Machine Gun Liner Bond Strength 

by William S. de Rosset and Jonathan S. Montgomery 

ARL-CR-595 August 2007 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 
NOTICES 

Disclaimers 

The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position unless 

so designated by other authorized documents. 

Citation of manufacturer’s or trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the 

use thereof. 

Destroy this report when it is no longer needed. Do not return it to the originator. 
Army Research Laboratory 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5069 

ARL-CR-595 August 2007 

Machine Gun Liner Bond Strength 

William S. de Rosset 

Dynamic Science, Inc. 

Jonathan S. Montgomery 

Weapons and Materials Research Directorate, ARL 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering 

and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, 

including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson 

Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to 

comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

August 2007 

2. REPORT TYPE 

Final 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To) 

December 2006–March 2007 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 

5b. GRANT NUMBER 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

Machine Gun Liner Bond Strength 

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER 

SERDP 

5e. TASK NUMBER 

6. AUTHOR(S) 

William S. de Rosset* and Jonathan Montgomery 

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

U.S. Army Research Laboratory 

AMSRD-ARL-WM-WB 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5069 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

 REPORT NUMBER 

ARL-CR-595 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S) 

Benet Laboratories 

AMSRD-AAR-AEW-T 

1 Buffington St. 

Watervliet, NY 12189-4000 

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT 

 NUMBER(S) 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

*

Dynamic Science, Inc., 8433 Black Canyon Hwy., Phoenix, AZ 85021 

14. ABSTRACT 

Bond strengths of two Stellite 21 liners in the M2 0.50-cal. machine gun have been measured. Both liners were obtained from 

machine-gun barrels that had been retired from service. Liner bond strength from one of the barrels was measured to be 

~750 psi. The other liner fell out of the barrel during sectioning, and its bond strength was much lower. Simple calculations

showed that a bond strength of 750 psi was compatible with a shrink-fit process. In this case, the bond strength was shown to 

be sufficient to resist the forces on the lands and grooves of the liner due to spin-up forces on the bullet. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Stellite 21, gun tube liner, M2 machine gun, bond strength 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

William S. de Rosset 

a. REPORT 

UNCLASSIFIED 

b. ABSTRACT 

UNCLASSIFIED 

c. THIS PAGE 

UNCLASSIFIED

17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT 

UL 

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES 

24 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code) 

410-306-0816 

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18 

ii
Contents 

List of Figures iv 

List of Tables iv 

Acknowledgments v 

1. Introduction 1 

2. Gun Liner Observations 3 

3. Bond Strength Tests 6 

4. Discussion 8 

4.1 Shrink-Fit Calculations....................................................................................................8 

4.2 Bond Strength Requirements...........................................................................................9 

5. Summary 10 

6. References 12 

Distribution List 13 

iii
List of Figures 

Figure 1. Comparison of hot hardness between Stellite 21 and Stellite 25. ...................................2 

Figure 2. Cut lines in the 0.50-cal. M2 machine gun barrel (not to scale). ....................................3 

Figure 3. Sectioned breech end of the first 0.50-cal. M2 machine gun barrel................................4 

Figure 4. Stellite 21 liner removed from the first M2 machine gun barrel.....................................4 

Figure 5. Sectioned sample of the second M2 machine gun barrel. ...............................................5 

Figure 6. Close-up of worn Stellite 21 liner. ..................................................................................5 

Figure 7. Steel plug design for bond strength tests. All dimensions are in inches. .......................6 

Figure 8. Load-displacement curve for sample MG3. ....................................................................7 

List of Tables 

Table 1. Experimental bond strength data from two M2 machine gun barrels...............................7 

iv
Acknowledgments 

The authors are indebted to the U.S. Army Aberdeen Test Center, especially Mike Feinberg and 

Marshall Hess, who provided the M2 machine gun barrels. We also acknowledge Paul Moy, 

who conducted the push-out tests to determine the liner bond strengths. 

v
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

vi
1. Introduction 

The U.S. Army is currently pursuing efforts to reduce gun barrel wear and erosion. These efforts 

are primarily centered around the work being conducted at Benet Laboratories on coating the 

bore of large-caliber, smooth-bore gun tubes with tantalum. In addition, there is a program to 

replace electroplated chrome coatings in medium caliber gun tubes (1–5) with a refractory metal 

liner being conducted jointly by the U.S. Army Research Laboratory (ARL) and Benet 

Laboratories. This latter program has examined explosive bonding of pure tantalum, several 

tantalum alloys, and Stellite 25 (an alloy of cobalt, chrome, nickel, and tungsten) in a liner 

configuration. These metals have been chosen for their high-temperature properties and ability 

to resist chemical attack. 

In addition to resisting chemical attack, Stellite 25 has additional characteristics that make it 

attractive as a gun barrel liner. First, it is relatively inexpensive as compared to tantalum and its 

alloys. Second, Stellite 25 has sufficient ductility for it to be explosively bonded to the inner 

bore of an M242 Bushmaster medium caliber cannon (4). Third, Stellite 21, an alloy similar to 

Stellite 25, has already been in use for over half a century as a liner material for the M2 0.50-cal. 

machine gun. Fourth, Stellite 25 has a shear strength high enough to resist the reaction forces of 

the projectile on the lands of the rifled M242 barrel. (It was estimated that pure tantalum would 

not have a high enough strength to be used in the M242. This was the reason for examining 

tantalum alloys.) Finally, it is expected that Stellite 25 can be machined to form the lands and 

grooves of a rifled barrel. (Difficulties have been experienced in machining an explosively-clad 

tantalum alloy in an M242 Bushmaster barrel [6].) 

One disadvantage of Stellite 25 was demonstrated by Smith (7), who made hot hardness 

measurements on samples of explosively-bonded Stellite 25. He found that the material strength 

drops rapidly between 400 and 800 °C. This was a concern as the inner wall temperature of an 

M242 can exceed 900 °C (Standard Firing Cycle A, 150 shots, bare steel wall [8]). Note, 

however, that if the barrel were lined with a refractory metal liner, the steel portion of the gun 

barrel would have a lower temperature, depending on the liner thickness. The hot hardness 

values of both Stellite 21 and Stellite 25 were obtained from the Alloy Digest (9) and are 

compared in figure 1. Unfortunately, Smith’s measurements were made on an uncalibrated 

system and cannot be compared in this figure. This figure shows that there is a rapid drop in the 

hot hardness of Stellite 25, as evidenced by the drop in the tensile strength between 650 and 

800 °C. The hot hardness for Stellite 21 does not undergo a steep drop in the 650–800 °C range. 

However, it does decrease rapidly in the 800–1000 °C range so that the difference in hot 

hardness between Stellite 21 and Stellite 25 is not that great in the upper temperature range. 

1
Temperature, o

C

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Tensile Strength, ksi

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Stellite 21

Stellite 25

Figure 1. Comparison of hot hardness between Stellite 21 and Stellite 25. 

Due to these material properties and processing issues, attention was turned to Stellite 21 as a 

possible liner material for the M242 Bushmaster automatic cannon. Unfortunately, Stellite 21 

does not have sufficient ductility to be explosively bonded, and an alternative means of attaching 

the liner to the gun barrel must be employed. The primary concern was that the method chosen 

would provide a high bond strength between the liner and the gun barrel to survive firing. 

Previous work by Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC) (10) indicated that using a 

number of pins to provide a mechanical bond was not sufficiently strong to keep the a tantalum 

liner in an M2424 gun tube from rotating due to reaction forces of the projectile with the rifling. 

The method by which the Stellite 21 liner is attached to the M2 machine gun might be applicable 

for a larger-bore gun; however, this technology is proprietary to the manufacturer and not readily 

available to the U.S. Government (11). 

Thus, the decision was made to conduct a limited study of M2 Stellite 21 liners to ascertain how 

the liners are attached to the gun barrel. Two unserviceable M2 barrels from the U.S. Army 

Aberdeen Test Center (ATC) were sectioned to reveal the liner configuration. The following 

section describes the liners from these two barrels and discusses probable reasons for their 

condemnation. Section 3 discusses and presents results from the bond strength tests. The fourth 

section discusses estimates of the bond strength necessary to resist the reaction forces of the 

bullet on the lands and grooves of the liner. 

2
2. Gun Liner Observations 

Two unserviceable M2 machine gun barrels were obtained from ATC. Three cuts normal to the 

length of the barrel were made in the first barrel to isolate the breech end, a small ring, and a 7-in 

section of the liner. A rough schematic of the cut locations is shown in figure 2. 

The parts containing the breech end and the 7 in length of liner were then sectioned along the 

axis of the barrel by electrical discharge machining (EDM) to reveal the interior surfaces. The 

1/2-in ring was retained for bond strength tests. 

4 in 13 in 1⁄2 in 

Stellite 21 Liner Steel End Plug 

Cut Lines

Figure 2. Cut lines in the 0.50-cal. M2 machine gun barrel (not to scale). 

Figure 3 shows the interior surface of the breech end of the first machine gun. The sectioning 

reveals that the liner is slipped into the gun tube and held in place by a steel end plug. When the 

part containing the 7-in length of liner was sectioned, the liner fell out. A picture of the 

sectioned liner from this tube is shown in figure 4. 

Gun-powder residue was found on the outer surface of the liner. A visual inspection of the lands 

and grooves showed little or no evidence of any wear. However, at about 1/2 in from the end of 

the liner (the right end of the liner shown in figure 4) is a small crimp in the liner. It is surmised 

that propellant gasses got between the liner and gun tube and partially crimped the liner. This 

failure in the liner may have been the reason for the removal of the gun from service. It was 

found that the lands and grooves of the liner lined up perfectly with those in the gun tube, 

indicating that there had been no rotation of the liner inside the gun tube before the tube was 

sectioned. 

3
Stellite 21 

Liner 

Steel End 

Plug 

Figure 3. Sectioned breech end of the first 0.50-cal. M2 machine gun barrel. 

Figure 4. Stellite 21 liner removed from the first M2 machine gun barrel. 

The second gun barrel was sectioned to show the position of the liner step-down in thickness (see 

figure 5). In this case, the liner remained attached to the tube. A 1.5-in piece was cut from the 

remaining portion of the gun barrel. This piece was sectioned into five rings and used to 

determine the bond strength between the liner and gun tube. 

The liner in the second barrel showed clear signs of wear. There were obvious pits and cracks 

occurring in the first three inches of bullet travel. A close-up of this region is shown in figure 6. 

Two cracks shown in this figure extend from the inner to outer diameter of the liner. Many of 

the pits are in a line that follow the pattern of the lands and grooves. Even with this extensive 

4
liner wear, there is no sign that the propellant gasses have reached the gun barrel inner surface 

and damaged it. None of the pits is as deep as the liner thickness. This pitting would likely lead 

to gas blow-by and lack of obturation. 

 Stellite 21 Liner 

Steel End 

Plug 

Figure 5. Sectioned sample of the second M2 machine gun barrel. 

Figure 6. Close-up of worn Stellite 21 liner. 

5
3. Bond Strength Tests 

The bond strength of an explosively-formed bond has been measured for liners in the 

M242 Bushmaster medium-caliber cannon (5). The same approach was used to measure the 

bond strength of the Stellite 21 liner in the M2 machine gun. Seven samples were tested, two 

from the first gun tube and five from the second. A steel plug was designed so that its shoulder 

rested on the liner but did not interfere with the steel gun tube inner wall. The dimensions for the 

plug used in these tests are shown in figure 7. The ring was placed in a fixture that allowed the 

liner to be displaced from the tube. The ring, test fixture, and plug were placed in an Instron*

model 1125 test machine. Load was applied with the crosshead moving at a constant rate of 

0.05 in/min until the liner was displaced. Using the load required to displace the liner (F) and 

the contact area (A), the bond shear strength τ could be calculated using 

τ = / AF . (1) 

TOP SIDE

0.470+/- .002 

0.670+/- .002 

0.470+/- ,002

0.18 +/- .005

0.25+/- .005

0.670 +/- .002 

Figure 7. Steel plug design for bond strength tests. All dimensions are in inches. 

 *

Instron is a registered trademark of Instron Corporation, Norwood, MA. 

6
An example of a load-displacement curve is shown in figure 8. The load increases smoothly as 

elastic stresses increase in the plug and liner. At a certain level of displacement, the load reaches 

a peak and then drops sharply. The cross-head displacement continues to increase as the load 

decreases. 

Displacement, in

0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012

Load, lbs

0

100

200

300

400

500

Figure 8. Load-displacement curve for sample MG3. 

A summary of the seven tests is shown in table 1. Tests labeled MG-6 and MG-7 are from the 

first gun barrel. The others are from the second gun barrel. The average bond strength for the 

second tube was 776 psi with a mean deviation of 86 psi. The bond strength for the first tube 

was substantially less, consistent with the observation of the liner falling out of the gun tube after 

sectioning. 

Table 1. Experimental bond strength data from two M2 machine gun barrels. 

Sample 

Designation 

Ring 

Thickness

(in) 

Liner Outer

Diameter 

(in) 

Maximum

Load 

(lb) 

Calculated Bond 

Strength 

(psi) 

MG1 0.197 0.753 291.0 624 

MG2 0.197 0.754 332.5 713 

MG3 0.197 0.753 444.8 954 

MG4 0.197 0.750 376.9 812 

MG5 0.197 0.751 361.1 777 

MG6 0.210 0.749 215.2 436 

MG7 0.210 0.750 97.6 197 

7
4. Discussion 

This limited investigation does not constitute a complete analysis of liner failures in the 

M2 machine gun. The fact that two different liner-failure modes were seen in the two barrels 

that were examined is serendipitous. The first barrel liner examined failed most likely due to 

propellant gas that got between the liner and barrel, crimping the liner and disturbing the passage 

of the bullet. This failure apparently occurred after very few rounds were fired, as indicated by 

the low wear on the liner. This type of failure might have been caused by a manufacturing defect 

and should occur much less often than the second type of failure observed. The liner in the 

second barrel that was examined failed by the normal erosion process associated with the interior 

ballistics cycle as evidenced by the numerous pits and cracks. 

Both liners exhibited low bond strength. The bond was virtually non-existent for the first tube 

examined, possibly due to the manufacturing defect. The bond determined for the second liner is 

likely to be more typical of what a proper manufacturing process would achieve. The average 

bond strength determined in this case is still much less than that achieved through explosive 

bonding. Compare the average of 776-psi bond strength for the machine gun liner vs. a bond 

strength in excess of 45 ksi for an explosively-formed bond (5). 

4.1 Shrink-Fit Calculations 

The low bond strength suggests that a shrink-fit process may have been used to join the two 

parts. An order-of-magnitude estimate can be made of the bond strength in this case using a 

standard elastic analysis and some reasonable assumptions. The first assumption is that the steel 

barrel can be heated to 350 °C and the liner cooled with dry ice to –78.5 °C without affecting 

their material properties. The gun tube will expand, and the liner will shrink according to their 

respective coefficients of thermal expansion. These are taken to be 14 μ-in/in-°C and 

16 μ-in/in-°C for the Stellite 21 and steel, respectively. 

In the conditioned state, the clearance between the liner and gun tube should be at least 0.002 in 

on the radius. The gun tube bore diameter was measured to be 0.75 in. For a Stellite 21 liner 

with an outer diameter of 0.751 in, the temperature differential will provide a difference of 

0.004 in on the diameter. This difference in radial dimensions produces a residual stress after 

cooling. The pressure P at the interface between the liner and gun tube can be calculated by 

)(2

))(( )/( 222

2222

acb

bcab bEP −−− = δ , (2) 

8
where 

E = average modulus = 32000 ksi 

a = inner radius of liner = 0.25 in 

b = interface radius = 0.375 in 

c = outer radius of the gun tube = .9625 in 

δ = interference = .001 in. 

We have chosen to use a modulus that is an approximate average of those of the steel and 

Stellite 21 in order to simplify the calculations. Given these values, P = 21 ksi. The pressure can 

be converted into a shear strength of the bond through the coefficient of static friction. Since this 

value can range from 0 to 1, the maximum shear strength that can be attained is 21 ksi. This is 

clearly much larger than the bond strengths that were measured and would indicate a very low 

coefficient of static friction if, indeed, the liner were emplaced with a shrink-fit process using the 

parameters shown above. More likely, the liner was emplaced simply by press-fitting it into the 

barrel. 

From a manufacturing standpoint, using the shrink-fit process to attach a Stellite 21 liner to a 

Bushmaster medium-caliber cannon may not be feasible. The length of liner needed is much 

greater, ~6 ft in contrast to the 8 in needed for the M2, and the tolerances on the dimensions 

would be much more difficult to meet. 

4.2 Bond Strength Requirements 

The bond strength of the Stellite 21 liner in the M2 machine gun is small but must be sufficiently 

high to overcome the reactive force that imparts spin to the bullet. An order of magnitude 

estimate of this force can be made with a few simplifying assumptions. First, assume that the 

bullet undergoes constant acceleration down the gun tube. The M2 tube length is 44.875 in 

(1.139 m), and the muzzle velocity is 930 m/s. With constant acceleration a, 

, (3) 2 Dv a = / 2

where D is the bullet travel and v is its velocity. Using the tube length for D and the muzzle 

velocity for v, we get 

a = 3.8*105

 m/s2 . (4) 

The twist of the rifling was measured to be 13.75 in (0.349 m) for each complete rotation. Thus, 

the distance the bullet travels is related to its angular orientation by 

D = (0.349 /(2 )) π Θ , (5) 

where θ is the bullet’s angular orientation (in radians). Successive differentiation leads to 

a = (0.349/(2π)) dω/dt , (6) 

9
where ω is the bullet rotation rate. The torque T on the bullet is given by 

= ω dtdIT , (7) 

where I is the moment of inertia. If we approximate I by 

2

2 = 1 MRI , (8) 

where M is the bullet mass (0.046 kg) and R is the bullet radius (0.00635 m), then 

T = 1⁄2*(0.046)*(0.00635)2

* (3.8*105)*(2π/0.349) = 6.3 N·m . (9) 

The force F on the liner is then given by 

= RTF '/ , (10) 

where R' is the outer radius of the liner (0.375 in or 0.00952 m). 

This force is absorbed by the bond between the liner and gun tube. The liner length is ~9 in 

(0.228 m). Thus, the area A of this bond is given by 

A = 0.228*2*3.14*0.00952 = 0.0136 m2

. (11) 

Finally, the shear stress σ on the liner is given by 

σ = F/A = 0.049 MPa ~7 psi. (12) 

This value is significantly lower than the bond strength that was measured on the two barrels. 

The calculation also offers some insight as to why the approach CTC used to fasten the liner to 

the gun tube failed. The stress on the liner was primarily concentrated at the mechanical pins 

rather than being spread out over a bonded surface. In addition, the projectile was more massive 

and the bore diameter was larger. The concentrated stress was able to overcome the strength of 

the mechanical fasteners. 

5. Summary 

The use of Stellite 21 as a liner material for medium caliber gun tubes has been considered. In 

order to learn more about how Stellite liners might be attached to these gun tubes, two 0.50-cal. 

machine-gun barrels were obtained from ATC. These barrels have been sectioned with the aim 

of determining the state of the Stellite 21 liner as well as the bond strength between it and the 

gun barrel. Two modes of liner failure were observed. In the first, propellant gasses at the end 

of the liner nearer the muzzle separated the liner from the barrel. 

10
There was very little observed wear on the lands and grooves of this liner. The liner from the 

second gun tube showed extensive wear and cracking. The bond strength of one of the liners 

was measured to be ~750 psi. This bond strength is possible to achieve with a shrink-fit process. 

However, the magnitude of the calculated interface pressure resulting from a possible shrink-fit 

process was much higher than that actually measured, indicating that the liner emplacement may 

have been accomplished with a press-fit operation. While a shrink-fit process could be used for 

the short liner found in the M2 machine gun, it would be difficult to use it to emplace a Stellite 

liner in a long M242 Bushmaster barrel. Using a simple analysis of the forces on the machine 

gun bullet, it was found that the measured bond strength was adequate to resist the reaction 

forces produced when the bullet was spun up. Thus, the high bond strengths achieved through 

either explosive bonding or a shrink-fit process are not required. 

11
6. References 

1. Lowey, R. F. Gun Tube Liner Erosion and Wear Protection. TPL-FR-ER31 (under contract 

DAAD19-99-C-0002); TPL, Inc.: Albuquerque, NM, May 2002. 

2. Pepi, M.; Snoha, D.; Montgomery, J. S.; de Rosset, W. S. Examination of Intermetallic 

Phases and Residual Stresses Resulting From Explosive Bonding of Refractory Metal Gun 

Tube Liners. ARL-MR-550; U.S. Army Research Laboratory: Aberdeen Proving Ground, 

MD, February 2003. 

3. de Rosset, W. S. Explosive Bonding of Refractory Metal Liners. ARL-TR-3267; U.S. Army 

Research Laboratory: Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, August 2004. 

4. de Rosset, W. S. Explosive Bonding of Stellite 25. ARL-TR-3816; U.S. Army Research 

Laboratory: Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, June 2006. 

5. de Rosset, W. S.; Snoha, D. J.; Minnicino, M. J. Strength of an Explosively Formed Bond; 

ARL-TR-3889; U.S. Army Research Laboratory: Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, 

September 2006. 

6. Miller, M. Benet Laboratories, Watervliet, NY. Private communications concerning Ares’ 

Attempts to Machine an Tantalum Alloy Liner, December 2006 to January 2007. 

7. Smith, S. B. Hot Hardness Testing: Explosively Clad Stellite; letter report to M. Miller, 

AEW-TC(B), Benet Laboratories: Watervliet, NY, October 2006. 

8. Sopok, S.; O’Hara, P.; Pflegl, G.; Dunn, S.; Coats, D. Thermochemical Erosion Modeling of 

the 25-mm M242/M791 Gun System; technical report ARCCB-TR-97017; Benet 

Laboratories: Watervliet, NY, July 1997. 

9. Alloy Digest. ASM International: Materials Park, OH, 2002. 

10. Bagnall, C.; Dalley, A. M.; Huston, J. F.; Martin, J. R.; McMullen, P. J.; Miller, C. S.; 

Papesch, C. A.; Sinosky, J. T., III; Valencia, J. J.; Guillard, S. Advanced Gun Barrel 

Technology Initiative, Final Report, Modeling, Metallurgy and Firing Test Report for the 

M242 Mo-ODS Partially Lined Barrel; National Center for Excellence in Metalworking 

Technology, Concurrent Technologies Corporation: Johnstown, PA, July 1998. 

11. Gagnon, D. General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products, Burlington, VT. Private 

communication, November 2006. 

12
NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION 

13

 1 DEFENSE TECHNICAL 

 (PDF INFORMATION CTR 

 ONLY) DTIC OCA 

 8725 JOHN J KINGMAN RD 

 STE 0944 

 FORT BELVOIR VA 22060-6218 

 1 US ARMY RSRCH DEV & 

 ENGRG CMD 

 SYSTEMS OF SYSTEMS 

 INTEGRATION 

 AMSRD SS T 

 6000 6TH ST STE 100 

 FORT BELVOIR VA 22060-5608 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 IMNE ALC IMS 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 3 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 AMSRD ARL CI OK TL 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

 1 DIR USARL 

 AMSRD ARL CI OK TP (BLDG 4600) 
NO. OF NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

14

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RSRCH LAB 

 AMSRD ARL SE DE 

 R ATKINSON 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 5 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RSRCH LAB 

 AMSRD ARL WM MB 

 A ABRAHAMIAN 

 M BERMAN 

 M CHOWDHURY 

 T LI 

 E SZYMANSKI 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 1 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY MATERIEL CMD 

 AMXMI INT 

 9301 CHAPEK RD 

 FORT BELVOIR VA 22060-5527 

 2 PM MAS 

 SFAE AMO MAS MC 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 1 US ARMY TACOM ARDEC 

 AMSRD AAR AEM 

 M PALATHINGAL 

 BLDG 65 SOUTH 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 1 US ARMY RDECOM ARDEC 

 AMSRD AAR AEM L 

 A VELLA 

 BLDG 354 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 1 US ARMY ARDEC 

 AMSRD AAR AEM L 

 D VO 

 BLDG 65 SOUTH 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 1 US ARMY TACOM ARDEC 

 AMSRD AAR AEM 

 S MUSALLI 

 BLDG 65 SOUTH 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 1 US ARMY ARDEC 

 AMSRD AAR EBM 

 R CARR 

 BLDG 1 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 1 US ARMY ARDEC 

 SFAE AMO MAS LC 

 D RIGOGLIOSO 

 BLDG 354 M829E3 IPT 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 1 US ARMY TACOM ARDEC 

 AMSRD AAR AEM L 

 P DONADIA 

 BLDG 65 SOUTH 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 1 PM MAS 

 SFAE AMO MAS 

 CHIEF ENGINEER 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 1 COMMANDER 

 US ARMY TACOM 

 PM COMBAT SYSTEMS 

 SFAE GCS CS 

 6501 ELEVEN MILE RD 

 WARREN MI 48397-5000 

 1 OFC OF NAVAL RSRCH 

 J CHRISTODOULOU 

 ONR CODE 332 

 800 N QUINCY ST 

 ARLINGTON VA 22217-5600 

 1 COMMANDER 

 WATERVLIET ARSENAL 

 SMCWV QAE Q 

 B VANINA 

 BLDG 44 

 WATERVLIET NY 12189-4050 
NO. OF NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

15

 2 SFSJM CDL 

 HQ US ARMY JNT MUNITIONS CMND 

 AMSIO SMT 

 R CRAWFORD 

 W HARRIS 

 1 ROCK ISLAND ARSENAL 

 ROCK ISLAND IL 61299-6000 

 1 US ARMY TARDEC 

 AMSRD TAR R 

 D TEMPLETON 

 6501 E 11 MILE RD MS 263 

 WARREN MI 48397-5000 

 12 BENET LABS 

 AMSTA AR CCB 

 M SOJA 

 E KATHE 

 M SCAVULO 

 G SPENCER 

 P WHEELER 

 S KRUPSKI 

 J VASILAKIS 

 G FRAIR 

 AMSTA CCB R 

 S SOPOK 

 E HYLAND 

 D CRAYON 

 R DILLON 

 WATERVLIET NY 12189-4050 

7 US ARMY RSRCH OFC 

 A CROWSON 

 H EVERITT 

 J PRATER 

 G ANDERSON 

 D STEPP 

 D KISEROW 

 D SKATRUD 

 PO BOX 12211 

 RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK NC 

 27709-2211 

 2 DARPA 

 S WAX 

 L CHRISTODOULOU 

 3701 N FAIRFAX DR 

 ARLINGTON VA 2203-1714 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 NGIC 

 IANG TMT 

 2055 BOULDERS RD 

 CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 

 22911-8318 

 1 GDLS DIVISION 

 D BARTLE 

 PO BOX 1901 

 WARREN MI 48090 

 1 INST FOR ADVANCED 

 TECH 

 S BLESS 

 3925 W BRAKER LN 

 AUSTIN TX 78759-5316 

 3 US ARMY ARDEC 

 AMSRD AAR ATD 

 B MACHAK 

 BLDG 1 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 

 1 US ARMY ARDEC 

 AMSRD AAR AEP E 

 D CARLUCCI 

 BLDG 94 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 

 07806-5000 
NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION 

16

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

 1 US ARMY ATC 

 CSTE DTC AT AD I 

 W C FRAZER 

 400 COLLERAN RD 

 APG MD 21005-5059 

 24 DIR USARL 

 AMSRD ARL CI 

 AMSRD ARL O AP EG FI 

 M ADAMSON 

 AMSRD ARL WM B 

 J NEWILL 

 AMSRD ARL WM BC 

 P PLOSTINS 

 AMSRD ARL WM BD 

 P CONROY 

 AMSRD ARL WM MB 

 R CARTER 

 W DE ROSSET 

 R EMERSON 

 L KECSKES 

 H MAUPIN 

 M MINNICINO 

 D SNOHA 

 J SOUTH 

 L BURTON 

 AMSRD ARL WM MD 

 E CHIN 

 J MONTGOMERY 

 B CHEESEMAN 

 AMSRD ARL WM TB 

 R SKAGGS 

 AMSRD ARL WM TC 

 R COATES 

 R SUMMERS 

 B SORENSEN 

 K KIMSEY 

 B WALTERS 

 AMSRD ARL WM TE 

 B RINGERS