Historical Document · 1958
A Ballistic Research Laboratories comparison of proposed small-arms systems, April 1958. The Hyper-Burst Mechanisms dive cites it among the post-SALVO studies of multiple-projectile and burst weapons.
BALLISTIC RESEARCH M»tORANDUM REPORT NO. LABORATOR I ES 1139 APRIL 1958 A CCMPARISON OF PROPOSED E.WJ.L AR-tS WEAPON SYSTE)ffi ( U) W. c. Benjamin, Jr . .., R . L . Simmons Requests for additi one · .& -·.# ., , ~~ made direct to ASTIA . ~Z~~J:~~7 Approved for public release ~ Distribution is Unlimited ~ _i.'?J_.pro!!,.:J.91 ted )lp~P,qBT~ _,~ Department of the Army Project No . 5B0305005 Ordnance Research and Development ProJ~ct No. TB3- 0230 ABERDEEN PROVING OG ' 13RA GROUND, i) AT '{ i ' I'Tt rll LS; DEJl :~~ ~"" ' " " · .. ·r 1?. YEARS. MARYL AN D TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INT.RODUCTION • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 5 THE SALVO I EXPERD!ENT • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 6 THE WOUND BALLISTIC DATA • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 9 • • • • • • • • • • 9 • • • • • • • • • • 10 • • • • 11 • l2 THE PROPOSED MULTIPLEX AMMUNITION TBE PROPOSED CAL. • 22 WEAPON WEAPON ACCURACY • C<MBINED RESULTS • COOCLUSIONS RroCHfENDATIONS .• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • - .-.. • • • • • • • • • • • • - • • • • • • 13 14 B A LLISTIC RESEARCH L AB OR ATORIES MEMORANDUM REPORT NO. 1139 WCBenjamin,Jr. /RLSimmons/is Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md. April 1958 A COMPARISON OF PROPOSED SMALL ARMS WEAPON SYSTEMS (U) ABSTRACT A comparison of proposed caliber .22, single ball, the proposed caliber . 30 duplex and the caliber .30, AP rifle-ammunition combinations has been made in an attempt to determine significant differences between weapon systems. The comparison is based on the expected number of targets killed for ranges out to 400 yards for a fixed weight for rifle and ammunit ion. Dat a obtained from the Salvo I experiment and tentative wound ballistic data have been combined with results of earlier Ballistic Research Laboratories studies of small arms effectiveness in order to make the comparison. 3 - o. MD· INTRODUCTION Much information has been generated in an attempt to determine the characteristics of an improved small-arms weapon system which would be sufficiently accurate , lightweight, economical and reliable to produce a significant improvement in kill probability over the standard rifle. Of primary importance in this investigation was the determination of wound ballistic data for various projectile- types under consideration, for this has permitted projectile performance to be isolated from the performance of the weapon itself insofar as the production of casualties is concerned. The Salvo I Rifle Experiment was designed to determine the hit performance of s~veral weapon- ammunition combinations. This experiment yielded valuable basic data concerning weapon accuracy, rate of fire, hit probability, etc. under simulated tactical conditions . The data obtained from Salvo I and the wound ballistic data have been combined with results of earlier BRL studies of small- arms effectiveness in order to compare the following weapon systems : Cal • • .30, Ml rifle firing AP ammunition Cal •• .)O, Ml rifle firing duplex ammunition Cal •• 22 lightweight rifle firing a 50- grain lead core projectile 5 THE SALVO I EXPERIMENT The Salvo I experiment consisted basically of controlled tests of rifle-ammunition combinations c-.gainst a programmed sequence of targets where the targets appeared for only small intervals of time . Factors which were included in the t est set-up which do not lend themselves readily to quantitative analysis included visibility, movement and confusing context of the target and simulated battle conditions which included detonation of explosive charges, blank fire from some of the target positions, noise emanating from a PA system, etc. The operation of the target system was controlled automatically by a programmer which insured that each weapon would be tested under the same conditions . Targets consisted of 22 11 E11 and "F" silhouette-type targets at ranges up to 350 yards . to 35 seconds . Target exposure times varied from 3 The weapon-ammunition combinations which were tested included the M1 rifle which fired caliber .30, AP, duplex and triplex ammunition; a modified carbine which fired caliber . 22 carbine ammunition either automatically or semi-automatically; a modified T48 r ifle firing the caliber .22 Sierra ammunition either automatically or semi-automaticallyj and the 12- gauge shot gun with the 32-flechette round of ammunition. The data collected from the test consisted of a count of the total number of holes in the target faces and the total number of rounds expended per run . There was also a continuous recording of rounds fired from each firing position and a continuous recording of hits on each target. However, the recorder systems used for such continuous recording, were subjected to an excessive number of malfunctions, which therefore makes questionable the use of data so obtained.. The Salvo data which have been used in this analysis are simply the number of hits made and the number of rounds fired . These values were obtained either from the raw data published 6 by the Operations Research Office * and/or directly from ORO personnel . It should be remembered that these data do not give the number of hits obtained per trigger pull for the multiplex ammunition . In order to determine the relative advantage of the multiplex ammuniti on over the single ball rounds , the relative number of hits (with respect to Cal . . 3QJAP) was computed 'for each weapon-ammunition combination tested . This comparison is shown in the histogram of Fig. 1 . From these values i t is somewhat surprising to note that the caliber .22 carbine results in approximately the same relative number of hits as obtained with the duplex ammunition . anomaly. Two factors appear to cause this First , by determining the relative rate of fire of each of the weapons (i . e . , the number of rounds fired by each weapon against the complete target complex) it is seen that the rate of fire of the caliber .22 carbine is approximately 125% of that of the caliber . 30, AJ? while the multiplex ammunition gives a rate of' fire slightly less than the caliber .30, AJ? . The relative rates of fire of the weapons tested in Salvo I are shown as a function of muzzle momentum in Fig. 2 . Secondly, by determining the value of dispersion which vill result in the hit probabilities as measured in Salvo I , where n -.n = n~er 0~ hitsd n er o roun s fire~ , it is evident that the aiming error for the carbine is somewhat less than the aiming error for the heavier weapons . The fact that lightweight weapons result in smaller aiming errors was also demonstrated in a series of tests of rifles, carbines and pistols where aiming errors for each weapon were measured as a function of target exposure time . ** The percentage of hits for different target exposure times are shown in Fig. 3 for the * "Preliminary Report On Salvo", 25 October 1956, Staff Paper by Dr. K. L. Yudowitch, Operations Research Office . ** BRL Report No. 969 - "Rifle, Carbine and Pistol Aimihg Errors (U) by K. L. Yudowitch and T. E . Sterne . .. •7 11 caliber .22 carbine and the caliber .30, AP only since the data do not yield such values for the multiplex ammunition. It is felt that the increased rate of fire and the decreased aiming errors Which appear to be a function of the weight of the weapon resulted in the higher percentage of hits for the caliber • 22 carbine. The relative percentages of hits is plotted in Fig . 4 as a function of range . Combining these data with the relative rate of fire yields the relative number of hits which is plotted as a function of range in Fig. 5. Included is an estimated value for the caliber .22, 50-grain round, assuming the probability of hitting is equal to that for the caliber .22 carbine and the relativ~ rate of :fire is a function of the muzzle momentum. 8 THE WOUND BALLISTIC DATA Firings of single projectiles against goats were conducted in or der to establish the probability that a hit results in a kill. Tentative data , for 100~ "Sure" kills only 1 have been obtained for the ammunition types which were used in Salvo I. These data 1 plotted as a function of mass x velocity 3/ 2 are given in Fig. 6. Very stable projectiles such as the caliber .30 1 AP and the caliber .22 1 Sierra are seen to be relatively poorer in ability to produce kills than the caliber .30 duplex which, 1n turn, is inferior to the caliber • 30 triplex. However 1 differences between the curves are not large for most velocities considered. THE PROPOSED MULTJJ>LEX AMMUNITION A modification of the present caliber .30 projectile to replace the single projectile with either 2 or 3 shorter projectiles of the same diameter has resulted in the development of the duplex and triplex rounds. Since the tests of Salvo I 1 the multiplex principle has been extended to rounds of smaller calibers • The caliber • 30 duplex round contains two 96- grain projectiles packed in tandem in the cartridge case. To accommodate the two projectiles the neck of the cartridge case was extended, resulting in a slight modification of the weapon itself. The triplex round contains three 61- grain projectil~s. Since the total weight of projectiles is approximately the same for both the duplex and triplex rounds their muz.z.le velocity is the same -- about 26oo tps. This is a reduction of about 200 fps. below the velocity of the standard caliber • 30 rounds. The increase in single shot hit probability which results from the multiplex rounds is brought about by the dispersion between the leading projectile and the other projectiles which have canted bases to induce dispersion. The leading projectile is about as accurate as the standard single ball round. 9 THE PROPOSED CAL. •22 WEAPON An earlier BRL study * indicated that a projectile which tended to tumble soon after target impact also tended to result in greater kill probabilities. As a conclusion to this study, it vas shown that a caliber .22 projectile weighing 50-grains could be made to result in good vound ballistic performance if the transverse moment of inertia were sufficiently low to encourage tumbling immediately after impact. This resulted in the recommendation of a caliber .22, 50- grain lead core proJectile. The initial velocity required for the proposed projectile has been assumed to be that which satisfies the CONARC requirement for a helmet penetration at 500 yards. For the 50-grain caliber .22 projectile this velocity is approximately 3500 fps. In order to establish th~ wounding power of this projectile 1n the absence of actual YOund ballistic data for the specific design and velocities, it bas been assumed that the 50- grain projectile which tumbles soon after 2 impa.ct will follow the same M!/3 / - PHK laws as those observed vith the caliber .22 carbine and the triplex ammunition. Caliber .22 weapons tested in Salvo I included a modified carbine and a modified T48. Both of these weapons were originally designed as caliber .30 weapons and are, therefore, of greater weight than required for caliber .22 use. Discussions with Springfield Armory personnel have indicated that a more realistic value of weight for a caliber . 22 rifle would be approximately 6. 5 lbs . This value has been used in this stu~ . However, recent information received has indicated that a caliber .22 rifle which fires a 53-grain projectile at about 3300 rps . has been successfully demonstrated to CONARC personnel. This weapon weighed only 5 lbs. It appears 1 therefore, that the weight of 6.5 lbs. is probabl~ a conservative estimate. * "Upon Selecting an Optimum Rifle Round (U)" by Donald L . Hall and Billy 8. Campbell - BRL Memo 1055 . 10 WEAPON ACCURACY The effectiveness of a small- arms weapon is greatly influenced by the accuracy with which it can be aimed. The tests of Salvo I indicated that the aiming accuracy varies with the weapon. A meaningf'ul comparison of weapons must, then, be based on accurate estimates of aiming accuracy for each rifle . Using the Salvo I data as fully as possible, the standard deviation of a::lm error for the caliber . 30 weapon was obtained as follows: The probability of a hit was defined to be the ratio of the number hits per target to the number of rounds expended per target . Assuming that the targets were circular, the standard deviation (o) for each target at each rang~ was computed by R2 2 P :::: l -e -2o H where R is the target radius . Since some of the targets had many more rounds expended on them than others , because of the varying target exposure times, the individual values of C1 were weighted by the corresponding number of rounds expended per target. These values -were summed over the complete target system and divided by the total number of rounds ex:Pended. The average value of o thus obtained for the caliber . 30 weapon is 3 .8 mils. The accuracy of the caliber .22 carbine, based on the same method of computation is approximately 3 mils. This value has been used to estimate the accuracy of the caliber .22 light-weight rifle. Although test data are not available \o support this value it is felt that sufficient data are available to indicate significant differences in aiming errors between weapons . A 3-mil standard deviation can then be used as a rough indication of the gain in effectiveness which can be achieved by a reduction of aiming errors . CCMBINED RESULTS A comparison of the proposed caliber .22 projectile, the proposed caliber . 30 duplex ammunition, and the caliber . ;£>, AP has been made in an attempt to determine significant differences between weapons . Interpolating in the graph of Fig. 2 to the muzzle momentum of the caliber . 22 50-grain projectile at a velocity of 3500 fps. indicates an expected rate of fire equal to 12~ of that measured for the caliber .30 weapons. The expected relative number of hits w.s then computed and entered in the graph of Fig. 5. Computation of the wound ballistic data for the three weapons considered, results in the graph of Fig. 7. Limiting ranges for helmet penetrations have been included for comparative purposes . In order to determine expected hit performance of the duplex ammunition, the standard deviation of miss distance w.s computed for the caliber . 30, AP. Using this value and a fixed angula.r dispersion of 2 . 5 mils between the front and the second bullet, probabilities of hit were computed using the method of BRIM 1030. * Probabilities of hitting are plotted in Fig. 8 . The probability of killing for single projectile ammunition is obtained simply by multiplying the probability of hitting by the probability that a hit is a kill. For duplex ammunition, the probability of a kill is given by PK = phl phl<J. + (P~ Phl<2)(1-Phl phKi) where P~ = the probability of a hit with the first bullet, PhK.. --"'l. P~ P~ -1:! = the probability t.hat a hit by the first bullet results in a kill, = the probability of a hit with the second bullet = the probability that a hit by the second bullet results in a kill. The probability of killing is given as a function of range in Fig. 9. * BRIM 1030 - 11 Evaluation of a Salvo Rifle (U)" by Donald L. Hall and Ed 8. Smith - - - .- . The relative effectiveness of the rifles compared is defined as the ratio of the products of the kill probability times the relative rate of fire, i.e . , Ph PhKlx (Relative Rate of Fire) 1 1 Relative Effectiveness·; p~ phK2 x (Relative Rate of Fire) 2 where the subscripts denote a specific weapon . For these calculations the reference has been chosen as the caliber .30, AP round fired from the standard Ml rifle . Relative effectiveness over the range of targets in the Salvo I teat is given in Fig. 10 . For a fixed weight of rifle plus ammunition the relative expected number of targets killed has been determined. These values are based. on the following weights of weapon and ammunition: Weapon Weapon WT. Ammo . Cal. . 30, Ml 9. 5 lbs . 9.5 lbs. 6. 5 lbs. JU> . Cal. .30, Ml Cal • •22 Duplex 50 grain Ammo. WT . 414 grains 449 grains 170 grains Tfie relative expected number of targets killed is plotted in Fig. ll for ~rifle plus total ammunition weight of 15 lbs. CONCLUSIONS Differences between ammunition- types insofar as wounding power is concerned, are rather small. Because of this small difference it appears that i f the military requirement for helmet penetration at 500 yarga is met, the choice of one weapon system over another will be based on other characteristics . Insofar as single shot effectiveness is concerne~a superiority for the duplex ammunition is indicated provided the weight is not a factor to be considered. For sustained fire, the higher rate of fire for the lighter weapons tends to reduce the overall differences so that the differences between the relative effectiveness of the caliber . 22 s ingle bal~ and the caliber . 30 duplex are not significant. Significant differences between weapons have been obtained when the weight of the weapon is considered or when a difference in aiming errors is assumed. With respect to this conclus ion it must be reiterated that aiming errors for lighter weapons are apparently less than for heavier weapons -- a factor which should be investigated more fully by tests •. If the weight of rifle plus ammunition is of great importance the conclusion of this study becomes quite obvious. "' A light-weight caliber .22 rifle with the 50- grain projectile will result in a considerably greater effectiveness than the other weapon systems compared. RECOMMENDATION Since the proposed light-weight caliber .22 weapon system appears to offer considerable promise, particularly in so far as single- shot hit probability and overall weight are concerned, it is recommended that a " rogram be initiated to determine the required data to evaluate more fully ·'t the proposal to use a lighter weapon. This program would require some development of a rifle and corresponding ammunition and also include sufficient testing to provide data for comparison with competitive weapons. v.e.~,~· W. C. BENJAMm, JR. R. L. SlMMONS --- 14 • .A~·'Y"'(;~....... _......_,...!Jf_ ...... (,th,. ,.............. ... .. II -:'j I : 'i l .•. 1 L: • ~ . I 1··- . lr t * . .. 1- .! -- ' . ·-- - - - i !.,.. 11- ··- ·· I· - ·I -i- ·- I~ r ·- i ~~ +~ 1- c ~~- a ~ ~ ~~ . - ic:J _ :! - ~- •• ~ I• . ' 1-· t ~ . . '~~ ~ ·- ·~ ... ........ - 1- -+- . ' -- - 1- - I I I' '. ~ I ,_ ··- -· ·-- I :~ - -. - .:- .. - -i -- I-I - .. -- I -j ~~ . I - ,- ~ I -.. 1- I 16 A ~~~ -- I .I I ""I I I 1-r - --- I l- I (~ )~ I _Ll I I· I I i ,__ I -~ _.__ 1 rij 1o3.1.\fY 3AUN13Y r~- - Nl . J__ 1··- - I:J I _. ..... &&.1 .... t- -I ~ ~- ~llil I ~ ~ ~{{! I I ~- .<~ I ~ ~L -- ... I ' 1-· I i" 1 ~ ~r; ·H~ 1~ ~~ ~~r. "' ~~ ., - F - - j- -- - I I· -· < I 1- · - 1 - - 1 -~ · - ~ .. 1- "' T ...... - '-- ~ •; ,_ .... . '- I ~~ i :; + I 1-1a . . . t ~-- ~ > LL II ~~ J§ >Lt. ~ 1-"- 1- I ~I '"'t!>.... ~; ~~-~~ ,~ ~ I ·· II 1- - -r! I 1- l ~' I 1- ~ I I -·- r--l . I ~'l I- t -· - -;----- ~ LL tJ- -I-,I I I - I I "'tlt -1+.l. -- -- I I I -- l ~ .F ! ~ ltii.~ 1- _J_ ~ I I 1- I ·- I I ~ I- ~I - - __s ~- I I c~ I - I I ! I r t I . 1 - ~. -·· I r !1::1 , I· I• t I :II I I ::!PI ·~ · 11 11 I li;':, ll II Iill I• I! I II 'd II II !t ill I I ' lj i I :. : I , :, II I IIU . Iill i ...... i __;_ . ,-!' : '~ ' I• : ! : I~ ~ ,2 ; - r--- : : f'l • II , r-.· 1..1.. . ' I~ li ; ., lil.i .Ill IJ I I' II I!!! I l~!: I ; l 111 ,, 1- 1-- 1 --~ ' III I II '•· II ,I! .. I! ~~~ p I I . II II II ! . I II i I I~ ::!i I II ' II iI II I ~ I ol 1 I ! ' :I II II .1'' • ,I 1 I! ~ 1111 : 1\ I I~ -~ I . ,, IH 1!1 I ~l;.U41+1-h+J~!++4-.. I '~..,JJ+trH+.IIrtttlttt111+tt-~r I IS ,,, l 11115 ., ll I : I~ I ' I i 11 I; ! ·''I: : II ! I 'I I ,,, ~ I!: .. ' li ·. I liiil: I :i II II I I iI I 1: 1, ! i II I i II i1 11,, I~ L.. ~ IlL ·i!· 1! i 1111 I I II J ' ! ' ·: I I' Lt !I : : u 11 Ill I ! 111111 11 IIJ11 Ill I I I' II II :1~1 J 'i I i llill lll'l ..,. 1 II ft ~~. 1 tc; II· I I I'll-.(.-- .. ~ lll:il!li I ; t . , _ i 1 1 11 II 1' l I ; ' I 18 I l•'i _. 1! }_-'-;'+--lt--'_,..._...1-ll~~- .. 11'-f..-~ ', ::: ... ..,... I• IL! ~'1--t---t---1 -r- 111•1 I ll,j II i llll~ l i!! #t+ I,..+:~H·H1+'1 l''l Ill '1!11'1 2 11 I I J~l : ;~. j ' I l _lli 'I! I ll!llllllll _l' I IIJ I ~ .t ill! jl ~ ~~-~ . ~ " ' . ~ I .J tr : I~H II j I I: I! 111 1 It I I ;: W!-UW-mmtt±!Ht+H+H+Htt!HWJN~~tltT'tt111~~rl rrlll r IF..; ~ ~ ~ I ! ~' l I Ii II I u II II I i T llil 1! I jl [ I llll ,, [I Ill' ,. I I JP II,'1 II II I ,.; I ,, I 1'1 I ~ ~~ ' I ~ llli I 1: t• ill d I I'I ~~+., IIJ f- !:2 til l Ill! . ~ uIll II I' ill: I 0 Ill I II I l lfll l ~ll J It I , .. ~ iiQ ~ I u H 1 u j I'll 19 E "" ~ Ii II ll ! I I Iit) I ! I II li I i; u I •I!Jill II I' ll jl I I I' I I' 1'1 ..! ., r- - i II •:;:11 11 .; ,Ill : ;I I II' :Ill 121,'1 II ~I I I II d 11 .• 1 1 u CD 0 I 0 . II! !fTI :I"' 'lin: Ipl! IL~:-r ... ,i· -1 1: ll;fj I. IIIII I I :I 1 •t 1 ,, I f; 1' !! rl I! 1 1' lti r. fl I ' ~~· I' 1 II i I· ,I rr Ill ~ I• m II 11 ' Il l: II ~· I· 1: , ''I ;fi II 11 I 1 i i 11 I I .I 1. ~ II .I 1 ·II ·'· 1• I I ! ' . ] :: 0..: : 11 11 1 ~~ ~ I I ' , .I '1! 11 11 1 . '·. !Ill ilil I• I ·, il 1 :i • I· ~ !, •' I ,: H!II It I' !IIi III IIIP I I , 11 'I Ii ' • 1 ill . 1 I I : I I :. :I I 1 ! .; · , 11. p I I ·~ t - -t-:-:-J'-'-+-1-1-~-t 1 .. I !1 11 1 • ·1 ..' --~ 1 : : i , . I I: I i : · ·.: !: u j 1 ·! l , ~ ~~! :I !:I ·~ 1: ,l ::1 .I. :·· : ·~ 1 1: 11 .! i_ " ' fl ~ :I : l : .. :\t 1 • r:,, II 1:1 II ;I l ' H Ill ~ ij I ~ i 5 r~ ~ I ' ~ II d I! .1 ': ' T II Ii ~ . T . I· ' It 1 IT I ~ II 1 I 1 ' 111 1~ 1' 'T 1 1 11 1 liJ 'i ~ i I II !I: llli 1' 1 II I li~ 1: .- ,_ ' 41 Ui 1~ i 1 1 I ~. ll n: ~~ lr lli 1r· 11 11 1'11 T i :ill: 111:11 ·I 11 1: 'I : : I 'I ~ , 11 I 'I I ( - -. . 1: li 1111 !l 11 l n ' ~· ; .1 1: I I• J n ,,,,, ' :1 ' ,. : : Ul 11 11 Iii: II Ill II 11 1111 .II l1li :Ill, I 111, ~ 11' '11 ~ 11 11 11 1111 1 l ~ 11 111 1iltllrl! 11 Ll ~ rrr; I I I ~'I II! I. Ill ;::: II '!d II, ir II '5: 111 , 11 1 ! .1~ I 'I id 111!111 II ,1 111 I I I I f1 ill 1 !llj 11,11 111 1 , 1 .I • 111 111 I, I! I I I '· Ill' I: I til II I It l iJ!.. : I ll ~~~ I I lll!:ld[P'I I I 11 • ,., I 1 1111 1pI II I II :I! !Ill I' I 1.. II III 1tdl '~ ,;111 11: 111 1 II III II T II .. ' ' It ,I (\ ~~ I ·1.1 ~f l 11 1, ,,, " 111 .~ e , 'I ·, 1 ~ r•m l1f :lit! I 11 1\ , ., 'I ~ \1·' ·i 1\ ij I I i II' 1 ' IIIPIIII I IX c~ 1 ·'" ,li I! ii 'I I ..:111 11 ·I 11 c~~ 1 ,,I; [, 1 i I'·I ll' I! I nr;-r ' '" d~•l•:u ll'aj\-:~ 1~-: ~!At~~-~~~ '1 [11'1 ' '11' ' n' 1 ' jill -, 1dl li 1 11l Ill Ill UUIII.il ll,l l! I r 1 ~1'l r · q I1 1 1~ ~ c c; 1 ~ ~ 1: ,. ~~ ~ ~ r,n ~ ~ ~~ -r 1IT~ l"fff4t 11111 i ILt~ l ~ l:i L.J: j ~ II ,II ~, Itt- '""13 1 '1 f~l' ~ ·~ [11 111'1 ,\11 J1 I 1111 1111 :1 ll : I w1n '' n n,1 nm 11 , 11111 11 II JI ' 1.11, 1 ,., , II' 1: 'j II Ill I II I I 1111 11 ~ .. ~ ' .b .• l''nr; l rr 'TilT I ~ :1 i .I f+4 IIl ii ,,,, 1111111' I' llllll iI'll' .I II I :: 1- ~. I; Ill 111 1Tl il! ll, dTI, I 11 ''"''',,I w l id II II 1111 111 ·'. .I 11 11,11, 1 ,, I / 1 II :11 , 1'1111~1 'I ll '111 11111 11 I·"'! .I i Ir II ,p 11 11 I ~ 1 j l! ! :1 a : I I I I •- ·- ~ .• -f-- I - 24 . ., ..... I • I I I i! ti:. '; l - :. :I ,-"·-of~ ~ : I ~ I I' : I I• 11 It I )I II 111 . ~_. j • I a: I. !I I I -.. rr· ~, . t;~ II - . ~ I f. { -~ ~ - - - ~· .i 1 J' 1 ~ .._, ~111 II I ·~ ·~ i; I - - ... ; 1 , ~rrF 1• 1 II' , , , I ) ~ -= I I I I e . .:, No. of Copies 2 10 Organization :.· DISTR:rnu.riON LIST No. of Copies Chief of Ordnance Department of the Army washington 25, D. c. Attn: ORDTB- Bal Sec ORDTS British Joint Services Mission 18oo K Street, N.W. Washington 6, D. C. Attn: Mr. John Izzard, Reports Officer Organization 2 President U. S. Army Infantry Board Fort Benning, Georgia 2 Commandant The Infantry School Fort Benning, Georgia Attn: B- 3 1 Commanding Officer U. S. Army Chemical Warfare Laboratories Army Chemical Center, Md.. 4 Canadtan Army Staff 2450 Massachusetts Avenue Washington 8, D. C. 3 Chief, Bureau of Ordnance Department of the Navy Washington 25, D. c. Attn: ReO Attn: Medical Laboratoxies Dr . Herget 2 Commanding Officer Springfield Armory Springfield 1, Massachusetts 2 Commanding General Frankford Arsenal Philadelphia 37 1 Pa. Attn: Pitman-Dunn Labs . Ballistic Division 1 2 Commandant, Marine Corps Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps Washington 25, D. C. 1 Commandant Marine Corps School Quantico, Virginia Commanding General Ordnance Weapons Command Rock Island, Illinois Attn : Research Branch 1 Chief of Naval Research Department of the Navy Washington 25, D. C. Attn: Code 463, Room 18o4 Building T3 The Johns Hopkins University Operations Research Office 6935 Arlington Road Bethesda 14, Maryland Attn: Dr . K. L. Yudowitch 10 Director Armed Services Technical Information Agency Arlington Hall Station Arlington 12, Va. 1 Commanding General Continental Army Command Fort Monroe, Virginia Attn: Assistant Chief of Staff for Materiel Develop. 1 Commanding Officer Diamond Ordnance Fuze Laboratories Washington 25, D. C. Attn: ORDTL-06.33 TE<ID'., ('AT ll s 1 r-·• - ABtRDf. ' oe.... ABolY ..,APG, Md • -D