIN MATHIESON CHEMICAL CORPORATION
Winchester-Western Division
New Haven, Connecticut
DOWNGRADED AT 3 YEAR INTERVALS;
DECLASS;F!ED AFTER 12 YEARS.
DOD DIR 5200.10 GP. 4

CONFIDENTIAL
 NH-2604

NOT I...

ac
zu

N Fi
~-w-w -

LN

L 9
F
" UNCLASSIFIED NH-2604

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SLCTION Page

I. INTRODUCTION 4

II. SUMMARY 6

III. TECHNICAL DISCUSSION 15

IV. MAJOR LAYOUTS AND ASSEMBLIES 40

APPENDIX

A Engineering Calculations

B Illustrations

C Human Factors Engineering

D Reliability, Quality Assurance, Standardization

and Maintenance Engineering

E Value Engineering

SIGNATURE PAGE

DISTRIBUTION

L NLSSFE
 uI

CONFIDENTIAL NH-2604

I. INTRODUCTION

This contract involved the design, development, and delivery to

Springfield Armory of ten 40mm semiautomatic grenade launchers.
The launchers are designed to be mounted on point fire weapons
of Springfield Armory design, for test during 1966. In response
to the Springfield Armory RFQ T-M5-37, a proposal for an improved
launcher, embodying the principal advantages of the previously
developed Olin SPIW launcher, was proposed on 10 May 1965.

The technical basis of the proposal was to retain the previously

demonstrated advantages of the forwardly moving barrel concept,
while eliminating known structural shortcomings of the previous
launcher. By retaining the forward moving barrel concept, an
advantage is gained in overall length of the weapon system, since
the weapon is of conventional length only at the time required,
that is, at the time of feeding. The other advantage of the
forward moving barrel is on weight, since the required moving
mass is combined with the barrel or tube, which is necessary in
any event.

The technical proposal involved the use of the pod type magazine
system which had been used on the previous launchers. The
proposed power system was the same floating chamber system as had
been proven to be feasible on the previous launchers.

Several feature changes resulted from a period of investigation

and discussion with Springfield Armory representatives as
follows:

The pod type magazine system was replaced by a detachable

box magazine, disposed vertically under the launcher.

The launcher trigger system was changed from a second

trigger to a trigger/connector system which enables the
launcher to be fired with the trigger of the point target
element.
Investigation of the original floating chamber type of
power system, as well as several other alternative power
systems, resulted in the selection of the simple blow--
forward system in preference to the original system.

Before the end of this contract a three months delay in the point
target element portion of the program was instituted. A supple-
mentary contract for the purpose of upgrading the launcher

-4-
CONFIDENTIAL
--4I
 CONFIDENTIAL NH-2604

performance was awarded as a result. Completion of this work

was scheduled to fit within the extended schedule on the point
target elements, and will be covered in detail in a separate
report following the end of that work.

-5-
II CONFIDENTIAL
 CONFIDENTIAL NH-2604

II. SUMMARY

A. Development History

In response to the Government Request for Proposal, a pre-

liminary design was submitted which was based on the best
features of previous launcher development at Winchester-
Western. The design which was submitted in the Winchester
proposal included the original pod type feed system and the
floating chamber method of pow~ring the weapon. The forward
moving barrel concept was maintained. The new design
differed from earlie. developments principally in that the
basic structure was a one-piece aluminum design instead of
the previous composite plastic/aluminum structure which had
proven in tests to be insufficiently rigid. For purposes of
the proposal, the firing mechanism was essentially the same
as was previously used, although an alternative design was
shown in which the cocking was done early in the cycle
rather than at the end. The earlier method of extraction
and ejection was also retained.

Following the award of the contract, approximately six to

seven weeks were used for the purpose of more detailed
establishment of basic design features through the coopera-
tion of Winchester-Western, Springfield Armory, and various
other government agencies. During this period of time, the
general method of feeding was considered and discussed
extensively, as was the location of the launcher on the
parent weapon, the type of trigger system, and various human
factors aspects. The discussions and conferences on these
subjects were supported by design studies at Winchester which
explored the mechanical and human factors implications of the
various recommended types. During this period studies were
begun on the basic power system in order to insure that the
power system was the best for the purposes of this program.
I Investigation of the power system and various other function-
al areas was supported by the fabrication of test rigs and
similar devices to give dynamic information, and an evalua-
Ition of the various parameters which affected each function.
Throughout this early phase, human factors engineering
personnel worked closely with the Product Engineering
I designers to thoroughly survey the human factors aspects of
each proposed variant. The feed system in particular was
subjected to close scrutiny from a human factor viewpoint,
I and resulted in an essentially independent evaluation of the,
various proposed feed system configurations.

II
-6-
CONI DENTIAL

6.- _ -mob
 CONFIDENTIAL N-26o4

As a result of the various design studies, conferences, and

modifications to the required design featurts, the original
design was modified to include a detachable box magazine,
disposed vertically below the weapon. Other modifications
to the proposed design included positioning the launcher
further forward on the basic weapon in order to provide a
more adequate handhold. During this period the method of
mounting the launcher with three cross bolts was agreed upon.
A new type of sight was also conceived, which was essentially
a ramp type of sight, intended to allow the use of a linear
range scale and a somewhat more compact construction than
previous types which were studied.

As a result of the inputs from the human factors personnel

and HEL, it was decided to change the trigger system from
the separate type of trigger proposed to a common trigger
with the point target element. In this type of trigger the
launcher is connected to the point target trigger by means
of a connector lever mounted on the rear of the point target
receiver.

Following the establishment of the basic design features,

layouts and detail design began on the first prototype
weapons. The first weapons included a receiver design which
was intended to be fabricated by impact extrusion. As a
result of inability to obtain access to the necessary heavy
presses, the prototype receivers had to be machined from
solid. The first firing mechanism incorporated a sear which
was combined with the cocking lever.

The tube return spring was designed to be a Negator type

spring, to take advantage of the lightweight and compactness
of the Negator spring and to reduce the peak force required
to manually open the weapon. The magazine also incorporated
a Negator spring, in this case to act as both follower and
follower spring. The magazine was designed to be basically
an aluminum extrusion, with integral T-slots for cartridge
guides, and a stamped steel cartridge retainer in lieu of
conventional feed lips. This was necessary because of the
fact that the cartridge is not rammed in the conventional
sense but is instead fed straight upward in front of the
standing breech.

The extractor-ejector system was designed so that the

extractor performs both extraction and ejection functions by
L pulling straight to the rear on the rim of the cartridge to
eject the empty case. This permitted elimination of an
ejector which protrudes from the bolt face, which would cause

O F N-7-
CONFIDENTIAL
 CONFIDENTIAL NH-2604

interference with feeding. Another feature which was incor-

porated during this early development was provision to permit
the action to automatically close and load upon insertion of
a loaded magazine.

Sufficient hardware was fabricated at this time to permit the

assembly of three prototype weapons for development purposes.
Two of the prototypes were assembled and the first prototype
was submitted after preliminary testing to the Springfield
Armory, as stipulated by the contract for the end of Phase I.
This launcher functioned well enough to demonstrate the
validity of the mechanical principle, but did not function
satisfactorily from an overall viewpoint.

Phase II began with redesign of the firing mechanism to

eliminate the dual function of the cocking lever. The new
design of firing system utilized a conventional type of sear
and a separate cocking lever. The previois design had demon-
strated that the conditions for safety were contradictory to
the conditions which were necessary in order to obtain a low
trigger pull force. During this priod work continued on
development of the blowforward power system, to improve the
reliability of energy output. At this time, the government
requested that modifications be made to the system to improve
the appearance of the combined package. The criticism was
made that the weapons did not look sufficiently integrated,
and were prone to brush catching between the two weapons.
Supplementary funds were granted for the purpose of the
necessary redesign and modification. The blending of the
two systems involved redesigning the receiver and certain
other areas, and completion of new detail drawings. During
the course of this work, the effort of mounting the receiver
was simplified.

Virtually all functional components of the weapon system were

redesigned during this period, based on test data obtained
from the prototype weapors. The second of the early proto-
type weapons was delivered after upgrading early in Phase II.
Development work during Phase II was centered principally
about certain functional areas: feed system reliability,
power system consistency, and general improvement of the
mechanical efficiency of the system so as to reduce excessive
loss of operating power. The most critical area was the
trade-off between operating energy and muzzle velocity, the
trade-off being complicated by the large number of variables
involved. As during Phase I, maximum use was made of time-
displacement records and high speed motion pictures.

CONFIDENTIAL
9
 CONFIDENTIAL N-26o4

To assist in studying the maximum range capability, a

tripod mount was adapted and a number of outside maximum
range tests were fired.

Liaison was maintained with Springfield Armory on various

interface areas and administrative matters. This was
pirticularly necessary in the matter of the trigger system,
which was mounted partly in the point target weapon and
partly in the launcher.

Throughout the development process, difficulty was encountered

in ammunition consistency, since a larger percentage of the
ammunition which was supplied was of a type having an obsolete
crimp on the cartridge case. This caused considerable
difficulty and limited the amount of operating energy which
could be reliably obtained with the blowforward system. Since
this was an obsolete type of cartridge, development work
during the latter part of Phase II proceeded using smoke type
ammunition having the latest type of crimp.

Sufficient hardware was fabricated during Phase II to permit

assembly of the ten basic delivery weapons, plus one extra
weapon, plus approximately eighty per cent of a twelfth
weapon. The final phase of the program consisted of the
assembly of the delivery weapon, final tests and adjustments,
and delivery to Springfield Armory. A considerable number of
minor modifications were made to the launchers during the
final test phase, and the majority of the sources of malfunc-
tions were pinpointed. At this time, it was understood that
a supplementary contract would eventually be mad( for the
purposes of final upgrading and improvement of these launchers.
This was made practical by the extension of the Springfield
schedule by some three months.

Following delivery of the basic ten launchers, Winchester-

Western supported the week of acceptance tests conducted by
Spri.?gfield.

B. Conclusions

1. Feasibility of the present design: The mechanical

principles utilized in the present design are practical.
Experience during development has shown that the system
requires the usual tolerance studies, a large percentage
of the malfunctions which were encountered being trace-
able to tolerance buildups in the mechanical components.

I The very small number of breakages encountered during

-9-

CONFIDENTIAL
 CONFIDENTIAL NH-2604

development testing is evidence that generally there

are few critically stressed components.

2. Potential for development: The design is capable of

further development in two areas, because of the duration
of the development contract: conventional machining
practice has been used to fabricate most components, where
stamping, molding, and extrusions were envisioned for any
regular production. As a result, any further development
for production should include re-processing for more
economical methods of manufacture. Such a re-processing
is facilitated by the fact that most components were
designed with this in mind. Secondly, certain functional
areas are capable of being simplified, with the result of
reducing the total number of components in the system.
Much of this simplification would be centered about the
striker housing assembly and the trigger connection com-
ponents. Since for the most part the weapon is not
critically stressed, deliberate attention to reduction of
weight can result in a measurable improvement in that
area. Likewise, the method of construction of the
receiver, which was of necessity machined in the proto-
types, can be improved for production purposes. For a
discussion of this and other areas of potential improve-
ment for production, see Appendix E (Value Engineering).

3. The weapon is readily adaptable to modifications to change

the magazine capacity from zero rounds (single shot) to a
capacity greater than the present three round magazine.

4. in conclusion, the normal process of final refinement can

be expected to result in a weapon which meets or exceeds
the requirements which are expected for this type of
weapon.

C. Recommendations

It is recommended that this weapon be continued in development,

to take advantage of the potential simplicity and reliability
of the system.

D. Description of Weapon

The area target weapon is a semiautomatic three shot grenade

launcher, which is blowforward operated, air-cooled and fed
by detachable vertical box magazine. It utilizes standard
40mm M406 fragmentation cartridges, as well as practice
(smoke, M407) rounds. The launcher is designed to utilize

-10-
CONFIDENTIAL
4
 CONFIDENTIAL NH-2604 I
the trigger of the point target element, by means of a
connector aystem which permits firing either element at will.
The launcher is fabricated basically of aluminum alloy in
order to conserve weight. The use of the blowforward type of
action permits the system to be shorter than more convention-
al actions. It is of conventional length only at the time of
feeding. In this system the barrel is also the primary mass
(energy storing) membei. This allows the system to be light
in comparison to systems which require a separate moving mass
such as a bolt. The use of a detachable box magazine permits
the weapon a high rate of sustained fire as long as loaded
magazines are available, since rounds do not have to be
individually loaded into the weapon. To assist in this, the
weapon has been designed so that it automatically closes and
loads upon insertion of a loaded magazine. The sight is a
separate member mounted on the point target element.

.14

I
I
I
!:1

-11-

CONFIDENTIAL

1'
 CONFIDENTIAL N-2604

E. Tabulated Characteristics
Area Target Element
Length, action closed 17.5 in.
Length, action latched open 21.5 in.
Width 3.2 in.
Height, with magazine in place 7.0 in.
Height, without magazine 3.2 in.
Weight, without magazine 3 lbs. 4.6 oz.(incl.sight)
Weight, with empty magazine 3 lbs.ll.4 oz. (incl. sight)
Weight, fully loaded (3 rounds) 4 lbs. 2.8 oz.(incl. sight)
Method of Actuation Blowforward
Feed Three round detachable,
vertical box magazine
Firing System Striker type, semiauto-
matic only
Manual Safety Mechanical, locks striker
directly
Cooling Air
Sight Front: flat post
Rear : aperture
Sight Radius: 4.35 inches
Range scale: linear divi-
sions on side and top of
sight bar, range in 25
meter increments
Length of.Tube 10.0 in. - overall
8.0 in. - rifled length
Ammunition HE fragmentation, M406
jSmoke, M407
Proof, XM387
Illuminating
Signal

Ejection To right

-12-
CONFIDENTIAL
 CONFIDENTIAL NH-26o4

F. Controls

1. Charging Handle

This is on the right side of the action, mounted on the

rear of the tube. It is pushed forward to open the action.

2. Tube Latch

Mounted on the top left side of the receiver, above the

magazine. Depressing the latch allows the action to
close under the force of the tube return spring.

3. Safety Lever
I

Mounted on the top left of the receiver, above the handgrip.

When pressed fully forward, the action is ready to fire.
When fully to rear, the action is on "safe".

4. Magazine Catch Button

Mounted at the rear of the magazine well, immediately forward

of the handgrip. Can be pressed from either side to release
magazine for removal.

5. Tube Lock

Mounted at front of magazine well, below receiver. Used

to lock the action in the closed position if desired.

6. Elevation Slide

Mounted on the sight bar. To change elevation setting,

*- squeeze the slide and move it along the sight bar until
the range indicator pointer is at the desired setting.
Releasing the slide allows it to lock at the selected setting.

7. Deflection Zeroing Screw

Mounted below rear aperture of sight. Must be loosened to

permit rear aperture to be moved for zeroing in deflection.

-13-
CONFIDENTIAL

,~
 CONFIDENTIAL NH-2604

8. Elevation Zeroing Screw

The front sight post may be raised and lowered by

screw driver from the bottom of the sight bar.

9. Connector Lever

Mounted at the left rear of the PTE receiver cover.

This is used to disconnect the PTE and simultaneously
connect the ATE firing system to the PTE trigger. To
do so, the lever is depressed by the thumb and held
there as long as the ATE is to be fired. Returns by
spring when released.

_.

iii

-14-
CONFIDENTIAL
 CONFIDENTIAL N-26o4

III. TECHNICAL DISCUSSION

A. Evolution of the Proposal Design

Previous launcher development at Winchester on a weapon

utilizing 'the forward moving barrel approach was critiqued
while the present design was in the proposal stage. The
critique information consisted of detailed notes from both
participating designers and test personnel, plus the test
reports which resulted from the government tests on that
program. A survey of the approach showed that while the
forward moving barrel concept was valid, the general con-
struction used in the previous launchers, a composite fiber
glass metal arrangement, was not rigid enough to allow the
launcher components to maintain reliable alignment during
cycling. This lack of rigidity caused the breech face and
the bore axis to be misaligned during the period of high
pressure, and consequently, considerable side thrust and
binding of the tube assembly during forward motion resulted.
The method of cocking the earlier design was considered to
be inadequate, since cocking took place at the final forward
portion of the tube stroke, which permitted the operator on
occasion to inadvertently load without cocking. The floating
chamber power system, previously used, was able to supply
more than adequate operating energy. As a matter of design,
however, the floating chamber system had the disadvantage of
requiring a larger diameter of tube assembly then was felt
d-sirable. Test information also indicated that leakage of
propellant gases around the floating chamber assembly could
a a problem.

s pod type magazine system which had been employed was a

practical system as long as a sustained fire rate was not
the principal objective. The particular advantage of that
syt em was the ability of the operator to replenish the
m'-zinas while the action was either closed or open. A
major disadvantage of the system was the overall width, which
tended to intrude into the sight line.

As a result of the critique of the previous approach, it was

decided to retain the forward moving barrel concept, and a
striker firing system, but to redesign the weapon so that
the main assembly was one homogeneous member rather than a
composite structure. Although it was decided to retain
striker firing, it was apparent that the action should be
altered to cock early in the opening stroke, to prevent
E accidental loading without cocking. For proposal purposes,

SC N -15-
CONFIDENTIAL
 CONFIDENTIAL N-26o4

it was decided to retain the pod type of magazine system,

since at that time no mention had been made by the users
of a desire for a different type of magazine. As a result
of this critique of the earlier design, the proposed design
retained the basic features of the forward moving barrel,
floating chamber, striker firing, and pod type magazine, but
was centered about the use of a one-piece aluminum recei'rer,
a modified system for cocking, and relocation on the point
target element in accordance with expressed requirements.

B. General Development of the Concept

1. Selection of Features and Reuirements

At the beginning of the pr gram, it was apparent that

it would be desirable to revise the particular design
features in accordance with views expressed by the
various using and evaluating agencies. The discussions,
conferences, and supporting investigations of the various
features took place over the first six to seven weeks of
the program, and centered primarily around the magazine
system and configuration, the location of the launcher on
the parent weapon, and the operating controls. The
initiation of layouts for the prototypes had to be delayed
until the particular feed mechanism type was agreed apon.

The result of these discussions and investigations uas

agreement that the launcher should incorporate a detach-
able box magazine, disposed vertically under the weapon.
The use of this arrangement allows a higher rate of
sustained fire than was possible with the older pod
system, and permits ejection to be horizontally to the
right instead of vertically downward. The downward
ejection of the older design was a cause for concern
where limited clearance was available below the weapon,
as when firing from fox holes or from behind cover.
The detachable magazine also permits the weapon to be
utilized as a single shot launcher if three round capac-
ity is not necessary. It was also requested that the
launcher be moved far enough forward to permit a longer
handhold between the magazines of the two elements.
During this time, engineering tests had been performed
on various methods of supplying operating power,
including the original floating chamber system. As a
result of these studies, it was decided that a simple
blowforward system would permit adequate operating energy
while allowing a measurable reduction in the overall bulk

-16-
CONFIDENTIAL
 CONFIDENTIAL NH-26o4

of the system. Also during this period, a concept of

striker mechanism was evolved which was felt to meet
the requirements of early cocking, and a method of
ejecting by using the extractor was also developed.

The features which were expected to result from these

changes were a relatively high rate of sustained fire,
minimal exposure of the weapon and shooter to observa-
tion, ease of adaptation as a single shot weapon, and
relative ease of training the shooter to use the weapon.
During this time, it also was agreed to combine the
trigger of the launcher with the point target element
trigger.

2. Subsequent Development

Once the final design features had been settled upon,

basic layouts and preliminary details were made for the
first prototype weapons. By instruction, the emphasis
was on functional practicality, with lesser emphasis on
utilization of advanced Iroduction methods. However,
the designers were instructed to bear in mind that a
production fabrication technique should be readily
applicable to any final development. The design work
commenced by breaking the weapon into functional areas.
These functional areas were feed system, operating
energy, firing system, attachment and location, trigger
connection, sights, and general construction. In
practice, the design personnel responsible for the
firing system also were responsible for the trigger
connection means and the sight design, while the feed
system, operating energy, attachment and location and
general construction comprised the other group of
functional areas.

During this initial detail design stage, human factors

engineering personnel continued to work closely with the
designers to insure implementation of human factors
recommendations within the limits of mechanical feasi-
bility.

3. The Final Design Concept

After testing and submission of the first prototype

weapon, certain changes in the shape of the weapon were
requested by the government in order to improve the
general appearance of the total weapon package. Imple-
mentation of this requirement meant that virtually all
-17-
CONFIDENTIAL
 CONFIDENTIAL N-26o4

major components had to be redetailed, particularly

those relating to the receiver. Additionally, it was
found possible to simplify the method of attachment to
the point target element by removing an auxiliary stud
which had been previously been used for added rigidity.
Testing showed that this auxiliary stud was unnecessary
and it was removed in the newly restyled design. The
new set of details also incorporated a new striker
system, since the earlier one, although simple, was
difficult to adjust. Other modifications in the new set
of details included the incorporation of studs for
mounting the bipod when the launcher is mounted on the
point target element. This second series of weapons
constituted the final design which, with minor modifica-
tions, was submitted to the government at the end of the
contract.

During the development of the final design, Winchester

Quality Assurance personnel participated by a program
of inspection of the final fabrication hardware.
Throughout this phase, liaison was maintained with
Springfield Armory design personnel on the interface
areas, principally the trigger connection means and the
means of mounting the launcher sight.

The design act.Ivities throughout the development period

were supported 'y almost continual testing, which was
of two principal types: Tests to investigate the effects
of various parameters and factors necessary to the
actual design, and tests to trouble-shoot and aid in
adjustment of the delivery weapons. As a rule, all tests
were under the direct control of the interested design
personnel. During the final test and adjustment phase,
Quality Assurance personnel assisted by surveillance and
recording of the test operations, and by compiling the
necessary quality assurance and reliability engineering
data.

C. Power System

At the beginning of the program, the original floating

chamber type of power system was studied through surveillance
of previous test data and by the construction of a single
shot test rig which could be adaptable to a variety of power
systems. The floating chamber power system had the advantage
of assurance of adequate operating power and the fact that
during the initial acceleration of the tube forward, the

-18-
CON FIDENTIAL
 I

CONFIDENTIAL NH-2604

chamber was held rearward over the cartridge case during

the initial stages. The operating energy output could be
controlled by variation of the diameter of the chamber
section, by variation of the length of chamber stroke within
the tube, and by variation of the tube and chamber masses,
rifling configuration, and other means. The system had the
disadvantage of requiring a larger overall diameter of the
barrel assembly, a complexity in that it required three of
four components for the barrel assembly. Other disadvantages
of this system are that obturation means should be provided
between the chamber and the tube, and the tube is not as well
aligned with the breech face, in general, as with systems
having the chamber integral with the tube.

Two general types of floating chamber systems were investi-

gated: the original type, in which the chamber was mounted
internally within the tube, and an external type in which
the reverse was true. Analysis of time-displacement records
from tests in whidh the various masses, power strokes, and
effective piston areas were varied, showed that although the
floating chamber did gain operating power from the interface
between chamber and tube, a heavy proportion of the realized
power came from the effort of engraving on the rifling.
That is, the system in actuality derived much of its operating
energy from the simple blowforward effect.

Another general type of power system which was studied with

the use of the test rig was a system which utilized a
chamber which was longitudinally fluted to permit propellant
gases to pass outside of the cartridge case and to the rear
of the tube. In this system the gases acted on the rear
surface of the tube to give a gas assist to the blowforward
action. Two variants were considered, one in which the tube
was extended past the base of the cartridge to provide a
place for a breech block which intruded into the chamber, and
a second variant which was the reverse of this, in that a
normal length of tube was used, but the entire tube was seated
into breech face which extended forward over the outer walls
of the tube. In both of these systems, since propellant gases
were permitted to move outside of the cartridge case, a
separate obturation means had to be provided between the tube
and the breech block. Although this was not a great compli-
cation, the obturator had to be of the self-energizing type
in order to be effective. Testing disclosed that the self-
energizing obturator generated sufficient radial force on the
tube to inhibit the initial forward tube motion. This meant
that the system was inherently self-limiting, in that the
condition necessary for adequate obturation was exactly the

-19-
CONFIDENTIAL
 CONFIDENTIAL N-2604

condition which retarded the forward tube motion. Extensive

studies were made during this time in order to determine the
exact nature of the tube-versus-projectile motion. As a
result of these studies and those on the floating and fluted
chamber systems, it was decided to investigate the potential
of the straight blowforward system, and to determine what
variations in chamber and bore configuration would be neces-
sary for successful operation with this type of action.
Tests on the blowforward action disclosed the following char-
acteristics: A relatively large diameter of chamber is
required, in order to prevent undue retardation of the
forward tube motion due to the expanding case. Other things
being equal; the operating energy which was obtained was
inversely proportionate to the weight of the tube assembly.
Again, other things being equal; the energy output which is
attained is directly proportionate to the number of lands in
the bore. As expected, the primary energy input to the
forward moving tube takes place during the initial engraving
of the projectile rotating bands. Further studies disclosed
that the energy exchange between the projectile and the tube
was at a relatively low absolute efficiency. As an example,
at this range of projectile velocities, one foot-per-second
differential in projectile velocity corresponds to approxi-
mately 30 inch-pounds differential in projectile kinetic
energy. The tests showed that when the system parameters
were varied to change the maximum tube energy by 30 inch-
pounds, the projectile velocity dropped somewhat more than
one foot-per-second -- in some cases, in early tube configu-
rations, as much as 20 feet-per-second. As development work
proceeded on the tube design, this inefficiency was much
reduced, but always remained a *actor of concern. At this
period of development it was assumed that the cartridge case
did not permit any serious leakage of propellant gas even
with the larger diameter of chamber, since tests with a
special chamber showed that the cartridge case expanded
dynamically as much as .030 in diameter when unsupported.

v The effect of the number of rifling lands was studied by

fabrication of 6, 8, 10, and 12 groove barrels having the
same nominal rifling land dimensions. During these studies,
experiments were also performed on the effect of free-boring
the tube from the muzzle end, on the theory that without the
rotating bands during the final portion of projectile travel,
acceleration of the projectile would be unimpeded, resulting
in higher muzzle velocity. For this latter purpose, tubes
were free-bored for distances of 2, 3, 4, and 6 inches from
the muzzle, the final 6 inch free-bore resulting in only

-20-
CONFIDENTIAL
 CONFIDENTIAL -2604

2 inches of rifling remaining in the tube. A' increase in

muzzle velocity was realized by this method, the maximum
being attained at approximately 4 inches of rifling.
Although the tubes had been rifled with a more rapid twist
than the standard used in the M79, in order to compensate
for the forward motion of the tube, the free-bored tubes did
not give reliable functioning with smoke type ammunition.
In any event, the free-boring yielded at best only a small
increase in muzzle velocity. In addition to the inadequate
spin rate achieved by the free-bored tubes, it was felt that
the angular jump of the weapon in recoil might result in the
projectile impacting laterally on the free-bored section of
the tube, causing excessive yaw at launch.

It was considered that the free-bored system may have poten-

tial for future development, but time did not permit
exhaustive study of the various parameters involved, and it
was decided to use a fully rifled tube and the simple blow-
forward system for the development weapons. The parameters
laid down for the protctype weapons included a 10 groove
barrel, a moving mass approximating .5 to .6 pounds, and the
large diameter chamber. Test rig work indicated that this
combination could be expected to yield maximum kinetic tube
energies in excess of 60 inch-pounds, which was deemed
adequate for the system.

During the design of the first prototype weapons, tests were

performed to assess the effect of the method of supporting
and guiding the tube within the receiver. It was initially
assumed that the tube should be closely guided, without
perceptible clearance within the receiver. Tests on the
first prototype weapons, however, indicated that the tube
should not be tightly guided in the transverse plane, but
should be relatively loose. Deliberate studies were aade of
v the effect of lateral clearance, and the maximum tube energy
which was realized invariably declined as the tube guidance
was tightened. Tests on the prototype weapons showed that,
although the trade-off between muzzle velocity and tube
energy seemed to take place as expected, the effect was
obscured by large variations in operating energy apparently
not due to reduced muzzle velocity. It was later found that
contrary to expectation, considerable leakage took place
around the cartridge case, making the energy output suscep-
tible to small variations in ammunition diameter, ellipticity,
and chamber diameter, It was found that the cartridge case
expanded during the highest portions of the pressure time
curve, but was sufficiently strong to contract away from the

-21-
CONFIDENTIAL
 CONFIDENTIAL NH-2604

walls of the chamber as pressure decayed within the bore

prior to muzzle exit. Development was also impeded by the
fact that the inert warhead ammunition used in development
was of an obsolete type, having a full circular crimp to
retain the projectile. This crimp does not straighten out
during firing, but simply cams the outer walls of the
cartridge case against the tube wall and then relaxes inward
after the projectile has started. The result was an erratic
amount of chamber friction and, in general, less operating
energy than that resulting when ammunition having the newer
type of staked cartridge case was used. Since the full
crimp design was stated by the government to be obsolete and
no longer produced, it was decided that all subsequent
development would take place employing the smoke ammunition
on hand, or with inert warhead ammunition having the same
staked cases.

The problem of leakage around the chamber was attacked by

incorporation of a piston ring type obturator, inlaid into
the wall of the chamber. This obturator was intended to
lightly grasp the cartridge case, but not to act as a
self-energizing obturator. The expectation was to reduce
leakage without increasing friction between the cartridge
case and the chamber wall. Early tests of this system
showed an immediate increase in muzzle velocity, without
apparent loss of operating energy. Later tests showed that
if the obturator was adjusted so as to be too efficient, the
muzzle velocity remainded high, but the operating energy was
degraded. Analysis of this situation seems to indicate that
the reason for this is that the amount of force between the
projectile and the tube is approximately constant, but when
the leakage was stopped, the projectile reached muzzle exit
more quickly and was thus in the tube for a shorter time.
The result of this is that the impulse transmitted to the
tube is lower, resulting in a considerable reduction of tube
energy, since the tube energy is a second order function of
the impulse transmitted to it.

To assess the potential maximum range capability of the

system, outside firing tests were performed on certain weapons,
and the resultsweighed against predicted maximum range/initial
velocity tabulation. The results were approximately the same
as prediction, the maximum range attained averaging slightly
more than prediction.

-22-

Li CONFIDENTIAL
 CONFIDENTIAL tH-2604

The refinement of the power system was complicated by the

fact that there are several sources of energy loss within
the system which, concurrently, had to be eliminated or
reduced. These energy losses frequently obscured the rela-
tionships between the various parameters and the energy
output, and also strongly affected the motion of the tube
following muzzle exit. Principal sources of energy loss
included cocking, misalignment of the operating rod and tube
return spring, operation of the cutoff actuator, and inter-
ference with the extractor cocking lever. As these areas
were progressively improved, the operating characteristics
of the system became more uniform and the relationship
between operating energy and other factors was more apparent.
During development of the power system, extensive use was
made of time-displacement records, chronograph records of
muzzle velocity, and high speed motion pictures.

Another characteristic which was encountered was the accumu-

lation of rotating band material on the rifling lands. This
takes place within the first two inches of projectile motion,
being heaviest immediately forward of the origin of the
rifling. On occasion the buildup would reach a thickness of
some .010 to .020 within a relatively few rounds. The result
of this buildup is effectively an increase in shot start
pressure, and an apparent improvement in ballistic efficiency.
While this improvement has advantages from a maximum range
viewpoint, the resultingly low time to muzzle exit adversely
affects the operating energy. Investigation of the cause of
this aluminum buildup seems to indicate that the tube walls
are sufficiently thin to allow a measurable radial expansion
of the tube in the area of the rifling origin, as much as
.010 to .020 inches. This reduces the initial depth of
engagement of the rotating bands in the rifling and results
in a skidding motion, so that in effect the rotating band is
engraved more gradually, while being subjected to high radial
forces as the tube contracts. The engraving inclines to be
more of an abrasion process, instead of a matter of shearing
of the bands. Later investigations showed that application
of a suitable silicon based oil or light grease inhibited the
adherence of the aluminum to the bore to a considerable
degree, so that it is felt that the condition can be effec-
tively controlled if it arises during tests.

Midway in the course of development, the government expressed

concern over the reliability of fuze functioning in the
weapon, since several fuze malfunctions had been encountered
during a demonstration at Aberdeen Proving Ground. This

-23-
CONFIDENTIAL

.
 CONFIDENTIAL NH-2604f

demonstration had been performed with a weapon having some

four inches of free-bore from the muzzle, and the projectile
spin rate was actually lower than on fully rifled tubes,
since the projectile was angularly accelerated throughout
only part of the bore travel. Subsequent tests at Aberdeen
Proving Ground with a fully rifled barrel showed that the
spin rate was entirely adequate, and that reliable fuze
functioning was attained with both HE and smoke rounds.

Since one requirement of the weapon was the capability to

handle the developmental signal and illuminating types of
ammunition, a small quantity of this type of ammunition was
obtained in order to perform function tests. The concern
was that the short cartridge case of this special ammunition
might cause considerable venting of gas at the breech, since
the tube moves forward approximately one inch at the time of
muzzle exit when using conventional ammunition. The tests
indicated that this was no danger, since the recoil impulse
of the special ammunition was relatively low, and the projec-
tile had no rotating band in the usual sense. When firing
this type of ammunition, the tube motion is almost impercep-
tible. Although this type of ammunition cannot be loaded in
the magazine, it can be loaded into the chamber singly.

D. Feed System and Cartridge Control

Development of the feed system and cartridge control means

was made under the following implications of the user and
human factors requirements which had been laid down: The
magazine should be detachable by manipulation of the maga-
zine catch from either the left or the right side. The
acton should stay open automatically when the weapon is
empty, and close and load automatically upon insertion of a
loaded magazine. Loading the magazine outside of the weapon
should not require special tools or chargers. The magazine
system should provide a control which prevents the rounds
in the magazine from interfering with the forwardly moving
barrel. The cartridges should be released to feed vertically
upward only after the tube has completed its forward motion.
Timing of the feed system should involve a stepped-sequence
of mechanical functions, rather than relying on velocities
or relative motion timing. The ejection system cannot
involve ejectors which protrude from the bolt face in such a
manner as to interfere with the vertically feeding cartridge.
Extraction and ejection should preferably be arranged so that
the ejecting cartridge ie removed as soon as the forward
7- moving tube clears it, although the requirement still exists
that a loaded and unfired cartridge can be manually ejected
-24-
LCONFIDENTIAL
 . CONFIDENTIAL NH-2604

by moving the tube fully forward. Additional requirements

included the capability to remove the magazine at any time,
regardless whether the action was open or closed.

To achieve these objectives, the feed system which was

selected involved the use of a cartridge cutoff, mounted on
the magazine bodies, and actuated to release cartridges by
the final forward motion of the tube. To provide for mechan-
ical sequencing of the feed operation, a tube latch was
incorporated which locked the tube in the full forward posi-
tion until released by the vertically rising cartridge. In
the early prototype, this tube latch took the form of a bell
crank, mounted in the vicinity of the breech face and engag-
ing the slide arm which ties the tube to the tube return
spring. This method of operation was eventually shown to be
unreliable, and this type of tube latch was replaced by a
flat cantilever latch, mounted in the breech face and
extended forward, acting as its own spring. An external
lever was provided to permit manual release of the tube when
desired.

The cutoff took the form of a flat stamping, mounted on the

rear of the magazine body. This cutoff is actuated to
release cartridges by a cutoff actuator or rocking lever,
one end of which engages the operating rod, the other end
engages the cutoff on the magazine. As the tube reaches the
final portion of its forward motion, the operating rod
rotates the cutoff actuator which in turn springs the cutoff
to the rear and so disengages it from the rim of the car-
triges in the magazine. The cutoff is disengaged only
momentarily, and in practice, double feeding is prevented by
the fact that the vertical motion of the cartridges upward
is at a relatively low velocity. Later in the development
period, a secondary cutoff system was incroporated so as to
prevent double feeding when the weapon was manually cycled
(as in immediate action following a misfire). This secondazy
cutoff, while desirable from a human factors viewpoint,
caused interference with the feeding rounds and occasional
failures to feed from the magazine. Consequently, the
secondary cutoff was removed in the delivery weapons. Dynamic
feeding is unaffected by this.

Since the blowforward type action did not require that the
T ammunition be rammed from the magazine in a conventional
L. manner, it was necessary to design a different means of re-
taining the rounds in the magazine when the magazine was not
in the weapon. This was accomplished by making a second

-25-
CONFIDENTIAL
 CONFIDENTIAL N-2604

retaining arm on the stamping at the rear of the magazine

body. When the magazine is loaded outside of the weapon,
the top most round is retained by this round retaining arm.
When the magazine is inserted in the weapon, the final
upward motion causes the retainer to engage a cam which is
fixed in the weapon, releasing the top round to feed.
When the feeding round strikes the tube latch, the tube is
released and the action closes automatically, chambering the
first round. With only minor dimensional modifications this
method of controlling the cartridges during feeding has been
retained.

The extraction/ejection system consists basically of a sliding

extractor which is spring loaded rearwardly, and a cocking
lever which, on one end, engages the striker, and on the other
end engages a cam surface on the operating rod. The sequence
of operation is: on closing the extractor is cammed forward
against its spring to engage the rim of the chambered car-
tridge. When the cartridge is almost completely chambered,
the extractor lever slips off of the surface on the operating
rod and the extractor then snaps to the rear, urging the rim
of the cartridge to the rear. The breech face is undercut to
a diameter somewhat less than that of the base of the car-
tridge. As a result, when the weapon is fired and the tube
moves forward off of the cartridge case, the extractor pulls
the cartridge rim to the rear and pivots it about the breech
face and out of the ejection port. This arrangement has been
generally satisfactory, however, it is important to insure
that the extractor spring is not statically stronger than the
tube return spring, since the tube return spring has to over-
come the other spring during the closing stroke. It is felt
that future development might permit modification of the
weapon to allow a conventional type of spring loaded ejector
to be used. The breech face in this case would have to be
set to the rear far enough to permit the rising cartridges to
clear the protruding ejector. One difficulty with this
arrangement is that the ejector would tend to force the base
of the cartridge away from the standing breech, and possibly
cause difficulty with the primers. The present type allows
the extractor to hold the base of the cartridge firmly to the
rear against the breech face so that this is no problem.
Future development should also consider the possibility of
converting the present cutoff system to a simple rocking type
of escapement, thereby obtaining the ability to manually
cycle the weapon without particular care to prevent double
feeding. This is not considered to be a major design problem.

-26-
CONFIDENTIAL
 CONFIDENTIAL NH-2604

The use of a Negator type spring for both a magazine spring

and follower permits the follower to engage the lower car-
tridge inthe magazine in point contact. This makes the
system less sensitive to foreign material. The T slots in
the preqent magazine are necessary to reliably position the
cartridges and direct their motion upward into line with the
chamber. The other advantage of the T slots is that they
permit the cutoff motion to be relatively small, only enough
motion to engage and disengage from the cartridge rims being
necessary. Feeding reliability has been found to be sensi-
tive to the accumulation of foreign matter in the T slots of
the magazines. It was necessary to provide a special shape
of rivet to hold the Negator spring in order to prevent the
rotation of the cartridges in the magazines, which tends to
occur at the moment of firing, from deforming the alumintmr
T $lot.

Special arrangement had to be made to prevent the entire

magazine from rotating and displacing forward relative to
the launcher during firing. As a result, the magazine catch
system provides three latches, one at the rear and two at the
front of the magazine. All three latches are operated by the
same cross button.

The incorporation of a magazine feed system on the launcher

causes some complication, and a considerable increase of mass
* to the weapon. As is usual with feed systems, the magazine
system on the -ncher can be expected to be the source of
perhaps 30 pe cent or more of any malfunctions. When used
in the single shot, semiautomatic mode, general functioning
reliability will obviously be higher than when using the
magazine. In such a case, the fact that the weapon stays
open for loading will still allow the operator to maintain a
higher rate of sustained fire than that which is attainable
in a completely manually operated launcher. It is felt that
a launcher designed specifically for this mode of operation
can be lighter in weight by more than the mere weight of the
feed system components involved in the existing design. Much
L of the complication of the existing firing system is the
result of the necessity of timing the feed system and having
rit meet other requirements imposed by the use of a magazine.

i
-27-
CONFIDENTIAL

L _
 CONFIDENTIAL NH-26o4

E. Firing System

Development of a suitable firing system was controlled by

the following requirements, both specific and implied:
Primarily, safety in operation had to be maintained as in
any weapon. The trigger pull characteristics which were
required were essentially a low weight of pull, and a short
length of pull. A suitable manually operated safety was
also required, since the launcher is not affected by
operation of the point target element safety. Based on
experience with previous launcher development, cocking or
powering of the firing system should be in a manner which
prevents inadvertent loading of the weapon without cocking
it. This implies that the cocking should take place early
in the forward tube motion or, less desirably, during the
closing motion of the tube. The latter method is less
desirable since it requires that the tube return spring
oppose the striker or hammer spring. A simple method of
firing can be obtained, and has been demonstrated, by allow-
ing the firing pin to permanently protrude from the breech
face and firing the weapon from the open or partially posi-
tion. It was agreed at the beginning of the program, that
this mode of firing may be objectionable from the human
factors viewpoint, and so firing from the closed action
position was specified. An additional requirement, common
to most firing systems, was to limit the mechanism so that
the trigger or striker could not be activated unless the
action was entirely closed. This is particularly important
in the case of the launcher, which tends to have a fairly
long cycle time, making it possible for an operator to pull
the trigger a second time before the action has completely
cycled.

The firing system design utilized on the first prototypes

made use of a pivoted lever which was actuated by the for-
ward motion of the operating rod. The other end of the
lever cocked the striker to the rear and then, in its final
position, acted as a sear. Firing was accomplished with
this design by having a bell crank lever push the cocking
lever out of the sear position. This caused the striker to
go forward, pivoting the cocking lever at the same time.
ITest'showed that this system, although simple in principle,
had several disadvantages: First, it was necessary for the
cocking lever to remain in contact with the operating rod
I throughout virtually all of the cycle. The resulting
pressure of the cocking lever against the operating rod was
a source of considerable energy loss. Secondly, the engage-

-28-
CON FIDENTIAL
 CONFIDENTIAL NH-2604

ment of the tip of the cocking lever with the striker had
to be correct as a sear engagement, but when the angles
were correct for this purposo a heavy force was required
to rotate the cocking lever and allow the striker to drive
forward. Conversely, if the system was adjusted so that a
low force was required :o mLve the cocking lever out of the
seared position, it was not reliable as a sear and frequently
became di ,laged a',d bore heavily on the operating rod,
binding thb ,cticn. Agsessment of this system made it evi-
dent that tl-e functions of cocking lever and sear should be
separated. In this way, the conditions for searing could be
made correct without affecting the function of cocking the
weapon and vice versa. At this time, an alternative firing
system was also considered which was, in effect, a single
motion or double action type of system. Such a system had
the virtue of safety and simplicity, but was incompatible
with the amount of trigger stroke which was available in the
point target element. Additionally, there were human factors
objections to the customary long, relatively hard pull of a
double action system. As a result, this concept was not
carried further. Redesign of the firing system then took
place about a separate sear and cocking lever concept. The
final design involved a "slip sear" type of arrangement,
similar in principle to that used originally on various
Winchester rifles, and currently on several other weapons.
For use on a launcher, the system was reversed in that the
sear hook surface was forward of the pivot point, instead of
behind it. The principle of operation and disconnector
action remain the same. With this design, the cocking lever
became a separate member, although it continued to operate
in similar fashion to the earlier design. To prevent undue
shock to the firing system, the bell crank firing lever,
which engages and activates the sear, was modified by a
springably mounted extension, termed the disconnector. In
order to prevent firing the system when the action is not
fully closed, a separate lever, called the interrupter, was
mounted in the trigger housing assembly. This lever is
-- arranged so that the sear motion is blocked unless the lever
is aligned with a clearance cut on the operating rod,
occurring only when the action is closed.

This firing system has been retained with slight modifications

throughout the remaining development of the weapon.

The remaining element of the firing system is the connection

system which couples the firing mechanism of the area fire
element to that of the point target element. The feature of
firing both weapons from a common trigger has undeniable

-29-

CONFIDENTIAL
 CONFIDENTIAL NH-26o4

advantages from a human factors viewpoint, but it appears

probable that the advantages which may be gained by this
do not outweigh the potential for greater reliability if
the trigger systems were separate. The point target
element has provision for a connector lever mechanism which,
when activated by the shooter, disengages the point target
element trigger mechanism and engages the trigger to the
area fire trigger mechanism. Since this arrangement neces-
sarily took place after the general configuration of the
point target element had been established, a considerable
complication in the firing systems resulted. The original
area fire trigger system provided for a connection to be
made vertically downward to the rear of the area fire
receiver area. Liaison with Springfield Armory, considering
the space limitations within the system, resulted in a change
in that the trigger connection was to be made through the
rear of the area fire receiver. In order to accomplish this
within the time available, it was necessary to add other
components in the area fire system in order to reach the
linkage within the point target weapon. This complication
can be eliminated in the course of future design, but does
not relieve the necessary complications within the point
target element trigger housing assembly. It is recommended
that future consideration of the trigger system take into
account the considerable simplification and improvement in
reliability which results in the use of separate triggers.

The basic striker housing unit also contains in it the

extractor/ejection elements, and the cam or cartridge
retainer actuator which serves to release cartridges upon
insertion of a loaded magazine. While this results in a
single, compact unit, removed from the weapon as one piece,
it complicates the effect of tolerance buildups within the
system, and consequently, affects the overall reliability
and ease of adjustment. Future development should consider
the separation of the extraction/ejection function and the
round retainer actuation function from this assembly. No
major engineering changes would be necessary in order to
accomplish this.

- F. Sihts

Frcm the viewpoint of hardware development, the sight design

was virtually an independent area. In addition to the
requirements outlined in the Technical Characteristic section
of the contract, human factors engineering input indicated
that it was very desirable to obtain a range scale which was

-30-
I CONFIDENTIAL
 CONFIDENTIAL NH-2604

as long as possible physically, and one in which the range

divisions were equally spaced in order to avoid confusion
to the shooter. Previous human factors studies had
indicated that a relatively short sight radius, 3 1/2 inches
or more, would be suitable from an optical and precision
viewpoint. In the course of the sight development, earlier
human factors studies of the optimum location of the rear
sight aperture to permit the sight to be useable when firing
the weapon from the shoulder at all angles of elevation, was
restudied and verified, using supplied point target element
weapons and a suitable, adjustable dummy sight.

Although the intended configuration of the weapon system was

such that the launcher line of recoil passes normally through
the approximate center of the point target element butt plate,
it was felt that a measurable amount of vertical jump might
still occur in firing, since the entire system tends to
recoil about the hips of the shooter. Additionally, lateral
jump is expected to be considerable, since the shooter does
not support the weapon centrally on his body. While the
effect of jump is inconsiderable on smala arms with conven-
tional muzzle velocities, the low muzzle velocity of the
grenade can logically be expected to cause relatively large
effects on the point of impact. As a result of these con-
siderations, it was decided to incorporate provision for
automatic drift compensation, and to at least demonstrate in
the sight design that some compensation for jump effects
could be incorporated. Although ballistic tables supplied
from BRL were useful for approximating the expected amount of
ballistic drift, no information wYas available on the possible
effects of jump, and development time did not permit testing
in order to assess this effect in detail. Consequently, the
zeroing adjustment in deflection, which is provided on the
sight, was larger than that nominally necessary for simple
compensation of drift at the maximum range. This extra ranqe
of adjustment is necessary in any event for bore sighting or
collimation of the sight line with the weapon.

Several alternative types of mechanical configuration were

- considered in the course of sight development, a principal
type being the so-called quadrant type, in which the range
graduations are marked on a quadrant plate, the center of
-which is the pivot point for the sight bar. Other types of
mechanical ccnfiguration included types were the rear
aperture was kept at one point, while the front aperture or
post was raised vertically along a track. The first design
decision was that the sight should be mounted on a common

-31-
CONFIDENTIAL
,,4
 CONFIDENTIAL N-26o4

sight bar and pivoted together. This prevents distortion

of the rear aperture as occurs in those types in which the
aperture does not move.

The principal shortcoming of the quadrant sight, or one in

which the range graduations are spread over a quadrant
plate, is that the quadrant itself must be quite large in
order to provide readable scale divisions.

Additionally, this sight of range scale is inherently non-

linear, the range divisions for longer range being quite
large relative to those for short ranges. As a result of
these and other considerations, it was decided to develop
a ramp type of sight, similar in operating principle to
those commonly used on European military rifle sights. In
the course of adapting this type of sight to the needs of
the launcher, it was believed that with proper geometry, it
would be possible to make the cam portion of the sight a
true arc, instead of the more complex cam shapes usually
employed. By manipulation on layouts of the location of the
sight pivot point relative to the cam, And by varying the
radius of the cam, it was found to be possible to achieve
this result in a configuration which is considerably more
compact than that of the conventional quadrant type. The
only range tables available at this time for the 40mm car-
trige, XM-385. Since the nominal ballistic characteristics
were close to those of the M407, M406 ammunition, the result-
ing design should be a fairly close approximation of any
final design. The final design should, of course, take into
account the difference in initial ballistics when using the
shorter tube of the semiautomatic launcher. Based on the
ballistic drift data in the firing tables, automatic drift
compensation was provided by inclining the cam plate in a
manner such that when the range slide is moved to the rear
for higher elevations, the sight line is displaced to the
right relative to the bore axis. As a result of using this
cam, or ramp type of construction, the range scale, from
zero meters to 400 meters, is 2.66 inches long, the spacing
being .665 inches per 100 meter, and the 25 meter marks are
- .166 inches apart and clearly distinguishable.

J Adjustments in range are made by depressing the button on

the range slide and sliding it to the rear to elevate the
weapon. When the range slide is released, the sight bar is
locked at the desired elevation, and cannot be knocked out
of position unless the slide button is deliberately pressed.

-32-

ii CON FIDENTIAL
T
CONFIDENTIAL NH-2604

Adjustment for zeroing the weapon in deflection is provided

by a movable rear aperture, which is locked in place by a
screw. Adjustments for zeroing in range are provided by
screwing the post type front sight up or down as desired.
The sight assembly is attached to the receiver cover of the
point target element, and is removed by simply pressing a
button at the front of the mount and slidii.g the sight down-
ward and off.

The horizontal distance of the sight bar from the center

line of the weapon required a compromise, in that if the
sight bar were to be located far enough out to permit the
shooter to use the sight without interfering with the front
or forward hand, the sight would have to be located so that
the bar was almost two inches to the left of the outside of
the point target weapon. It is felt that a sight located
in this manner would protrude so far as to continually be
caught in brush, etc., and would also make the whole weapon
inconvenient to carry and more delicate. Likewise, to make
the sight so that it was mounted on a hinged, or extensible
arm would make it relatively complicateq and more fragile.
Consequently, the sight was mounted relatively close to the
left side of the point target element, in a position were
the sight line clears the weapon components, but which will
require the shooter to move his thumb out of the line of
sight at certain elevations.

Although the prototypes are fabricated of aluminum alloy,

the long range production intention is that it be adapted
to stamped, sheet metal fabrication. Although government
recommendations included the use of a post type of front
sight, it is felt that a considerable improvement in
useability could result from the use of a properly designed
front aperture type of front sight. It is understood that
such a sight would require careful selection of the aperture
diameters, and the radial thickness of the aperture mask.
Future development of the sight assembly might profitably
include consideration of a simple collimator type optical
system. It should be noted that the elevating and adjust-
ing means used on the present sight are readily adaptable to
such a system.

G. Mountina

The location of the launcher assembly on the point target

element was a jubject of considerable discussion during the
early phase of the contract. Previous Winchester launcher

CONFIDENTIAL
. CONFIDENTIAL NH-26o4

design had included mounting the launcher at the forward

end of the point target element, to permit the shooter to
maintain a normal handhold on the basic weapon. Since this
arrangement resulted in an increased moment of inertia for
the entire weapon system, stability when firing bursts or
full automatically was improved, but at the expense of the
ability to bring the point target element rapidly to bear on
surprise targets. As a result, government representatives
felt that the launcher should be mounted as far to the rear
as possible, to hold the moment of inertia to a minimum.
An additional reason for doing so on the Springfield point
target element is that it was felt that mounting the
launcher on the forward section of the point target element
would result in a considerable adverse effect on point
target element dispersion. The original layouts of the
launcher showed a launcher mounted as far to the rear as
possible, the launcher at this time having a relatively short
length from the rear of the magazine to the rear of the
receiver. Discussion of this design, and manipulation of a
mockup which was constructed in this manner, showed that the
distance between the magazines of the tvo elements was too
small to permit a convenient handhold with the forward hand.
As a result, it was requested that the launcher magazine be
moved approximately two inches further forward. The mounting
bracket which was incorporated in the point target element
could not readily be moved forward by this amount, so that
the end result was a stretching of the launcher by approxi-
mately two inches, so that the magazine could be further
forward, while the rear of the launcher remained in the same
position. In the course of modifying the layouts to meet
this condition, it was decided to take advantage of the
increased length of receiver behind the magazine, by mount-
ing the tube return spring in the rear portion of the
receiver.

The method which was desired by Springfield for attaching

the point target element to the launcher involved cantilever-
ing the launcher from a bracket which is in the vicinity of
the extreme rear of the area fire element. As a result of
concern as to the reliability and ruggedness of this method
of mounting, the initial prototype weapons also incorporated
a bayonet lug type connection further forward, which locked
the middle of the area fire receiver to the point target
element. Test firing with this bayonet lug removed showed
that this secondary attachment was unnecessary, and the
cantilever arrangement was in fact adequate. As a result,
the final launcher receiver design eliminated the bayonet lug.

-34-

CONFIDENTIAL
.
 CONFIDENTIAL NH-2604

Midway in the development process, inspection of the appear-

ance of the mockups resulted in criticism from Weapons
Command about the appearance of the combined weapon. Weapons
Command pointed out that the weapon package looked like two
separate distinct weapons, instead of one integrated unit.
The reason for this is that there was a considerable gap
between the top of the launcher receiver and the bottom sur-
face of the point target element. This considerable gap made
it possible for brush, etc., to become wedged between the two
weapons. Additionally, it was stated that the overall height
of the system should be reduced if possible. As a result of
this, a supplementary agreement was made to permit Winchester
to redesign the receiver and related elements so as to close
the gap between the two weapons and give a more blended
appearance. The resulting design, incorporated on the final
delivery weapons, raised the center line of the launcher
slightly, and provided wings along the top of the launcher
receiver to mask the gap between the two weapons without
making actual contact. A secondary modification made to the
receiver at this time was the incorporation of suitable lugs
on the launcher receiver to permit mounting the bipod on the
launcher, instead of the point target element. The principal
reason for this was that the bipod, when mounted on the point
target element, interfered with the launcher ejection port
when folded. Although the new bipod mounting position causes
the bipod legs to miss the ejection port when folded, the
folded bipod does make it less convenient to insert and re-
move the launcher magazine.

Regardless of the position of the launchers on the point

target element, as long as the three round capacity is
required, the launcher will continue to be approximately
3.5 pounds in weight, and will continue to make handling of
the entire weapon package considerably more awkward than for
a conventional rifle. It is recommended that, in the event
that the launcher magazine capacity is reduced, or'the maga-
zine is eliminated, a reconsideration should be made of
mounting the launcher further forward on the point target
element.

H. Fabrication and Production Aspects

As previously noted, the first Winchester prototype launchers

used a composite construction in which the breech assembly
was of aluminum and the main receiver assembly was a fiber
glass reinforced molded plastic. Since early in the present
contract the decision was taken to make the receiver one

-35-

CONFIDENTIAL

LJ
 CONFIDENTIAL NH-2604

homogeneous member in order to obtain the necessary rigid-

ity, aluminum alloy was the logical choice for prototype
work. The choice of aluminum was also dictated by the time
required to construct the necessary molds for plastic
assembly. Various methods were considered for the fabrica-
tion process to be used in the prototypes, including that of
stamping the receiver. Again, tooling for this type of
fabrication was considered to take too long for the purposes
of the present program. Several major aluminum suppliers
and fabricators were conferred with on the possibility of
forming the basic receiver by means of impact forging. The
method envisioned involved impact forging both the main front
cavity and the rear cavity in which the striker housing is
mounted. The various vendors were supplied with receiver
details, and hypothetical forging details. Each vendor then
modified the supplied detail drawings to suit the needs of
the process as they envisioned it. At least two of these
organizations showed definite interest in the work, and
quoted tooling and fabrication times which appeared to be
within the scope of the program. i this time, because of
changing war conditions within the ospace industry, the
necessary heavy forging presses, required for the prospective
forging operations, became unavailable. Since other detail
design had taken place about the impact forged receiver con-
cept, at this point it was too late to convert the method of
fabrication to some other method. As a result, it was neces-
sary to obtain large forged cylindrical blanks and machine
the receivers entirely from solid. The process or sequence
used was as follows: First the blanks were bored to their
major internal diameter at the front end, and the rear cavity
was roughed out on a jigborer. Following this, the blanks
were Eloxed to obtain the necessary tube guidance key ways,
and to obtain the finished shape of the rear cavity.
Following this, the external shape of the receiver was rough
finished. Semi-finished, die cast magazine wells were then
attached to the basic receiver by means of T-slots, epoxy
resin, and aluminum screws. The aluminum screws served
principally to insure good electrical connection between the
magazine wells and the rest of the receiver. After the maga-
zine well-castings were assembled to the rough machined
receiver, the -remainingmachine cutF were made, which included
final finishing of the magazine well aperture. Following this,
the entire receiver was hard coated as a unit.

ii As a result of the difficulty in obtaining access to heavy

presses, and since the future availability of such presses
are an unknown factor, the Value Engineering team turned
attention to the receiver and reconsidered the practicality
:2 -36-

CONFIDENTIAL
 CONFIDENTIAL NH-2604

of a stamped receiver. Studies showed that a stamped

receiver was practical, as originally expected, and this
became the basic recommendation for future fabrication.

Construction of the early prototype magazines was made in

approximately the same manner as the prototype receivers,
that is, the internal cavity was rough machined and finished
by Eloxing. In this particular case it was convenient to
machine the magazine floor plate as an integral part. The
final delivery magazines were constructed in a different
manner, in that the magazine bodies were extruded sections,
appropriately cut to length and machined. The magazine
floor plates were made as a deep drawn shape, spot welded to
the magazine body. The assembly method for the magazine
spring and the cartridge retainer stamping was by riveting.
This was used in the first prototypes as well as in the
final delivery magazines. In general, this final method of
magazine fabrication is satisfactory, and is reasonably
light. Since the main functional components of the magazine
are the spring, the section of the magazine which contains
the T slot, and the cartridge retainer;,the magazine is
capable of a variety of alternative methods of construction.
For some of these alternative means, see Appendix E, Value
Engineering.

The striker housing was envisioned from the very beginning

as a die cast component. For practical purposes during
development, the housings were machined from solid stock.
As long as no basic changes in the general firing system are
envisioned, die casting the striker housing, either in one
or two pieces, would seem to be the best method for mass
production.

Fabrication of the tube or barrel was from solid stock, for

prototype purposes. The first tubes were constructed from
rifled blanks, the rifling being done by an outside vendor.
Early testing disclosed that the bore and rifling dimensions
on these blanks was not uniformly within specification.
Additionally, the unit cost was considered excessive. As a
result of this experience, the Winchester Model Shop adapted
a milling machine for the purpose of rifling blanks in-house.
The adaptation used at Winchester was an improved one in that
it provided better support for the rifling bar and the blank.
These hook rifled tubes were used throughout the remainder of
the project. The use of a one-piece tube has the advantage
that the tube guidance lugs can easily be held correct
relative to the bore and chamber. Since the tube is essen-
tially a thin walled tube, it would appear that proper tooling

-37-
CONFI DENTIAL
[ CONFIDENTIAL NH-2604

might allow fabrication of a tube as a linear extrusion.

This could be done by two methods: In one method, the tube
would be extruded in smooth-bore form, with the guide lugs
rough formed on the outside. Another approach would be to
extrude the tubes in thin walled forms, and by using an
appropriate shape of central mandrel, formed as a rifling
button, the tubes would be extruded with the rifling
already finished. In such a case, it would be necessary to
attach the guide lugs to the outside of the barrel afterward.

It is expected that, because of the nature of the weapon, the

bulk of the fabrication cost in production would be centered
about the receiver, the magazine well, the tube, and the
striker housing. Although these components are few in number,
they can logically be expected to be responsible for perhaps
75 per cent of the production cost. The remaining components
of the weapon are on the average considerably simpler. On
several areas, it has been possible to use more or less
standard forms of fasteners such as roll pins, standard
machine screws, and conventional rivets.

In the course of development only two or three small compo-

nents have actually been broken due to overstressing. Since
this and other information seems to indicate that some areas
of the launcher are, as presently made, over-designed, it
appears possible that future development can result in some
lightening of the system. Since experience during the
development has pointed the way toward some simplification
of the functional areas, it may be concluded that the entire
launcher is capable of considerable flexibility as to the
method of fabrication, and may be potentially lightened and
simplified. Virtually all of the potential simplifications
and refinements are of an elementary nature, and do not
require complete redesign of the system.

I. Conclusions on Technical Aspects

Some conclusions on the technical aspects of the design are

as follows:

The basic mechanical design of the system is sound.

The primary source of malfunctions on the existing

weapons appears to be due to tolerance buildups
within the system. This is largely true since the
present contract scope does not involve a formal
tolerance study.

-38-

CONFIDENTIAL
 CONFIDENTIAL NH-2604

• In general, the principles of operation of the system

lend themselves to a variety of methods of fabrication
in production. The design is sufficiently flexible
that future development and refinement will be rela-
tively straightforward.

The system can be lightened to a certain extent in

future development.

• The design of the system is such that it can be readily

adapted to a variety of methods of mounting, control,
and tactical usage.

1 -39-

CONFIDENTIAL
 UNCLASSIFIED NH-2604

SECTION IV

MAJOR LAYOUTS AND ASSEMBLIES

-40-

UNCLASSIFIED
L4
 EXTRACTOR SYSTEM

TRIGGER CONNECTOR ASSEMBLY

1... .. ..

I.i AOML
OLIN:

TOSP,
 CONFIDENTIAL'

O VIM SEMAUTOMATIOLAUNCHE

WINCHESTER- WESTERN DIVISION

OLIN MATHIESON CHEMICAL CORPORATION

CONTRACT DA-19-058-AMC 1103

PO-19-0-58-M5- T5654
TO SPRINGFIELD ARMORY, SPRINGFIELD., MASS. SECT10N4'-f
I~L.)
SECTIO
0
 OPERATION OF FEE

UNCLASSIFIED
tyo CARTmoIORTAINE HOLDIN

MAGAINE BEING INSERTED "

OPERATION OF CARTRIDGE,

FUNCTION OF CUTOFF ACTUATOR

-OPERATING ROD

OPERATING ROD MOVING FORWARD. OPERATING ROD FULLY FORWARD.

ROUND IS RESTING AGAINST CUTOFF RIM STILL GUIDED BY GROOVE IN
MAGAZINE.
ROUND RELEASED
 Mug. CAMWmoV 1usMCC TUN LATCM UP

OCTAINER CA"D TO
MLCSINO TMP ROUND TO

MAGAINE FULLY INSERTED. FEEDING FIRST ROUND

RIDGE METAINERt AND TUGS LATCH

UNCLASSIFIED
NOTES:

UNCLASSIFIED

i
1
9

12

Lz

- - - -

44 Sc-RFW. S /85/44 MECHANICAL

51448
-TNT/C YROERT
5Pe,.,slG,''.r
slqf"S /m 851450 y
51444 C*i' 4AAWA'.rTQlff
gF-, A sI TS
51439 EL
,/0 4 _4:KA9&A /Y7 8/4k RA
[a
s'sa PYN, Lo,4 t-,ouly, 23tq/,/N
1/5 a~ RH
12 144 6 ;AN --. 9 T L
/114 -5"47 L7Z29 ±~5445
C RH

H _ __ _ _ _ __ _ __ _
 REVISIONS
YM DESCRIPTION I DATE IAPPOVAL_

- =A

UNCLASSIFIED
____ _ _ ___ ___ ____ __ ___ ___ ___ PART NO. 5/46/
ECHANICAL UNLESSOTHERwISE SPECi'llo ORIGINAL DATE SRNFEDAMR .. AM EPN OMN
RERTIES - DIMENSIONS AREIN IMNES FDANG -266SPRINGFIELD LS. ARMY WEAPONSE COMMAND
1,RMASSU
-TOLERANCES ON DECIMALS ± H CKERM~
-F---.-- RACTIONS~ ANGLES TRCR4z HCE
SEE EGINERING
ECORS . ATERIAL ; a"tf
SEE
RECORDS
ENGINEERING - ENGINEER EAI, RAS~fwt.v,$e~
NEXT ASSY Iss USE Of# EAT TREATMENT SUBMITTED______
APPLICATION COOE IDENT NO.OWlS
SIZE
00 1107 APPS.YPART NO FINAL PROTECTIVE FINISH /05 D 0)5/46/

LDO4 1)3AD SPECIFIED CL : If_______________

UNITWT V IO /
 UNCLASSIFIED NH-2604

APPENDIX A

Engineering Calculations

A-I

UNCLASSIFIFD
 UNCLASSIFIED -26o4

CALCULATIONS AND ANALYSIS

During the course of development several types of calculations

were made, principally in the following categories:

. Those necessary to analysis of the power system

energy output.

* Evaluation of the effect of the power system on

muzzle velocity, range capability, and range
dispersion characteristics.

* Estimation of the energy and static forces. required

for feeding.

Those relating to projectile spin rate and required

rifling twist rate.

* Calculations on acceptable tube wall thickness and

dynamic expansion.

A large portion of the calculations dealt with empirical data.

Although the design as a whole is relatively simple, in the
area of power system operating energy, a large number of
parameters affect the system, and as variations were made in
the system on one parameter at a time, it was usual to plot the
parameter versus output so as to obtain at least an approxima-
tion of the optimum values.

The most frequently used analytical aid was the time-displacement

chronograph (film-drum type). Records from this device were used
in two ways: particular values of velocity (and consequently,
energy) were obtained by analysis of the film with a direct
reading goniometer. Secondly, familiarity with the characteris-
tics of the time-displacement traces permitted the designers to
correlate particular inflections of the curves with certain
mechanical functions (or malfunctions) in the course of studying
mechanical functioning. Typical of this was a tell-tale dis-
junction of the tube trace when excessive energy was lost in
engagement of the striker cocking lever with the forward moving
operating rod. Another example is the characteristic inflection
at front impact of the tube. Since front impact was necessary
to the operation of the magazine cutoff, inspection of the curve
could indicate whether a failure to feed from the magazine was
due to lack of operating energy or to some cause within the feed
system proper.

A-2
UNCLASSIFIED

,
 UNCLASSIFIED NH-2604

A Fastax high-speed motion picture camera was frequently used

for studying ejection and feeding. Since the drum chronograph
is generally superior for obtaining quantitative displacement
and velocity data, the high speed pictures are used for the
purpose only on special cases. The exception on this program
was in using the Fastax camera to relate projectile muzzle
exit to forward tube motion. The Fastax camera was convenient
for this because of the low muzzle velocity.

UNCLASSIFIED
A-3
 UNCLASSIFIED
NH-2604
SAMPLE CALCULATIONS AND CURVES

PROJECTILE SPIN RATE AT LAUNCH

Rifling Twist: 1 turn in 42 inches (3.j ft)

Spin Rate in RPM is:

N = Vo - Vtube x 60
3.5

= (Vp - Vtube) x 17.143 (RPM)

Projectile Velocity, Vp:

Vp and Vtube were measured simultaneously (chronograph

and drum camera)

VP (5 round mean) = 231.05 ft/sec

(Individual velocities were 229.2, 227.3, 235.0, 231.3,

and 235.0)

These correspond to T-D records 511-515 inclusive.

Fastax pictures of muzzle exit were then taken on 3 shots,

showing the tube displacement relative to the receiver at
the instant of muzzle exit. The pictures showed this
displacements as 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 inches. Analysis of the
tube velocity at this point (using the T-D curves) showed
values of Vtube as 19, 20, 21, 21, and 22 ft/sec, averaging
20.6 ft/sec.

The spin rate is then

N = (231 - 20.6) (17.43) = 3670 RPM +

Rate specified for M79: 3750 mean, 3000 min.

A-4
UNCLASSIFI
US ED

I
 ! [ NCLSSIIEDLm.,l,44.,r TuJe * 1 0 1e-Sk
UNCLASSIFIED (same) -2604

1 WALL THgCKNESS R.CuIuMD

,4,.From; XT +'(
i MIN. , (,I,.

~~4CX sF/ C-C

0 3

,/<. -,'- /aI.,,,,&,r, ofo. 35)

a*c4 Hex Amq'ceft*a/ slt~oss 7-T 4F
IB,ooo ip-I l i, -4 r s'teel

PaL ,
(g&tc#%, 4 psrWm" Of 4000 lb-,J

!.m~m"K wa.o
ll -,.er,,,,.o,
z is

4,' = Rooo 'A%

1I m/ 0 5,42
/ a/ APS*01 .74d

,. = /6*. *,,7 j * i* fr" /;1,, .)

A-5
UNCLASSIFIED
 ldIt

I
i

I L_

UNCLASSIFIED.
 CIMENNH-
A)Nq .2604

4A L r. I P-1

I I~ 41I
KlF _Hi Ll 4 'IO ID.
-H 4_1 4- 1.5~

co II

+0

1A I 0

Lt fr

N 44k

-7 j
771SItE
WiT FA
 UNCLASSMFED NH- 2604

dT

2 4

flu

4 Ai
 UNCLASSIFIED N2604

071.

- --- - -
------- ..

al

34 0I

Ma - - -
- - - -
- -----
CL~~ :I: ~ -- -
--

0 U'

000
NC SI
 'l'lfI,
300UNCLASSIFIED

80 ~~~r MPAR0 - iR CFTJ-ayj

NH-2604

60-

V1-

Z4r

oNLASIIE
 UNCLASSIFIED- NH-2604

Forcea %I-R oo
80Wfd Atof *S
Ad.'r4/ad t IF -j DAA
70i

50 Frem2F ~ a&IAM

.0Ii

10,

T U

- -- -

LOY
I

A-L
 UNt CLAS SI Fi1EP Ni26

1:1 1
Ii - -Lr--1 -
I. -.....
LL

- - -- -- - - --.

.11

I Lt
UNCLASSIFIED
 ~~B rr'.JTg: L-/ DATE 3AP4 1
NS. X R I p2 . IF-;Ti'-. M, l WiT-2h ) 4

I I3 ''-
UNT

l , __ _ _ __,_ __ _

__ 1 104 ?2243& +A_

_ -, 2
/_
_ _ _
_ I _

L
____L _ __ , ,,_ __ ,____ _ _.

I~ ~ 41 1 1 1, T , - '
tol'-.0

I L I
_ _r A Pi '4
 STATI]ZTICAL. DATA RMOUCTION
S uBE3, t 4
CT:7 cl, a PROJ?' 465 Dy: oW DATCE:21AP6"
iZR~ x{ RZ
_____v

~ VA-iATIEI ~ FEC~O 4 -2 04
__ NE ___J~ce ef;/ ID ^7rft___ -

I I __ ____ _____ ____

___I 4, 52 0 + Q, 4- , i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Z_

____ , 31 .7 0./ _ 4~L

7___ 35 5. I54 4

Q u. -r,
+5, +- ~ 4 __ __ __ _ __ _

2 ~.O
jQ2 27~
R 4j __7

215, p__I,_1

7 z37-5 2 9-o05' d__ - 4_t5 _

_____ ~ 7.1, - I9 4, a4- Tr)

____- z 5 +~5 2-Q/ c+4-_ __ _ _

114
 :
: NH- 2604
T.UNCLASSIFIED
-

.I
.. I~7
I.. zgj
i..
~~~.~ ~H

. .. . .
. 1.

'74'
T1 ..
...

IfI

V
.
X L4 L

qj
 UNC."T
fcF .

*i i.tI ±,T;
.... , ' ...
'LL
,
:'+ a,-
17
l

P I '
4i-

'
-4-~~

1'41

2 :KT .21'',
4.+ 4t
: 1-1F.-'.
7!tl
4
'
4~4 7 ..]'T '
' ,
.-- , .

.... .--. z :1 -- -- -

: .. .. LL7.

•*

+ .
,-.
L -.
'
''-L
4
,- +
' ,
' ''
-
 UNCLASSIFIED---
I! 40MM M40'7AI
all*

MWAG*,'aL( 0"LCIA)
?AM
14 C ls p ta3 r a p. -oi

1.7~
*mpN, Q'.Iw2.m.
K_---a E:&a OgMO. w )

_____o ___-_77

It-

I~~c LiL2-
ni+7FFT-
III,

_ UNCLASSIFIED
 UNCLASSIFIED NH- 2604

APPENDIX B

Illustrations

B-1.

UNCLASSIFIED
NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE H-2604

ft

0
L"
z

0.

Lu

0
u

z
0

L-;

I
Lu

i z--i

NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

 NH- 2604

uJ

U,
IL

'U
 NH- 2604

>.
0

(0

II
-<1:- r' - -. ~ ,-, NH-2604

I-
z
~Eh3- 0
II
I
I (j,
ILl
I I-
L o
K z0
U.'

V
z
~1

* rr-> ;*i~

I
 NH -2604

I LOADED MAGAZINE
 -w~ N-2604

SIGHT ASSEMBLY, LEFT SIDE

 NH -2604

SIGHT ASSEMBLY, TOP VIEW

J ~~UNCLASSIFIED - O

0 L

z~ LLA
LI L.4..
~- Ih~j

n tni

i&JZ
wa

U~aASSIFIE
 CONFIDENTIAL

APPENDIX C

Human Factors Engineering

C-1
CONFIDENTIAL
I CONFIDENTIAL
I
"- Prepared for:

Olin-Mathieson Chemical Corporation

Winchester-Western Division
New Haven, Connecticut

HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING FOR THE

SPECIAL PURPOSE INDIVIDUAL
WEAPON (SPIW) LAUNCHER (U)

Final Report

Purchase Order NHW 98486

30 June 1966

Prepared by:

r[ Dunlap and Associates, Inc.

Darien, Connecticut

[
C-2

5 CONFIDENTIAL
I-i
 CONFIDENTIAL

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. Introduction C-4

II. Approach C-5

III. Summary of Human Factors Recommendations C-6

IV. Technical Analysis and Results C-8

A. Feed System Design C-8

1. Configuration C-8

a. Selection of Alternate Designs C-8

b. Criterion Selection and Weighting C-9
I c. Design Evaluation C-12

2. Associated Components C-16

a. Cartridge Retainer C-16

- b. Magazine Insertion/Removal C-16
c. Magazine Latch C-16
d. Charger Handle C-20
e. Manual Tube Latch C-20
f. Manaal Tube Lock C-20

B. Trigger/Safety Design C-21

I. Trigger C-21

[ a.
b.
Selection of Alternate Designs
Criterion Selection and Weighting
C-21
C-23
c. Design Evaluation C-24

2. Field Safety C-26

C. Sight Design C-27

C-3

CONFIDENTIAL

*
I CONFIDENTIAL

HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING FOR THE

SPECIAL PURPOSE INDIVIDUAL
$- WEAPON (SPIW) LAUNCHER

I. Introduction

This report presents the human factors engineering studies and design
recommendations provided by Dunlap and Associates, Inc. , to the Arms
Product Engineering Department, Winchester-Western Division of the
Olin-Mathieson Chemical Corp. , on the Special Purpose Individual Weapon
(SPIW) program. The scope of this effort was confined to the launcher
(area fire) subsystem of the total weapon system.

The report is organized to present, successively, the human factors

approach and general guidelines, a summary of the human factors design
recommendations, and the technical analyses and results supporting the
recommendations.

ir

I
I C-4

I CONFIDENTIAL
 CONFIDENTIAL

II. Approach

The human factors approach to launcher design is best characterized

by a series of guidelines which styled the work effort during the entire
program.

Utilize the experience available from the previous SPIW program--

The human factors project team reviewed all reports relative to
human factors on the previous program and actively encouraged
comment and critique of its work by personnel from: the Human
Engineering Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md. (HEL);
Sp-ingfield Armory, Springfield, Mass. (Springfield); and the
Arms Product Engineering Department of Winchester.

Allow equal consideration to all alternate designs--Design evalua-

tion was not compromised in its scope by the technical experience
and hardware which resulted from the first SPIW programs.

Subject all alternate designs to a systematic comparative evaluation--

i In each major design area, a definitive evaluation was performed
using a technique which permitted a quantitative assessment of
each design and an objective comparison of their relative merits.

Maintain the rr :iuired independence of the human factors effort- -

All initial human factors analyses were performed in relative
isolation from detailed engineering and other system constraints.

Maintain close coordination with the engineering effort--Over 90%

Uof *
the technical work was performed at the Winchester facility,
thereby facilitating the interface between human factors and
engineering personnel so essential to design selection and imple- 4

mentation.
I

I
I
!4

C-5

CONFIDENTIAL
3CONFIDENTIAL

III. Summary of Human Factors Recommendations

Listed below are summary statements of the human factors recommenda-

[tions for the basic launcher design and major associated components. Tech-
nical studies and other rationale supporting the recommendations may be

I found in Section IV.

Feed System Configuration

Recommendation: In-Line Tube design, ref. Fig. 1

* Cartridge Retention in Magazine

Recommendation: Retainer latch design (on magazine)

[Magazine Insertion/Removal

Recommendation: Direct vertical insertion/removal

Magazine Latch

Recommendation: Dual pushbutton controls, on rear of

magazine well

Char gex Handle

Recommendation: Integral with tube, over ejection port area

i Manual Tube Latch

Recommendation: Lever control, forward of field safety

.JManual Tube Lock

Recommendation: Lever control, underside of barrel, forward

of magazine well

Trigger

I Recommendation: Combined triggers with connector lever

I
IC-6

3 CONFIDENTIAL
 ! CONFIDENTIAL

Field Safety

Recommendation: Lever control, above launcher keyway

[Recommendation: Ramp type, side mounted, short sight radius

'U

r
U

I
I
I
I
IC-7

1 CONFIDENTIAL
I CONFIDENTIAL
I
IV. Technical Analysis and Results

This section presents and discusses the technical analysis and results
which support the human factors design recommendations. The presentation
reflects the compartmentalization of the total study area into three relatively
independent topics--feed system design, trigger/safety design, and sight
Id design.

A. Feed System Design

K 1. Configuration

Overall configuration design for the feed system was judged to

be the most critical area for human factors study. Accordingly, the major
effort for the first seven weeks of the project was concentrated here. As
discussed below, the approach taken involved a systematic evaluation of
several design candidates. A battery of human factors criteria was prepared,
and each design was given a relative rating score on each criterion. The
criteria were weighted to reflect their relative importance and the rating
scores were multiplied by the weights to provide a weighted rating score for
each design against each criterion. The scores were summed to yield a
composite rating for each design. Finally, the composite ratings were ranked
to provide an ordering of the human factors design preferences.

ISummary results and recommendations for feed system con-

figuration design are given in Section III. Presented below, in chronological
order, are the initial analysis and the successive iterations of the analysis,
which resulted from comments, eitiques and directives from HEL and
Springfield.

J a. Selection of Alternate Designs

The initial goal of the study was to develop generic configura-

tion designs. Several designs were in hand when the human factors specialists
joined the project team. These designs had been suggested by the engineering
staff and were obviously most responsive to engineering-type criteria. The
list of candidates was extended by developing other concepts based exclusively
on human factors considerations. Accordingly, task requirements and relevant
operator skills and capabilities were reviewed. The question was asked--what
I will be required of the man; e. g. , aiming, pointing, firing, loading, carrying,
etc. Similarly, what are his relevant skills and limitations; e. g., reaction
time, field of view, anthropometry, etc. These requirements, capabilities

IC-8

I CONFIDENTIAL
-| CONFIDENTIAL

and constraints were loosely documented and catalogued. The process served
a dual purpose--to stimulate design ideas and to grossly screen and evaluate
these ideas. The intent was not to establish a final design but to generate a
family of design candidates, all of which showed at least initial human factors
promise.

Several alternate designs were developed by this method.

They were submitted to the engineering staff for screening against criteria
associated with mechanical complexity, reliability, etc. Similarly, design
concepts developed by the engineers were evaluated against human factors
criteria. The end result was the selection of eight candidates for further
study, all of which were characterized by at least marginal compliance with
ji initial human factors and engineering criteria.

Figure 1 shows the general configuration for each design.

It should be emphasized that at this point in the study a requirement still
existed for a magazine fixed in place. Thus, loading refers to single round
replenishment.

b. Criterion Selection and Weighting

Preliminary criteria, used for the initial design screening,
served as baseline inputs to the preparation of a final battery. Every effort
was made to give an unambiguous operational definition to each criterion--
relate it to specific tasks, and to maintain independence between criteria--
relate then to dif" rent tasks. The result was a criterion battery of eleven
items, as shown below.

- Forward Hand Support- -provides good support for the

off hand during aiming, pointing and firing in both
area and point fire modes.

Loading- -facilitates rapid l6ading of a) first round,

b) replenishment of magazine, and c) single rounds
when maintaining sustained fire.

Concealment- -permits minimum conspicuity of the

shooter under all conditions of concealment.
I . Carrying- -allows for comfortable, balanced carrying
with a) two-hands, b) sling, and c) one-hand.

C
I -
3J CONFIDENTIAL
 CONFIDENTIAL

J4J

l.I

CE
. I

I .
C-10

C-10
J] CONFDENTIA
I| CONFIDENTIAL

u4N

. ,)

to
lql

I I
I .

I (CO Nf"; ENTI AL

3 CONFIDENTIAL
I
Compatibility with Area Fire Sights--has minimum pro-
trusion into the preferred sight line of the area fire
sights.

r Environmental Protection- -affords good protection for

,[ muzzle and ports from sand, dirt, mud, etc.

* Ejection Envelope--provides for shell ejection in a man-

-I ner that will not degrade visibility or constrain firing
po sition.

L . Protrusions--has minimum number of protrusions that

could break off, snag in brush, etc.

Forward Hand Safety- -provides prot ction for the off

hand from ejec . .n port and ejected shells.

Left Hand Operation- -permits fast and accurate opera-

tion by the left-handed shooter.

Ammunition Status- -facilitates optimum positioning of

an ammo status indicator.

Obviously, all criteria were not of equal importance. There-

fore, each was weighted to reflect its appropriate contribution to the total
evaluation. A ten-point scale (10 highest .--.---.
1 lowest) was used j'or the
weighting. Two human factors specialists and a senior design engineer pre-
pared independent weightings after agreeing on a baseline point, i. ., the
criterion "Forward Hand Holding" was weighted 10. Other criteria were
weighted relative to the base point and the average weight for each was used
for the evaluation.

c. Design Evaluation

I ,All candidate designs were rated against the criterion battery.

A five-point scale.was used with 5 assigned to the design(s) most responsive to
each criterion. Remaining concepts were rated on each criterion by asking the
question: How responsive to the criterion is the design relative to the design(s)
rated 5? To illustrate: designs A, B, C and E were all rated 5 on the criterion
"Ejection Envelope" because they ejected shells away from the right-hand
shooter and did not constrain firing position; concepts D, G and H were rated 4
because they ejected shells toward the right-hand shooter; and concept F was

rated 2 because it had downward ejection, thereby requiring the shooter to adopt
a firing position which must always provide considerable ground clearance.

C-1Z

I CONFIDENTIAL
 CONFIDENTIAL

The matrix of ratings permitted all design concepts to be

compared against any individual criterion. However, they did not allow a
comparison of all designs across all criteria. To permit this comparison,
each rating was weighted in accordance with the associated criterion weight.
The resulting weighted rating scores were obtained by multiplying each rating
and the associated criterion weight.

Finally, the weighted scores were summed and then ranked

to yield the ordering of human factors design recommendations for feed system
[ configuration.

Table I shows the evaluation matrix with the eleven criteria,

the criterion weights, the eight candidate designs, the rating scores (first
entry in each cell) and the weighted rating scores (second entry in each cell).
Also, the table shows the composite ratings and their rank-order. As indi-
L cated, the In-line Tube (Design A) was the preferred human factors design.

The above evaluation was presented for review and comment

to human factors personnel at HEL. Based on their review and further study
by the project team, a second, similar analysis was undertaken. The major
change in the evaluation was removal of "Ammo Status" as a major human fac-
tors criterion and inclusion of "Moment of Inertia" as a new criterion. This
criterion was associated primarily with the effect of each desi ,n, i. e., the design's
c. g., or swing fire ability. Also, some of the criterion weights and fesign
ratings were altered. The results of this second evaluation are shown in
Table II. As indicated, the preferred human factors design, and the first
alternate design, remained as determined from the first analysis.

I On 19 August 1965, the results of these analyses were pre-

sented to Springfield Armory personnel. After review of human factors,
engineering and systems considerations, the human factors effort was directed
to focus on design refinement of the "Box, down" design (Design C) with the
following changes:

I . the magazine would be removable

the requirement for reloading the magazine while

in position would be eliminated

the configuration would be moved approximately

I Zinches forward of the original position

IC-13

CONFIDENTIAL
4
I CONFIDENTIAL

Table I. Initial Evaluation of Feed System Configuration Designs

___.__- Designs .....

A B C D E F G H
Human Factors In-line Double Box, Rotary, Pods, Pods, Rotary, Box,
Criteria Weight Tube Tube down down down up side side

1. Forward Hand
Support 10 5-50 3-30 4-40 4-40 3-30 3-30 4-40 4-40
2. Loading
a) first round 4 4-16 3-12. 4-16 4-16 3-12 3-12 4-16 5-20

b) magazine 3 4-12 5-15 3-9 3-9 4-12 4-12 3-9 3-9

c) sustained fire 3 14-12 3-9 4-12 4-12 3-9 3-9 4-12 5-15
[ 3. Concealment 8 5-40 4-32 3-24 4-32 4-32 4-32 5-40 5-40
4. Carrying
Ea) 2-hands(walk-
ing & crawling) 3 5-15 4-12 4-12 4-12 4-12 4-12 4-12 3-9
b) sling 2 5-10 4-8 5-10 4-8 2-4 2-4 5-10 5-10 ;
c) 1-hand(walk-
ing &crawling) 2 4-8 4-8 5-10 4-8 4-8 4-8 2-4 2-4
S5. Compatibility wit
Area Sights 6 5-30 5-30 5-30 4-24 4-24 3-18 5-30 4-24

6. Environmental
I Protection -
muzzle & ports 5 3-15 5-25 5-25 5-25 4-20 1-5 3-15 3-15
j 7. Ejection Envelope 3 5-15 5-15 5-15 4-12 5-15 2-6 4-12 4-12
8. Protrusions 3 5-15 4-12 4-12 4-12 4-12 4-12 4-12 3-9
9. Forward Hand
Safety 3 5-15 5-15 5-"15 5-15 5-15 5-15 5-15 4-12
10. Left Hand
Operation 3 4-12 5-15 5-15 4-12 5-15 5-15 2-6 2-6
11. Ammo Status 2 4-8 5-10 5-10 5 -0 5-10 5-10 5-10 5-10
Composite score Z73 248 255 247 230 200 243 235
Rank 1 3 2 4 7 8 5 6

C2-14

* CONFIDENTIAL
 CONFIDENTIAL

Table II. Second Evaluation of Feed System Configuration Designs

_____De signs ,,
A B C D E F G H
Human Factors [n-line Double Box, 'Rotary, Pods, Pods, Rotary, Box,
Criteria Weight Tube Tube down down down side side

1. Forward Hand
- Support 10 ,-50 3-30 4. 5-45 4. 5-45 3-30 3-30 5-50 5-50
2. Loading
a) first round 4 1-16 4-16 4-16 4-16 4-16 4-16 5-20 5-20
b) magazine 2 .6 5-10 3-6 3-6 4-8 4-8 2-4 2-4
c) sustained fire 4 4-16 4-16 5-20 3-12 3-12 3-12 4-16 5-20
L 3. Concealment 8 5-40 4-32 4.5-36 4-32 4-32 4-32 5-40 5-40
4. Carrying
7' a) 2-hands(walk-
ing& crawling) 3 5-15 4-12 5-15 5-15 3-9 3-9 4-12 4-12
b) sling 2 5-!0 4-8 5-10 5-10 3-6 3-6 5-10 5-10
c) 1-hand(walk-
ing & crawling) 2 4-8 4-8 5-10 5-10 4-8 4-8 3-6 3-6
5. Compatibility with
Area Sights 4 5-20 5-20 5-20 4-16 4-16 3-1Z 4-16 4-16

[ 6. Environmental
Protection
muzzle & ports
_

2 3-6 5-10 5-10 4-8 4-8 2-4 3-6 3-6

7. Ejection Envelope 2 5-10 5-10 5-10 4-8 5-10 2-4 4-8 4-8
8. Protrusions 2 5-10 4-8 4-8 4-8 4-8 4-8 4-8 4-8
9. Forward Hand
Safety 2 5-10 5-10 5-10 5-10 5-10 5-10 5-10 4-8
10. Left Hand
Operation 2 4-8 5-10 5-10 4-8 5-10 5-10 2-4 2-4
11. Moment of
Inertia 4 5-20 4-16 4-16 4-16 4-16 4-16 5-20 5-20
Composite score 245 216 242 220 199 185 230 232
Rank 6 2 5 7 8 4 3

C-15

I CONFIDENTIAL

,woo"
 CONFIDENTIAL

Accordingly, human factors analysis proceeded with minor

evaluations and trade-off studies associated with launcher components.

2. Associated Components

Design of components associated with the feed system, such as

magazine latch, charger handle: etc. , were subjected to human factors study.
Design recommendations and supporting rationale for these components are
presented below.

a. Cartridge Retainer

Two basic cartridge retainer designs were subjected to a

comparative evaluation: 1) a retainer latch magazine, and 2) a Mendoza sin-
gle feed lip magazine. Both designs can be made adaptable to clip loading
when detached and afford good portability and handling characteristics.
Characteristics of human factors relevance which tended to differentiate the
designs are summarized in Table III.

CBased on the trade-off as shown in Table III, the on balance

recommendation was for a retainer latch magazine. The recommendation was
put forth with the understanding that the engineering design implementation
would provide for reliability compatible with total system reliability require-
ments, and that the bottomn of the magazine cover would be rounded and canted
upward to attenuate the problem of downward protrusion.

b. Magazine Insertion/Removal

Five methods of inserting and removing the magazine were

investigated- -pivoting the magazine in each of the four primary directions
and straight vertical insertion/removal. The assets and liabilities of each,
in terms of operator functions, are summarized in Table IV.

j From the trade-off analysis as shown in Table IV, the

human factors design recommendation was for a straight vertical method of
insertion and removal. To enhance the ease of magazine insertion, it was
further recommended that sizable lead-in lips be provided on all sides of the
magazine well.

c. Magazine Latch

The recommendation for magazine latch control was:

location - on both sides of the magazine well at the rearmost position;
action - Dushbutton action, at right angles to base centerline. In this location,

CONFIDENTIAL
 CONFIDENTIAL

Table III. Cartridge Retainer Design

Human Factors Trade-Off

Magazine
Design Pros Cons

11. Retainer Can insert partially full magazine Protrudes downward

Latch
: [
independent of tube position. 1
1/2" more than
Mendoza type maga-
Can remove magazine independent zin.
of tube position.
.... Less inherent relia-
*,Fast recharging of weapon from bility than Mendoza
. partial to full capacity. type magazine.
Charger loading of magazine
possible when detached.
One hand loading of detached
_ _magazine is possible.

2. Mendoza - Less protrusion (- 1/2") than Magazine insertion -

Single Feed retainer latch magazine, removal possible

L Lip only with tube ,
Lip . Design offers inherently high o
~forward.
reliability.
Slow recharging.
Charger loading of
detached magazine
not possible.
Requires two-hand
loading of detached
magazine.
Requires more bulk
in breech area.

C-17

3 CONFIDENTIAL
I CONFIDENTIAL

Table IV. Magazine Insertion/Removal - Human Factors Trade-Off

iMethod of
I Insertion/
Removal Pros Cons
1. Vertical Allows for rapid insertion (use of . Direction of insertion

long-deep lead-ins), not fully compatible

Equally adaptable to left and right with body-hand support.

Ihand loading.
Compatible with point fire magazine
insertion and removal.
Minimum complexity.
[. If must handle magazine for re-
moval, pull is compatible with
body-hand support.

2. Pivot-Front Lead-ins bhould allow for reason- If must handle magazine,

ably fast insertion, not fully compatible with
Equally adaptable to left andbody-hand support.

ij hand loading.
Very compatible with most corn-
mon magazine catch designs.
mo*aaiecthdsgs
Would require complex
movement
moeentndr
plex
and/or comn-
o
top round totoclear
allowengineering

* Direction of insertion compatible breech face.

with body-hand support. Not
compatible with
point fire magazine
insertion and removal.
3. Pivot-Rear If must handle magazine for re- Direction of insertion not

moval, pull is compatible with fully compatible with

body-hand support. body-hand support.
1 Should permit reasonably fast
insertion,
Not compatible with
point fire magazine

* Equally adaptable to left and right insertion and removal.

hand loading. Requires two distinct
movem~ents for insertion.

Ic-18

I CONFIDENTIAL
. . . .. . . . --- -
 CONFIDENTIAL
I
Table IV (continued)

Method of
~Insertion/
Removal Pros Cons

4. Pivot-Left (No relative advantages) INot compatible with point

fire magazine insertion
and removal.
Pivot side (left) obscured
from view.
* Not equally adaptable to
left and right hand load-
ing.
Requires two distinct
movements for insertion.

5. Pivot-Right Insertion should be relatively Not compatible with

fast, i. e., pivot side is point fire magazine
visible, insertion and removal.
Not equally adaptable to
left and right hand
loading.

Requires two distinct

movements for
insertion.

1 C-19
3 CONFIDENTIAL j
 I CONFIDENTIAL.

U
t.
the control can be quickly operated by the thumb of the off hand and by the
right- or left-handed shooter. Upon activation, the empty magazine is
expected to fall clear, thereby facilitating rapid three-round loading. It
I
was further recommended that the hand grip material, added to the under-
side of the negator spring housing to improve off-hand holding, protrude
directly behind the latch control to afford protection against accidental
A' activation.

d. Charger Handle

A Three positions were considered for location of the

charger handle: 1) forward of the magazine and under the barrel, 2) for-
ward of the magazine and on the right side of the barrel, and 3) in-line
with the magazine on the ejection port area of the tube. Position 1 is
most suitable to left or right-hand operation; however, both positions 1 and
2 require excessively long reach. Accordingly, position 3 was recom-
mended. In this location, arm reach is minimal and operation by the thumb
of the trigger hand provides ample room for ejection of an empty case or

t
A runfired round.

e. Manual Tube Latch

Two positions for the manual tube latch were given serious
consideration: 1) forward of the field safety and above the magazine well on
the left side of the barrel, and 2) on the barrel, forward of the ejection port.
Position I has a decided advantage in terms of speed of operation- -the
weapon can be held with the left hand, loaded with the right hand, and closed
immediately upon loading by activating the control with the left thumb. Con-
versely, position 2 has some advantage in the inherent safety it offers
against inadvertent activation while loading a single round. The safety
rproblem in this context was not judged to be critical and, therefore, position
1 was recommended.
I
I f. Manual Tube Lock

f A manual tube lock may be required because of the rela-

tively short case on flare rounds. If required, itwas recommended that
tube locking be controlled by a lever located on the barrel underside,
just forward of the magazine well. In this position, the control is well pro-
tected against accidental movement. It has minimum protrusion, but can
be seen from the rear in either position because it will extend slightly
beyond the machined grooves of the magazine well. While the location does

J C-20

CONFIDENTIAL
 CONFIDENTIAL
I
not permit the most rapid control activation, it was judged to be sufficient
i for the task and the frequency with which it will be performed.

Trigger/Safety Design
E B.
Human factors study of design options for the area fire trigger were
inextricably associated with the general problem of area fire safety. One
of the major design criteria affecting trigger selection was safe, unambiguous
operation. Accordingly, trigger and safety design was subjected to a com-
bined analysis. The analysis and results are presented below; first, for the
trigger design and the implication for safety associated with firing the weapon
and, second, for the one relatively independent aspect of safety--the field
or traveling safety.

1. Trigger

In establishing human factors recommendations for trigger de-

sign, the approach taken was similar to that used in establishing design
recommendations for the feed system configuration. Alternate designs
were evaluated against a battety of human.factors criteria. A weighted rat-
ing technique was used to establish an ordering of human factors design
preferences. Summary results and recommendations are presented in
Section III. Presented below are the initial analysis and the successive itera-
tions, which again resulted from comments, critiques and directives from
HEL and Springfield.

a. Selection of Alternate Designs

fA preliminary list of human factors criteria was prepared

and this, in combination with a review of the earlier SPIW program, facili-
tated generation of alternate trigger designs. Other designs were suggested
by the engineering staff. All designs were subjected to initial screening
against human factors and engineering criteria. Six designs, all of which
were reasonably responsive to the criteria in hand, were selected for
definitive evaluation. A composite sketch of their location relative to the
point fire system is shown in Figure 2.

Major characteristics of the triggers shown in Figure 2 are:

Design A: Forward of Point Fire Magazine--this trigger

is located 2" to 3" forward of the point fire magazine;
it has a folding cover which eliminates protrusion when
not in use and protects the point fire magazine from
area fire recoil.
I
C-21

CONFIDENTIAL
 CONFIDENTIAL

[-
A,

te

C E LD

Li Z" A- concept
Thisthe
locates trigger
forward with the
launcher firing
mechanism.

Figure 2. Alternate Trigger Designs.

C-22

[1 CONFIDENTIAL
 ~CONFIDENTIAL

Design B: Rear of Point Fire Trigger Guard--this trigger

is located 1" to 2" rearward from the point fire trigger
guard; it is spring loaded forward toward the point fire
trigger guard when not in uke and is further secured in
the safe position by a sliding cover mounted on the point
fire trigger guard.

[ Design C: Point Fire Trigger Guard--this trigger is the

horizontal section of the point fire trigger guard; it is
spring loaded to the horizontal position and can be secured
in that position by a stiding cover mounted on the forward
section of the guard; it is also hinged to swing into posi-
tion when the entire trigger guard is pivoted 900, i. e.
for firing with arctic mittens.

Design D: Forward of Point Fire Trigger--this trigger

is located in line with the forward section of the point
fire trigger guard and displaced 1/2" - 3/4" to the right
of it; it is swung approximately 1800 into position from!
a stowed location along the right side of the weapon. i

Design E: Combined Triggers--this trigger is identical

th the point fire trigger; it requires a connector con-
trol which must be operated simultaneously with the
trigger to effect area fire; the connector control is a
"dead-man" button located directly below the point fire
r sight.

Design F: Plunger--this trigger is also located directly

Eof behind the point fire trigger guard; it is unique in its direction
pull- -ver ,cal, into the stock; it has a trigger guard
and provides ample clearance for the fingers of the
trigger hand when using the weapon in point fire mode.

b. Criterion Selection and Weighting

Again, the preliminary criteria a to aid in the genera-

tion and screening of alternate designs, ser"- oaseline inputs for the
final criterion battery. After several '- .- ve refinements, a battery
of ten criteria was assembled. The ite,.1s and their operational definitions
are listed below.

SC-23

CONFIDENTIAL
I
ICONFIDENTIAL
F
Forward Hand Support- -provides good support for the
off hand during aiming, pointing and firing in both
area and point fire modes.

j .Trigger Location--Anthropometry--provides for a

firm grip and smooth pull.

[Trigger Selection- -Speed- -provides for minimum

delay in- selecting either area or point fire mode.

. One-hand Operation- -trigger location permits firing

weapon using hip or shoulder and one hand.

.. Environmental Protection- -trigger is well protected

against accidental activation by branches, vines, etc.

L Physical Interface- -Point Fire Trigger- -allows for

uninhibited operation of point fire trigger.

Physical Interface- -Area-Sight--does not interfere

with area fire sight line.

. Physical Interface- -Point Fire Magazine -- allows for

uninhibited insertion/removal of point fire magazine.

. Recoil Protection- -permits shooter to absorb recoil

with hands and shoulder in the normal proportionate
amounts.

Trigger Selection- -Ambiguity- -provides for minimum

probability of selecting unintended firing mode.

The criteria were weighted to reflect their relative irnpor-

tance using a ten-point scale. Independent weighting was completed by two
human factors specialists and one design engineer after agreeing on the
baseline point, i. e. , the criterion, "Trigger Selection- -Ambiguity, " was
weighted 10. Other criteria were weighted relative to the base point and
the average weight for each was used for the evaluation.

jC. Design Evaluation

Each design was rated on each criterion in the same man-

j ner as per the feed system configuration design evaluation. Similarly,

I C-24

I CONFIDENTIAL
I CONFIDENTIAL
I
weighted rating scores: composite scores and/or preference ranking were
obtained. The evaluation matrix is shown in Table V.

Each cell entry contains the rating and weighted rating.

As indicated from the final ranking, the Combined Triggers (Design E)
was the preferred design.

I'he resillt.i of thiB analysis were submitted for review to

HEL and Springfieflf . Human factors personnel were directed to continue
fwork on design irnpkmentation cf the combined triggers concept.

[ After study of the constraints imposed by the current de-

sign for the point fire trigger mechanism, it was obvious that a connector
button, located below the point fire rear sight, was not feasible. Reviewing

[type the limited number of options available, it was determined that a paddle-
connector lever was the best human factors design. The connector was
to be spring loaded to a safe position against the right side of the receiver.
For operation, the shooter would draw the paddle backward with his right
thumb until it cleared the receiver (vertical position), then he would depress
the paddle across the back of the receiver until it lay horizontal on the small

[and of the stock. The connector could be maintained in this position by the thumb
still allow a firm grip and smooth trigger pull.

In May 1966, further engineering study of the connector

control indicated that the above design could not be implemented. Accordingly,
a vertical operating lever, located directly below and left of the point fire
rear sight, was recommended. Further, in response to another engineering
problem--the excessively high trigger force required to operate the trigger
in the area fire mode- -it was recommended that a "set" trigger concept be
used. In this concept, the force required to depress the connector lever
would "set" the trigger, thus reducing the trigger pull requirements to an
acceptable level.

2. Field Safety

In addition to the safety inherent in a connector system-coin-

bined trigger design, a field or traveling safety was also provided. The
safety is located on the upper left side of the launcher and rearward of the
breech. A lever type control was used with the forward position being FIRE.
This location facilitates rapid thumb activation by the off hand. Also, the
launcher keyway and the forearm of the point fire stock protect the control
from inadvertent operation.

CONFIDENTIAL
FJ CONFIDENTIAL
jTable V. Evaluation of Area Fire Trigger Designs

L . Designs
A B c D E F
Fwd. Pt. Rear Pt. Pt. Fire Fwd. Pt. Combined Plunger
Human Factor Fire Fire Trigger Fire Triggers
H Mag. Trigger Guard Trigger
Criteria Weight Guard
1. Forward Hand
[ Support 9 4-36 5-45 5-45 5-45 5-45 5-45
2. Trigger Loca-
tion
Anthropornetry 10 4-40 5-50 3-30 3-30 4-40 5-50
3. Trigger Selec-
[ tion - Speed 4 4-16 4-16 4-16 4-16 5-20 4-16
4. One-hand
[ Opration 1 5-5 2-2 2-2 1-1 1-1 2-2
5. Environmental
Protection 10 5-50 4-40 3-30 3-30 5-50 4-40

face - Point
Fire Trigger 8 5-40 5-40 4-32 5-40 5-40 4-32
T., Physical Inter-
face - Area
Sight 3 4-12 5-15 5-15 5-15 5-15 5-15
8. Physical Inter-
ir face -Point
Fire Magazine 4 4-16 5-20 5-20 3-12 5-20 5-20
9. Recoil Pro-
tection 4 2-8 5-20 3-12 3-12 4-16 5-20
L0. Trigger Selec -

Stion-
Ambiguity 10 5-50 4-40 3-30 4-40 5-50 4-40
Composite Score 273 288 232 241 297 280
I Rank 2 6 5 1 3

I
C-z6

3 CONFIDENTIAL

- -
 .....
{J--J"J]- CO0N FID ENT IA L

IC. Sight Design

Several basic types of sights (arc, tangent, ramp, drum, etc.)

were given initial screening against applicable human factors criteria.
The resulting candidates for further study were arc type sights (frequently
referred to as quadrant sights) and ramp type sights. The additional study
indicated a marked preference for the ramp type sight. Major reasons for
this preference are:

S[.Allows for a linear range scale

Permits easy implementation of duplicate scales - side

<i
[reading and top reading

Provides more design latitude in developing an inter-

changeable (left- right)sight

In addition, the ramp type sight is more compact and rugged. In

particular, its smaller size enhances the probability of good sight location
on the right side of the weapon, where controls and other protrusions will
present relatively greater design/location problems. Recommendations for
sight location, sight radius, and eye relief were based on human factors

I studies conducted on the previous SPIW program.

4
V

~C-27

JJ CONFIDENTIAL
 UNCLASSIFIED
NH-2604

It

APPENDIX D

Reliability, Quality Assurance, Standardization

and Maintenance Engineering

E i

D-1
UNCLASSIFIED
 UNCLASSIFIED NH-2604

RELIABILITY SUMMARY - 40MM LAUNCHER

'7 The Reliability activity for this contract was structured to

implement paragraphs 3.5.12b and d of Mil-R-27542A in accordance
with contract requirements.

The program provided for a review of all weapon components and an

Ievaluation
[7 of critical areas for potential failure which would
affect the weapon reliability. It also provided for surveillance
of weapon testing and reporting system. A form for reporting
failures was designed to meet the requirements of paragraph 3.5.12b
of the above Mil specification.

Failure reporting, per agreement with Springfield personnel and

the Olin Mathieson Reliability Engineer, was only to include the
instances of part breakage or those malfunctions which would make
the weapon inoperable. It was also established that the reporting
function would not take effect until the design had been stabilized.
This status was considered to be reached upon fabrication of the
final ten delivery weapons.

The weapon testing was performed under Quality Control and

Reliability surveillance. Quality Control personnel recorded the
final detailed test results. These test results were analyzed by
the Reliability Engineer, and each malfunction was evaluated for
the effect the operation of tha weapon.

During the testing of the delivery weapons, one component broke.

This occurred on the sixth round fired in weapon No. 108. The
secondary cutoff plunger broke, preventing rounds from being fed
from the magazine. The weapon remained operable by manual opera-
tion even with this part broken. A failure report defining the
breakage, the cause, and the corrective action taken to prevent
recurrence Was completed and included with the Reliability Report.

No malfunction occurred during the testing which prevented any

weapon from being operable manually.

During the term of the contract, monthly reports were submitted

-indicating the progress of the program. A final report was
issued on 10 May 1966 on oach of the ten weapons and included the
failure report and corrective action for the breakage on weapon
No. 108.

ID-2

UNCLASSIFIED
i UNCLASSIFIED 10-2604

QUALITY ASSURANCE SUMMARY - 40MM LAUNCHER

jThe Quality Assurance responsibility involved the inspection of

weapon components and assemblies, and surveillance of weapon
testing. Development of historical data on each component, pre-
1. paration of a Quality Assurance Study Sheet on each part and
determining those part characteristics necessitating 100 per cent
inspection were also required. In addition, final inspection
reports for components in each of the delivery weapons and inspec-
tion data on the end item were required to accompany each weapon
on delivery.

Inspection characteristic sheets were developed on each component

and revised as necessary to meet the design changes. These sheets
were used for recording inspection results as well as defining the
inspection points. A copy of the inspection results for the
components in each weapon accompanied the final delivery.

Analysis and evaluation of dimensional requirements, fabrication

methods, and historical data from that development testing which
L was monitored by Quality Assurance personnel was the basis of
preparing the Quality Assurance Study Sheet. This sheet was pre-
pared for each part of the weapon and reviewed by Product
Engineering.

Each final part print was reviewed with Product Engineering, and
a list of those part characteristics requiring 100 per cent
inspection was developed. The method of fabrication and the func-
tions of the parts were considered. Those characteristics were
t. selected where the dimensional integrity was critical to the func-
tion of the weapon, and the anticipated fabrication process would
require close control to provide reliable repeatability of product.
Five parts involving nine characteristics were placed in the
100 per cent inspection category.

k 1Detail parts for the final delivery weapons were inspected; the
results recorded. Copies of these results accompanied each weapon
on delivery and included notation of dimensions which exceeded
print tolerances. All variations from specifications were reviewed
for disposition by Product Engineering and Quality Engineering.

The final delivery weapons were inspected for firing pin indent,
trigger and safety forces, and firing pin intrusion and protrusion.
These results were included with the inspection data accompanying
each weapon. Quality Assurance personnel monitored and recorded
the results of all firing on each of the delivery weapons and
cooperated with the Springfield Armory representatives to insure
completeness.

KUNCLASSIFIED D-3
 UNCLASSIFIED 2604

STANDARDIZATION

The use of stock commercial items on the design was done as a

matter of procedure. The launcher design is such that most of
the expected production cost is in the receiver, magazine body,
tube, and striker housing. These components are necessarily of
special design, and not adaptable to the use of stock hardware.
Of the remaining components, many are fasteners or pivot pins.
In the case of the latter, most are intended to be screw-machine
products, although with minor redesign some can be converted to
standard drive pins where normal maintenance does not require
removal.

Conventional machine screws are used in several areas, notably

for mounting the launcher, and for retaining the sight aperture,
magazine latch components, handguard, and safety spring. Roll
pins are used on both the sight base and the striker assembly.
The magazine assembly uses three rivets which, with some
adaptation of the magazine, can be made with standard heads.

IThe final design, as delivered, is an improvement over the first

prototypes with regard to the use of standard types of hardware,
[ since the standardization aspects were reviewed during sub-
a!. sequent design activities. When it appeared practical to do so,
parts were converted from special to standard type. Additionally,
it was possible on at least one area, to convert from some
different standard screws to one type.

A basic premise of the design was to utilize conventional methods

of fabrication and finish. The principle departure from common
practice was the projected use of a double ended impact forging
for the receiver. As discussed previously, although this method
was agreed upon as practical by the vendors who worked on it, the
lack of availability of the necessary presses made it nepessary
to machine the receivers in a conventional manner, and to con-
sider alternate, more common methods for production. (See
Appendix E, Value Engineering)

fSurface finish processes are considered to be non-critical for

the design, with the exception of the bore surface which demands
the use of hard-coat type anodizing. The surface finish of the
other aluminum components could be conventional anodizing instead
of the hard-coat anodizing which was used. Likewise, Parkerizing
or equivalent finishes are useable on all steel components except
music wire springs. In summary, no special protective finishes
are required on the design.

D-4

UNCLASSIFIED
 UNCLASSIFIED -2604

MAINTENANCE

The maintainability of the launcher was considered throughout

the development, with first consideration given to maintenance
by the operator. The early design studies showed that the
firing mechanism components would not lend themselves to easy
disassembly by the shooter. As a result, it was decided to
place these more sensitive elements in a single unit which can
I
be simply removed and reinserted from the receiver. This allows
these relatively small elements to be removed and reassembled to
the weapon without disturbing their adjustment. It is recognized
that, ideally, no tools should be required for field disassembly
and assembly, and the design is such that this is possible,
although it is not convenient if disassembly is carried beyond a
certain point.

Disassembly into principle groups is simple: after removing the

1. magazine, the charging handle is removed by depressing a latch.
Following this, the tube assembly is removed by simply unscrewing
the cap and pulling the tube forward far enough to allow it to be
( disengaged from the operating rod and removed. Removal of the
operating rod assembly and the striker housing assembly can then
be done after first removing the handguard. The handguard and
the rear of the receiver cover the striker housing and the tube
return spring elements, and it is L -acted that only breakage or
exceptionally heavy accumulations ( 'oreign material would
require these two elements to be removed from the weapon. As
stated, to do so requires removal of the handguard, which
presently is retained by a machine screw. If all major assemblies
(tube, operating rod, and striker housing) are removed from the
weapon, reassembly requires that the operating rod be pulled to
its position against the resistance of the tube return spring.
While this can be done without tools, it is less difficult if
done with an L-shaped hook.

During the course of development, some changes were made in the

original design to aid in assembly and disassembly. Two major
ones were: riveting the tube return spring to the operating rod,
which eliminated a difficult operation in making them connect
when in the weapon, and the addition of a yoke to house the
return spring and drum, which eliminated a difficult pin-and-hole
alignment during assembly.

The magazine is a permanent, riveted and spot welded assembly.

Although minor maintenance such as straightening and de-burring
can be done without disassembly, it is recommended that magazines
£ having major damage be replaced rather than repaired.

D-5
UNCLASSIFIED
I CUNCLASSIFIED NH-2604

Maintenance on the striker housing assembly should be a matter

of replacement rather than repair. Disassembly and assembly can
be done with the aid of a drift and a screw driver, although it
can be speeded by the use of one or two simple special tools for
insertion of the springs.

Experience on the present contract points to certain improvements

1f which should be considered in future developments. The two prin-
ciple ones are elimination of the screw attachment of the hand-
guard so that a screw driver is not required for disassembly into
major groups, and modification of the operating rod/tube joint to
correct the awkwardness of pulling against the tube return spring
in order to position the operating rod during reassembly.

iF

;[

If

D-6
* UNCLASSIFIED
 I ~UNCLASSIFIED -20

f
UNLSSFE
 UNCLASSIFIED NH-2604

[ TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

I. Introduction3

Objective 3
Scope 3
Approach 3
LAssumptions 4
Master Planning Schedule 8

Ii. Report of Value Engineering studies on

cost areas classified major 9

Project No. Description

#2.1.1 Receiver 10
#2.2.1.2 Tube 15
#2.3.1 Housing, Striker 21
#2.1.3 AssemblY, Magazine 26
#2.2.2.1 Rod, Operating 34
#2.1.3.2 Retainer, Cartridge 39
#2.3.8 Extractor 41
#2.3.18 Lever, Firing 46
#2.3.2 Striker 48
#2.4 Sight Group 52
III. Report of Value Engineering studies on cost
areas classified minor 59

IV Cost Summary of Value Engineering recommenda-

tions 65

UNCLASSIFI ED -

......... 4
- UNCLASSIFIED N2604

SECTION I - INTRODUCTION

A. OBJECTIVE

Purpose of V. E. Effort

To effect design and engineering studies which will result in

lowering the total overall cost to the Government of the Launcher
and Sight System without impairing any of its essential character-
istics.

S. To produce, at lower cost, an equivalent or improved func-

tioning product, with an equal or extended service life.

All components as illustrated by the current design were

subjected to an intensive and critical review of all elements of
design, as related to operational requirements, to insure that
only necessary functions were retained and that these were
supplied at the minimum cost consistent with the preservation of
essentialperational and maintenance characteristics.

C. APPROACH

The nature of the work contracted dictated the amount and

type of Value work to be accomplished. This called for the
design of a Launcher and Sight System and the manufacture of
a limited number of functioning units in a relatively short period
of time. It was concluded that with the compressed work schedule,
sufficient time would, in most cases, not be available to implement
the V.E. suggestions. During most of the Phase I portion of the
contract, firm prints and specifications were not available for
detailed study. Hence, Value Engineering input was provided at
the drawing-board level by V.I. trained designers and discussions
with members of the Value Engineering team. Formal V.I. meetings
were also held to plan the approach which would be taken during
Phase I and to review the Launcher and Sight System in broad
scope to determine whether the Government requirements were realis-
tic when compared to intended use.

As the Launcher began to take its first form and part definition
became firmer, a preliminary cost analysis was conducted to reveal
the areas where emphasis should be directed and to evolve an over-
all planned approach to the V.Z. opportunities present in the
design. An operating plan was then developed which designated the
studies to be undertaken, their priority, timing, and the amount

of effort to be expended on each. (See V. E. Master Schedule,

I Page B. )

The following components and/or functional areas were identi-

fied as major cost locations, comprising approximately 80% of the
cost of the Launcher and Sight (in order of priority.)

1-3
UNCLASSIFIED

N!
 UNCLASSIFIED

C. APRACH (continued)

1. Receiver
2. Tube
3. Housing, Striker
4. Assembly, Magazine
5. Rod, Operating
6. Retainer, Cartridge
7. Extractor
8. Lever, Firing
9. Striker
10. Assembly, Sight

It followed that all other components comprised the remain-

ing 20% of cost and that, due to sheer numbers of parts, less
in-depth study could be afforded here if we were to maximize the
results of the Value Engineering effort.
Accordingly, time spent on each of these two categories was

allocated
20% on the at aboutitems.
minor the sum rate -- 80% on the major items and

A system for identifying projects was established as shown

on pages E-Sp E-6 and E-7 of this report. This was particularly
ii necessary in view of the potential for part number changes in the
earlier stages.

D. ASSUMPTIONS

The growth
~~~~~~~~priorstage ofimotcases,
information, the product being studied
was nneitn.A was such that
result, production costs of the "Before" as well as "After" had
to be estimated. The accuracy of these figures is a function of
the optimum production situation as envisioned by the estimator
utilizing the existing prints and proposed sketches together with
sound engineering principles and practices. Opinions regarding the
type of equipment, special machinery and tooling to be used could
conceivably cause some variation in the absolute cost values derived
for either the "Before" or "After." The relative change in cost
would, therefore, appear to be a better measure of accomplishment.
Since the existing prints were developed for purposes of fabricat-
ing prototypes, Product Engizeerlng's production-design intent was
requested in all cases to provide a closer benchmark for assessing
Value Engineering effectiveness. In keeping with contract guide-
I lines, the present or "Before" costs are predicated upon the
existing prints. Manufacturing cost data contains material, labor
and full factory burden (G & A and profit not included.)

As per contractor's instructions, production volume is

assumed to be 100,000 Launchers and Sights per year with magazine
volume based upon a 5:1 ratio, or 500,000 units per year.

Production contract duration was estimated at one (1) year

for purposes of setting limits on investment in facilities.

UNCLASSIFIED E-4

,!4
j UNCLASSIFIED

GRMAX IAUNCf=

I IDENTIFICATION OF FUNCTIONAL GROUPS FOR V.1. STUDY

Projects have been identified by the numbers assigned in this break-

down.

j 2.1 Receiver Group

2.1.1 Receiver
2.1.2 Magazine Well
2.1.3 Magazine Assembly

2.1.3.1 Magazine
2.1.3.2 Cartridge Retainer
2.1.3.3 Cartridge Retainer Rivets (3)
2.1.3.4 Magazine Spring

1 2.1.4 Cutoff Actuator Assembly

2.1.4.1 Actuator Plate

2.1.4.2 Stud, Long
2.1.4.3 Stud, Short
2.1.4.4 Cutoff Spring
2.1.4.5 Cutoff Screw

2.1.5 Safety Shaft Retainer

2.1.5.1 Safety Shaft Retainer Screw

2.1.6 Magazine Latch Mechanism

2.1.6.1 Magazine Latch Button

2.1.6.2 Magazine Latch Rear
2.1.6.3 Magazine Latch Rear Springs (2)
2.1.6.4 Magazine Latch Rear Pin
2.1.6.5 Magazine Latch, L.H.
2.1.6.6 Magazine Latch, L.H. Spring
2.1.6.7 Magazine Latch, R.H.
2.1.6.8 Magazine Latch, R.H. Spring

1 2.1.7 Plate, Front

2.1.7.1 Plate, Screws

1 2.1.8 Hand Guard

2
2.1.9
2.1.8.1

Tube Latch
Hand Guard Screws (2)

2..9.1 Tube Latch Shaft

II UNCLASSIFIED
 UNCLASSIFIED
GRENADE IAUNC13BR (continued)

IDENTIFICATION OF FUNCTIONAL GROUPS FOR V.Z. STUDY (continued)

2.1 Receiver Group (continued)

2.1.9 Tube Latch (continued)

2.1.9.2 Tube Latch Spring
2.1.9.3 Tube Latch Plunger

2.2 Tube Group

2.2.1 Tube Assembly

2.2.1.1 Tube
2.2.1.2 Cap
2.2.1.3 Shield
2.2.1.4 Ring
2.2.1.5 Buffer
2.2.1.6 Charging Handle

2.2.1.6.1 Charging Handle Retainer

2.2.1.6.2 Charging Handle Retainer Pin
2.2.1.6.3 Charging Handle Retainer Spring

2.2.2 Operating Rod Assembly

2.2.2.1 Operating Rod

2.2.2.2 Return Spring
_ 2.2.2.3 Return Spring Rivets (2)
2.2.2.4 Return Spring Drum
2.2.2.5 Return Spring Yoke
j 2.2.2.6 Return Spring Pin

2.3 Striker Mechanism Group

2.3.1 Housing (Trigger)

2.3.2 Striker
2.3.3 Striker Spring
2.3.4 Striker Pin
2.3.5 Sear
2.3.6 Sear Pin
2.3.7 Sear Spring Retainer
_ 2.3.8 Extractor-Ejector
2.3.9 Ejector Spring
2.3.10 Ejector Cocking Piece
'
2.3.11 Ejector Cocking Spring
2.3.12 Ejector Cocking Plunger
2.3.13 Safety Vin
2.3.14 Safety Actuator
2.3.15 Safety Actuator Button
2.3.16 Round Retainer Disconnector
2.3.17 Round Retainer Disconnector Screws (2)
2.3.18 Firing Lever

U-6

UNCLASSIFIED
g UNCLASSIFIED NH-2604

ORINADE LAUXCHER (continued)

IDENTIFICATION OF FUNCTIONAL GROUPS FOR V.B.STUDY (continued)

2.4 Sight Group

2.4.1 Base
2.4.2 Base Rivets (2)
2.4.3 Mount

2.4.3.1 Spring Mount Lock

2.4.4 Screw, Pivot

- 2.4.5 Screw, Detent
2.4.6 Bar,Sight
2.4.6.1 Aperture, Rear
2.4.6.2 Aperture, Rear, Screw
2.4.6.3 Post, Front Sight
2.4.6.4 Slide

2.4.6.4.1 Plate, Detent

2.4.6.4.2 Plate, Detent, Springs (2)
2.4.6.4.3 Screw, Detent, Springs (2)

2.4.7 Spring, Sight Bar

I
I
I
i
I
I
I

E-7
IIJ UNCLASSIFIED
 ~|

tleitA '-;;IF] NH~-2604

4
- w -
In

I. f

141

_ ___I H
 UNCLASSIFIED

L SECTION II -RPORT OF VALUUE MINEIRIM STUDIES

ON COST AREAS CLASIFIED X&JOR

COMIPNINWS - MAJOR COST AREAS

PART N1MBR NOMENCLATURE

51335 Striker
51346 Lever, Firing
51355 Housing,Striker
51361 Extractor
51371 Receiver
51386 Well, Magazine
51407 Tube
51422 Body, Magazine
51423 Spring, Magazine
51424 Rivet, Magazine
51425 Floor, Magazine
51426 Retainer, Cartridge
51429 Rod, Operating
51436 Mount
51437 Base
51438 Rivet, Base
51439 Bar, sight
51440 Aperture, Rear
51441 Screw, Slide
51442 Screw, Pivot
51443 Post, Front Sight
51444 Screw, Rear Aperture
51445 ,Spring, Detent Plate
51446 Spring, Mount Lock
51447 Slide
51448 Detent
51449 Lock Mount
51450 Spring, Sight Bar

ii

E-9

IUNCLASSIFIED
f UNCLASSIFIED

k. DESCRIPTION

Project #2.1.1

Project Name: Receiver

Components

Part # Part Name #/Aasembly #/Launcher

51371 Receiver 1 1
51386 Magazine Well I

B. FUNCTION

Basic Secondary

Contain Parts Contain Parts

Position Parts
Locate Magazine
Control Feed
Guide Tube
Support Cartridge Case
Provide Attachment
Latch Tube
Transmit Force

C. EXISTING DESIGN DESCRIIION -(Refer Sketch #1)

Present (prototypes) - Machine from bar stock in the following

sequence:

(1) boring of front section

(2) preliminary drilling of rear section
(3) Elox (electric discharge machining) of front and rear
sections to give guides for the tube and recess for
striker housing.
(4) preliminary machining of external shape
(5) mounting magazine well (T-slot and epoxy resin to fasten)
(6) final machining

( Note: Original intent was double impact extrusion to

give the same results as steps 1 through 4
above.)

Contains all operative components except sight

and magazines.

D, MAJOR ALTERNATE DESIGN CONSIDERED

1. Die Cast

This process would appear to have certain cost advantages

and probably warrants further investigation. However,
there exists a question as to the structural integrity of
this process. U-10

~UNCLASSIFI ED
i I UNCLASSIFIED

a.
- 1 MAJOR ALTERNATE DESIGNS CONSIDERED (continued)

2. Extrusions

This approach has merit. However, the degree of risk

regarding tolerances and the state of the art precludes
a favorable recommendation at this time.

E. RECOMENDED DESIGN - (Ref. Sketch #2)

The recommended design utilizes a complete stamped aluminum

envelope plus support components consisting of a machined
breech face, die cast magazine well filler, and a secondary
stamped mounting filler. The stamping has been designed to
permit minimum visual clearance with it's mounting.

F. DESIGN COMNENTS

1. Receiver

* The proposed stamped or pressed method of fabrication

is feasible but will require design study and probable
changes in the method of attachment, mounting of the
breech block and in the magazine catch arrangement.
From the viewpoint of simplicity, the use of two stampings
*(left and right) should be considered, especially since
it facilitates mounting the breech biock and incorporation
of a solid member for mounting.

The final estimated cost of $51.90 is still high and addition-

al effort should be directed to#ards further reduction.

C'L
'I. UNCLASSIFlIED E1
 UNCLASSIFI ED NH-2604

40

I' UNCLASSI F!
ED'
 IM-2604

UNCLASSIFIED

'Aj

- b4k

oil

UNCASSIFIED
 UNCLASSIFIED NH-2604

; 0I

-4C4

o,,I)
4J

4J

4J

41 0i

4 4 *

& C ~ k
rh~

to

i 0

UNCLASSIFIED
 UNCLASSIFIED NH-2604

A. DESCRIPTION

Project #2.2.1.2

Project Name: Tube

Components

Part # Part Name #/Assembly #/Assembly

51407 Tube 1

B. FUNCTIONS

Basic Secondary

Direct projectile Provide rotation

Retail pressures
Transmit energy
Provide connection
Provide obturation

C. EXISTING DESIGN DESCRIPTION (Refer Sketch #3)

Machined from bored cylindrical blanks. Present process sequence:

final boring, rifling, external machining, chambering, and in-
letted for obturator.

External configuration has provision for:

Mounting of changing handle (T-slot on external lug)

Mounting of muzzle reinforcing ring
Guidance in receiver (in the form of lugs, integral with
the tube)
Attachment of the operating rod
Clearance for extractor
Mounting of changing handle retainer, spring and pin.

D. ALTERNATE DESIGNS CONSIDERED

1. Tube with stamped lugs (refer sketch #4)

2. Tube with stamped lugs and integral operating rod (refer
a sketch #5)
3. Among the alternate processes coated out were impact extrusions.
This was found to be more costly than the recommended approach.

E. RECOMMENDED DESIGN

A comparison of costs on four different alternatives covering all

basic alternate designs as well as the original process indicated
that the current design (fabrication from linear extrusion) accom-
plished the desired functions at the lowest overall cost. On a

A
'
production basis we would use drawn tubing as raw material rather
than solid cylindrical stock. No change is recommended.

E-15

UNCLASSIFIED
 UNCLASSIFIED

F. DESIGN COMMENTS

Tube:4
The recommended method of construction is satisfactory as long
as those dimensions on the guide lugs are machined so as to
insure concentricity and centrality of the chamber and bore
with the lugs. Future development of the obturator (inletted
into the chamber) may point to a more economical method of
fabrication, but it is unlikely that a gross change in the
obturator design will actually be required, or that a magnitude
reduction in fabrication cost would result. The present con-
struction, with integral guide lugs, offers the most secure
method of resisting the large torque due to rifling reaction.
This is important to assurance of preventing binding the tube
in the receiver.

r E-16

UNCLASSIFIED -

.. j*1
 UNCLASSIFIED .

I.q

An

L UNCLASSIFIED,
 r NH-2604

UNCLASSIFIED

IAA

122

LL

qhl UfSIIE
 UNCLASSIFIED, XH-2604

Lfl

'4j 0-

UNC.LASSIFIED
 UNCLASSIFIEDNH20

0 C!

>

UNLASIIE
 UNCLASSIFIED
. ESCRIPTION

Project #2.3.1

Project Name: Striker Housing

Components

Part # Part Name #/Assembly #/Assembly

51355 Housing,Striker 1
B. FUNCTION

Basic
Secondary

House Parts Position parts

Contain parts
Resist force
Transmit force
Provide connection
Contain force
Limit weight

C. EXISTING DESIGN DESCRIPTION (refer sketch #6)

Prototypes machined of bar stock (7075T6)

Contains or holds the following:

Extractor assembly, including lever, springs, etc.

Striker components
Sear assembly
Firing lever assembly
Cartridge retainer disconnector
Guide roller for tube return spring
Safety shaft and spring
Interlock assembly

D. ALTERNATE DESIGNS CONSIDERED

1. Multiple-piece construction. Among the alternatives evaluated

were:

a. Die cast sections

b. Investment cast sections
c. Injection molded plastics
d. Stamped members
e. Powdered metal sections
f. Combinitions of all above

2. Single-piece construction:

a. Machined from solid

b. Investment cast + secondaries
c. Die Cast + secondaries
d. Plastics + secondaries
X-21,

UNCLASSIFIED
 UNCLASSIFIED H-2604

E. RECOMENDED DESIGN (refer to sketch #7)

The recommended design consists of an upper and lower half con-

structed of aluminum investment castings. These halves would be

permanently joined by riveting. It was felt that this approach
will minimize necessary secondary machining operations. secifJcal-
ly in internal areas.

F. LNG T RM RECO10ENDATIONS

During supplemental discussions involving the extractor, striker,

etc., it was suggested that there exists a possibility of elimination
or greatly simplifying this component and its related parts. Ampli-
fication of this possibility is contained in the section on future
developments. (Section IIIl Technical Discussion)

G. DESIGN COMMENTS

Striker Housing:

The cast housing offers no difZiculty from the functional view-

point. Thinking on future development includes study of a
different type of firing mechanism which could eliminate the
need for a striker housing, but as long as a striker or hammer
system is retained, the cast design is preferred. It may become
practical to use a one piece casting instead of a two piece.

X-22

UNCLASSIFIED
 UNCLASSIFIED -24

0.

E-4q

UNC~s-~E.
 UN~
u] 7NH-2604

2 4L

-
VIA I 0~

,1\UNCLAS'oeD
I-I
 UNCLASSIFIED NH-2604

>
.4
in '.)

Cl, U,

U, 4

> 0

I 0
m= - c CL

4-00

E-4 ORR 4J

4
m-4 s~

UN LSSFE
 NH-2604
UNCLASSIFIED
A. DESCRIPTION

Project No. : 2.1.3.1

Project Name: Magazine Assembly

Components:

Part No. Part Name #/Assembly #/Launcher *

51422 Body, Magazine 1 5

51425 Floor, Magazine 1 5
51424 Rivet, Magazine 3 15
51426 Retainer, Cartridge 1 5
51423 Spring, Magazine 1 5

* One (1) Basic w/launcher + Four (4) support

B. FUNCTIONS

Basic Secondary

Store Parts Guide Cartridges

Feed Parts Position Cartridges
Protect Cartridges
Provide attachment

C. EXISTING DESIGN DESCRIPTION (Ref. sketch #8)

The existing design consists of an extruded aluminum casing with a

drawn aluminum bottom cover spot welded to the casing. The casing
contains a negator spring which acts as both follower and energy
source to feed cartridges. The magazine contains the cartridge
cut-offs and cartridge retainer as an integral part of the magazine.
The magazine capacity is three rounds. This design permits either
left hand or right hand loading, convenience in use, storage, and
is totally detachable from launcher. From a human factor's view-
point, it is easy to use, and provides for positive positioning
even in the dark, or with gloves. Weight of the magazine is 7 oz.

Cost of the magazine in its present configuration is estimated

at $2.94 ea.

D. ALTERNATE DESIGNS CONSIDERED

1. Style #1 Ref. Sketch #9

This design consists of a composite sheet metal and plastic

structure. The rear of the magazine case is a steel stamp-
ing forming a "T" slot cartridge guide. This is completely
enclosed by a plastic shell. The end of the integral negator
spring is formed to comprise a cartridge retainer. The
cartridge cut-off function is integral with launcher and is
made once for each launcher rather than with every magazine.
Cos* is estimated at $ .98/pc.
E-26

UNCLASSIFIED
 UNCLASSIFIED NH-2604

D ALTPATI- ....... C MoIDERriD (continued)

L
1. Style #1 (continued)

Adfomvanertagewpin
1. Lower initial too] cost
2, Lower unit cost, from a user's viewpoint
3. In all respects, same as original design
4. Disposable magazine

Disadvantages

1. Reduced service life, but reusable three to five times

minimum
2. Slightly more susceptible to deformation

Reason for Discard

Basic function can be performed by another design at

lower cost

2. Style #2

In all respects identical with style #1, except that the

plastic body is eliminated and a steel strip bottom is
added. This one will require a magazine body as an
integral part of the launcher. Cost is estimated at
$ .51/pc.

Advantages

1. Lower unit cost

2. Lower initial tool cost
3. Disposable magazLie

Disadvantages
1. Requires a fixed magazine housing.
2. Increases command height in certain circumstances.
3. Increases overall distance from weapon in loading

Reason for Discard

Basic function can be performed by another design at

lower cost.

3. Style #4 Ref. Sketch #10

Hinged magazine type considered but discarded as unwieldy

from a human factor's viewpoint.

E-27

UNCLASSIFIED
 UNCLASSIFIED

E. FINAL DESIGN - RECOMMENDED

Style #3 Ref. Sketch #11

Sheet metal stamping in the form of a "T" slot with negator spring
integral and performing the function of cartridge retainer.
Cost estimated at $ .41/pc,

Advantages

1. Lowest overall unit cost

2, Low initial tool cost
3. True throw-away
4. Less storage space for empties
5. Reduce overall length of magazine

Disadvantages

1. Less protection outside of launcher

2. Increases command height under certain circumstances
3. Initial design has slight advantages from a human factor's
point of view.

F. DESIGN COMMENTS

Magazine

The proposed magazine construction is feasible from the engineer-

ing viewpoint, but incorporation should await careful study of the
human factor's aspects. A task analysis on loading is required,
and assesoment should be made of the effect of having the main
magazine body always attached to the weapon.

Note: These comments apply to the "clip" type arrangement,

not to the composite type of box.

E-28

UNCLASSIFIED
 UNCLASSIFIEDNH20
0)

UU

UNCLASSIFIED
 UNCLASSIFIED NH-2604

..... T -S-"I+"o ","

f Ne
_qcz +o r zprinA

/ • /tcfl3t/

(On lst

II
I 33
I UNCLASSIFIED ,-,,o
 N-2404
UNCLASSIFIED ~ ~ ~'

a,=41 = V

___P .t 0-

(,esal2o l=rlV
LIZ=~2 p~i7' /

(o~s~pas~-P o 5r-c-b

UNCLASSIFIED'~ A
7. NH-2604

UNCLASSIFIED Z* ,

-4 A

14el
lo //oe r cX t4 5/0/

UNQA55TFIED -a
 UNCLASSIFIED

4-'

0 1

4 J 4

-4

4 4-

0okc

eq

0NLSSFE
 ~NH-2604
UNCLASSIFIED

At. RWCI -

Projact #2.2.2.1

Project Name: Rod, i"rating

Components:

Part # Part Name #/Assembly #/Launcher

51429 Rod, Operating 1 1

B. FUNCTION

Basic Secondary

Transmit forces Actuate cutoff

Provide connection Cock striker
Prevent rotation
Actuate extractor
Provide safety
Actuate secondary cutoff
Provide timing
Limit mass
Guide tube

C. EXISTING DESIGN DESCRIPTION (Ref. Sketch #12)

Prototypes are machined from bar stock, including integral cam

surfaces to operate the cocking lever, extractor lever, cutoff
actuator, secondary cutoff lock, and the interrupter. Notches
are provided for engagement with the tube, and rivet holes are
provided for attachment of the tube return spring. Because of
the necessity to maintain straightness, heat treatment was done
with the operating rod clamped to a rigid block.

D. DESIGN RECONMNDND (Ref. Sketch #13)

The recommended design provides a shape that is compatible with

a stamping process. By reverting to this shape, it was possible
to form all the working surfaces necessary to its function in one
machine handling.

Advantages

1. Lower unit cost

2. Productivity improved

* DESIGN COMNTS

Operating Rod

The proposed method corresponds to that envisoned by the designers

1-34

UNCLASSIFIED

Lif _ _
I UNCLASSIFIED W-2o0

I
E. DESIGN COMMENTS (continued)

Operating Rod (continued)

and is practical. Modifications may be required in order to give

satisfactory cam surfaces for the various functions. Qualification
ci height and width may have to be made after stamping. The
operating rod would probably be shortened some three inches in the
course of any future development, and this aids in making a stamp-
ing more usable.

I
I -3

U
I
I

I
SUNCLASSIFIED 13
 ~NH-2604
UNCLASSIFIED
VI

II

-I

| UNCLASSIFIED
 UNCLASSIFIED N-2o0

Si-

UNCLASIFIE2

it
4)
U AF
 UNCLASSIFIED

U2 - 01
0 0
4J

4-3

W CD
o -

C~04
IQ
t-

1 0

411

. UNCLASSIFIED
,dam
 .r NH-2604

UNCLASSIFIED

A. DESCRIPTION

Project: #2.1.3.2

Project Name: Retainer, Cartridge

Components:

Part # Part Name #/Assembly #/Launcher

51426 Retainer,Cartridge 1 1

B. FUNCTIONS

Basic Secondary

Controls, Cartridge Provide escapement

Engage latch
Position magazine

C. EXISTING DESIGN DESCRIPrION

Present design is a stamping, riveted outside the rear wall of

magazine body. The stamping provides:

1. A spring leaf type catch to retain cartridges when the magazine

is not in the weapon.
2. A second spring leaf catch which acts as a cutoff, releasing
cartridges to rise (feed) when the action is open, but which
holds the cartridges down out of contact with the tube a'-
all other times.
,
3. A recess which is engaged by the rear magazine latch.

D. RECOMMENDED DESIGN

Certain design changes were made in the magazine assembly study

which affect this component, See Project #2.1.3.1 for further
detail.

E. DESIGN COMENTS

1. Cartridge Retainer

Present (and recommended) design is satisfactory functionally

except that the stock thickness is too great, with the result
-* that too much force is required to disengase the cutoff arm
from the cartridge rim. This can be ccrrected easily by reducing
the thickness.

B-39

UNCLASSIFIED
 NH-2604
UNCLASSIFIED ql'
NI

to ,4

020

020

4A

-4

4) 4J 4AI

'-I
4,

to

04

w 00

020

4 4

UNCLASSIFIED
 UNCLASSIFIED

SUNWARY REPORT

GRENADE IAUNCHER

A. DESCRIPTION

Project No.: 2.3.8

Project Name: Extractor

Components:

Part # Part Name #/Assembly #/Launcher

D-51361 Extractor 1 1

B. FUNCTIONS
Basic Secondary

Expel Case Remove case

Control case
Position case
Resist force
Clear case
Restrain lever

C. EXISTING DESIGN DESCRIPTION (Ref. Sketch #14)

The existing extractor design consists of a machined steel component

produced from bar stock with an integral "leaf-type" extractor
section.

The extractor is mounted in the striker housing. It is energized

rearward by a spring for cartridge ejection and moved forward by
a lever which, in turn, is linked with the operating rod.

This linkage provides engagement of the extractor hook with the

cartridge rim during action closing.

Ejection is not synchronized with the tube position.

The ejector spring force is not critical.

The breech face is clear of protrusion such as ejectors, thereby

permitting an unobstructed path for the feeding round.

D. DESIGN RECOM DED (Ref. Sketch #15)

The recommended design maintains all intended functions. However,

the shape has been modified in order that maximum utilization of
the stamping process can be realized.

I
1-41

UNCLASSIFI ED
 UNCLASSIFIED

, DESIGN RECOMMEED (continued)

Advant iges

1. Lower unit cost

2. Producibility

p. LONG TERM DESIGN RECOUWNIWTION

The long term design recommendation involves a simple leaf extractor

and separate spring plunger type ejector.

This design requires that the breech face be moved rearward approximate-
ly 1/4" to prevent interference with feeding rounds. The amplification
of this approach is contained in the section on future development
efforts.

Advantages

1. Component simplification
2. Timing (mechanism) less critical
3. Extractor acts as secondary cartridge retainer

G. DESIGN COMMNTS

Extractor

The extractor in the present system is not inherently highly stressed,

and the stamped construction is probably feasible, with appropriate
alterations in associated parts. Although the present design meets
the functional requirements, it is felt that sufficient familiarity
has been gained on the functioning to permit the use of a simpler
method of extraction and ejection, with relatively little development
effort. As a result, the view of product design is that redesign is
preferable to the reprocessing of the existing extractor.

1-42

UNCLASSIFIED

4i1
 UNCLAS SI~RED

I UNCLASWifED
 XH-2604
UNCLASSIFIED ,,
N

I--

tst

I'-
-i
~dJUNCLASFI

.1UCLSIFE
 ~NH-2604
UNCLASSIFIED
c N

4J' U •

e lk

I
*J4

414

4.

..

-UNCLASSIFIED
 NH-2604
UNCLASSIFIED
A- DISCRIPTION

Project #2.3.18

Project Name: Lever, Firing

Components

Part # Part Name #/Assembly #/Launcher

51346 Lever, Firing 1 1

B. FUNCTION
Basic Secondar

Transmit force Provide connection

Actuate Bear
Carries disconnector

C. EXISTING DESIGN DESCRIPTION

The present firing lever is a stamped bell-crank lever. One arm

engages the linkage to the PTE trigger (pulling rearward.) The
other arm carries the disconnector which, when the lever turns,
presses the sear out of engagement with the striker. The firing
lever and attached disconnector are mounted on the striker housing.

Present material: Aluminum, 7075-TS

D. DESIGN RECOUMENDT ION

No change

E. DESIGN COMMENTS

Firing Lever

The present design is satisfactory functionally and from a process

viewpoint. The lever is subject to redesign in the event the
basic firing system is altered, but would remain a stamping of
approximately the sae type and complexity.

E-46

UNCLASSIFIED
 NH-2604
UNCLASSIFIED

4
't

a 4J 1

I 'I 4J4

0 4

JJ UNCLASSIFIED
 NH-2604
.U IUNCLASSIFIED

Project: #2.3.2
LQect NaMV: Striker

Components

Part # Part Name #/Assembly #/Launcher

C-51335 Striker 1 1

B. FUNCTIONS
Basic Secondary

Transmit energy Stores energy

Position sears

C. EXISTING DESIGN DESCRIPTION (Ref. Sketch #16)

Present striker is turned, with secondary milling cuts added

to provide a notch to engage the sear, and a shoulder which is
engaged by the cocking lever. A turned shoulder is provided to
engage with the safety shaft when the safety is in the "safe"
position.

The present design does not include the firing pin.

D. DESIGN RECOMMENDED (Ref. Sketch #16)

The recommended design provides a shape that is compatible with

a stamping process. By reverting to this shape, it was possible
to form all the working surfaces necessary to its function in one
machine handling.

Advantages

1. Lower unit cost

2. Producibility improved

E. LONG TRM DESIGN RhCOMKMMTION

An alternate type of firing mechanism has been considered involving

a fixed firing pin (integral with-the breech face) and firing from
a partially open action.

This would permit simplification of the firing system and, together

with proposed changes in the extractor system, elimination of the
striker housing as an assembly. Amplification of this alternative
design is contained in the section on future developments (Section III).

2-48

UNCLASSIFIED
 T" n-2604
UNCLASSIFIED

F. DESIGN COMMENTS

Striker

The proposed stamping is preferred in principle over the prototype

design, especially in that the tendency of the striker to rotate
and bind the cocking lever, operating rod and tube is completely
eliminated with a flat striker.

I
1-49

UNCLASSIFIED
 UNLSIIDNH-2604

UNCLASSIFIED

A
4:

-
H
-

II

NCA IF-
.,I
,
I
 UNCLASSIFIED NH-2604

0) t-
~. P4

I> I-I

~8 °

4J

$44
coI

UI 0F U

UNLSIID
 I
NH-2604

UNCLASSIFIED

A. DEOCRIPTION

Project: #2.4

Project Name: Sight Group

Components:

Part # Part Name #/Assembly #/Launcher

51436 Mount 1 1
51437 Base 1 1
51438 Rivet, Base £ 1
51439 Bar, Sight 1 1
51440 Aperture, Rear 1 1
51441 Screw, Slide 1 1
51442 Screw, Pivot 1 1
51443 Post, Front Sight 1 1
51444 Screw, Rear Aperture 1 1
51445 Spring, Detent Plate 1 1
51446 Spring, Mount Lock 1 1
51447 Slide 1 1
5144E Detent 1 1
51449 Lock, Mount 1 1
51450 Spring, Sight Bar 1 1

B. FUNCTION

Basic Secondary

Align Weapon Provide connection

Provide easy removal
Resist shock

C. EXISTING DEIGN DESCRIPTION (Ref. Sketch #17)

Present design (prototypes) are basically fabricated from aluminum.

The mount and slide are castings with subsequent machiniag. The
sight bar is machined from bar stock; the rear aperture is a stamp-
ing, and the front sight a screw machine post. The basic sight is
the ramp type, with a linear range scale, provision for zeroing in
range and deflection, and automatic composition for ballistic
drift. A push-button latch is provided to allow removal from the
PTE receiver cover.

D. DESIGN RECOMMENDED (Ref. Sketch #18 & 19)

Analysis of the current assembly and functional requirements indicated

that there was considerable room for simplifying the design from a
user and producibility point of view.

From the user point of view, the sliding mechanism was judged overly
complicated and did not provide the optimum indexing features
desirable for night operation when selecting the desired point on
the range scale. It was also felt that the ease with which the
E-52

UNCLASSIFIED
 NH-2604
UNCLASSIFIED

9. DESIGN RECOMMENDED (continued)

launcher sight in affixed to the point fire weapon could be improved

upon.

The Value Team concluded that iesb expensive processing techniques

could be employed, and that these processing improvements would be
compatible with improvements needed from the user point of view,

An alternate design was conceived (see sketch) utilizing the following:

1. A gear and rack type principle to facilitate indexing the

sight to desired range locations. This is expected to
improve night sight-adjustment capabilities through a
more positive movement sensing and reaction device plus
reduced visual demands on the user.

2. A simplified means for affixing the sight to the weapon

utilizing a quick acting friction type toggle clamp.

3. Improved fabricating techniques,such as stampings, powder-

ed metal, shelf items, etc.

Acceptance of this design will result in an improved functioning

assembly at a lower total cost.

Present Quantity Proposed Quantity

Part # Part Name Design Required Design Required

51436 Mount Machined 1 Stamping 1

51437 Base Machined 1 Stamping 1
51438 Rivet, Base Screw machine 2 Screw machine 2
51439 Bar, Sight Machined 1 Stamped 1
51440 Aperture, Rear Stamped 1 Stamped 1
51441 Screw, Slide Screw machine 1 Eliminate 1
51442 Screw, Pivot Screw machine 1 Screw machine 1
51443 Post, Front sight Scl :" machine 1 Screw machine i
51444 Screwrear aperture Std. screw 1 Std. screw 1
51445 Spring,Detent plate Coil spring 1 Eliminate 1
51446 Spring,Mount lock Coil spring 1 Eliminate 1
51447 Slide Machined 1 Stamping 1
51448 Detent Screw machine 1 Stamping 1
51449 Lock, Mount Screw machine 1 Stamping 1
51450 Spring, Sight Bar Coil spring I Eliminate 1
New Wheel,Sight Adjust. None 0 Powdered Metal I
New Shaft,Sight Adjust
Wheel None 0 Screw machine 1
New Washer,Retaining None 0 Standard item 3
New Pin,Toggle pivot None 0 Wire pivot I

E. DESIGN COMMENTS

Sight Assembly

The proposed stamped sight assembly corresponds with the original

i
UNCLASSIFIED E-53
 NH-2604
UNCLASSIFIED
E. n_QirN CO NTo . ,
ninj~d)

Sight Assembly (continued)

intent of Product -rgIneering for long range development, although the

execution, as shown in the sketches, is subject to variation In any
future development stage. It is recomnended that through-hardening
materials be used on the main components to maximize the resistance
to abuse. The adaptation to stamping is contingent on the design of
mounting and adjustment means which are inherently "self centering".
Without this, the use of stampings is impractical since tolerance
effects would cause unacceptable variations in alignment because of
the short sight radius.

B-54

UNCLASSIFIED
 NH-2604
UNCLASSIFIED

-4

UN LA $SI19D.
 I V , ,-
Iv
3, .
0 j' x

uJ ",

I,(
_ K

4
 UNCLA.SSIFIED

/ I-2
FL

cII

I UNCLASSIFIED
 UNCLASSIFIED NH-2604

4J

P1 I 0

I- N-
4j

' 00

4*

4J
-4

UNCLASSIFIED
 UNCLASSIFIED

SECTION III. REPORT OF VALUE ENGINEERING STUDIES ON COST AREAS

CLASSIFIED AS MINOR

Detailed areas of investigation were made to:

1. Analyze commercial sources for products with

similar use requirements and compare with
Government Specifications to determine if
substitution of commercial ±tems would result
in lower cost without reduction of quality
or impairment of essential functioning and
military serviceability.

2. Determine whether functions are required.

If so, determine if the part can be simplified
or if multiple parts can be combined into a
single part and still maintain the combination
of required functions.

3. Determine if the parts are designed and

dimensioned to accommodate the most economically
acceptably process; e.g., forging, casting,
stamping, welding, extruding, etc.

4. Determine whether less expensive, more readily

available, or light weight material can be
substituted satisfactorily.

5. Determine whether tolerances and finishes are

as liberal as possible.

6. Determine whether parts can be assembled more

easily or economically by the use of quick
release type or other specialty fasteners, and
if maintenance and adjustment of the equipment
can be readily performed.

7. Determine whether the Government Specifications

for the equipment are realistic when compared to
intended use.

E-59

UNCLASSIFIED
*!
 x ix x 1 X
X 1 i Ix M2
0OJin .1Ua. 1 J7

' -b ON~t17XVI'S x j1X x i >4 i ,X

_

-ci
0 ")7S
2l'I X1 1t

rLI~~
lago cor

~f V

Ootp 0 1.4 - PO54 ad (I r

0 0 II H9

1:4 pwH-H H u 4).

04 4 0)

w0 4 OOHp a) r 1

ONW
,. N~flra4O
4)!r 1 0 T"
-A-
H~ ~ .,~ r m3- u~.
 x x x.i 1 L
54_ __ -X I4 X x1xI I I J
E-4. 0 20v_______I
10___________ - I:I1-4 ~ I __

<ODV~
>V'fH I P_

_
C4_
0i
_ _
~
__ _
IZr~
_ _ _
l x

-0-3 sa:TW'J I

0 I 'FA I Ii

1J *.0y 02 ). )0 UI:Q 0

Iu I W

uv H 0 4J 4JI 4-j9U U 4 ~v
LA~I Wn u)
,.Ui)G
w~ a' U,

42 0 H. ~ 'D0)t

< d) 04ia) u 0 O~ 14

.0

WI;
14.I 4Ji
'r4 k 'U ' U $4W~I
A .-
U 0 U(0zM! - 4) 4.) r Id () I0 040 ua
0U ' 0 0 0pX U ' )Q

L)Wa Ens In,

______________ ~__ ~~ ~ __

t3) ~ i
IIal ' . o,

U)r4W )0
It,,3)!
wr
 A ~ na
rI sI x x I4x 1 x I x! i H 6 O 4iI

C--&I C _
I__
x i

91,__OX
_ _ X__ Ii I >1 I

01l I- s r- -x -

- I-4

-W 41 H04 0oI W 4
g0
w IL p w - 01 1 0 '0 01 14

,-

I
ac

Ij tr~CI4

0I d) a) 04 5' 0)

Z4 .,4I
r- r En 0 4 .
3t *. 41

LD 4.3
4J U d 0 00Ug

1A
4Jw @4J)~
41 >

wAA)VU n
 __ _ __ _ __ _ I I I

nrJT ~7'' a
CKj"V I

'awlw~
c;I{l I LLLJ2IIs
____ IJII *IOiL0 ~

14, J- -,
_ _ __ _ _ 0 _ _ _ C)1 I E',

:1 X1 LL ,--

~-~
HH -- 4 U 04-J
W~
4 ,41
~ r. t 4r

En j~
4~ Um 1O 14) 4 I.e0) .4I
0I 4 1 r f 0
Q) (d
G

a4 4 0 "4) 0 19 01) 4) 1~4' a

0 :4 0k K-4 "41 Ia4
4W
uH . -4- IU ~

c:o01 r I14w w -
C-I A. -41cd i :-4

-P "j0( I-
za 4 n0 o

4J A
I I '4 -H

0) 44
 ISOD I
9a OY a
u >
tIg~fa~I
JHiam
'

'dAI ScVS t
7U LVAIOZ
__701 r_ x I Lr it
ci I-
*ol31X

o _____
0 SI
0 --- t--

04 U) -WIJ ~
0
d 0
rn H4 Z E-

E-1
zu 4 Lwu r

Cl)

04_

)4 I u ru u

_U w

u') u
1/) <'ft

0&

3 E- IX U A
0~
z --
E- M* iL N %D
'

-LOt
LMI
 ?M-2604
UNCLASSIFIED

00 0 00 0
C~o0 00 0-0 0-

C? 0- 0 at m0 i t
4t- -4 I -4t- IV c

c-.4qm

n D , 1

0000000 0
0 g4 w0 wl CD
t. m

~~C U ch-4

4-)4J

to 0V44~
cc

UNCLASIFIE
W!
t ci 0
 UfNCJLASSIFIED H20

Respectfully submitted,

OLIN MATHIESON CHEMICAL CORPORATION

Winchester-Western Division

Prepared by:
. H1. John n
beign rio

Approved by:

P ogram Manager

UNCLASSIFIED