entropy
Member
Polar Bears.
Longest Serving WWII/Korea-era weapons on Active Duty?
- Thread starter .455_Hunter
- Start date
- Status
Polar Bears.
NIGHTLORD40K
Member
Well, as opposed to something a little more modern. Not that a K98 wouldnt be effective against a polar bear, but the guards arent there to keep bears out.......
i cant answer the question but when i was in i qualified on the m1 the BAR and a s. and w 38 special from only God know when. shot good though. out of 78 men i was number one with that 38. all my rounds went in the black near the center. i thought this is too easy. everyone else was cussing their guns. i was a country boy who was born with a gun in my hand, most of those new york city boys didnt know the front from the back of a gun.the northern maine guys could shoot also. they were as tough as i was. they and i grew up in harsh country. most were french indian mix and i was used to that type of person.
alsaqr
Member
Many folks are not aware that product improved versions of the M60 exist. The M60E-4 is a fantastic machinegun, i've fired that weapon. The US Navy standardized the M60E-4 as the Mark 43.
850 rounds fired with one pull of the trigger (1 minute, 45 seconds)
Troops loved the Mark 43 until manufacturing quality control went to hades and it became unreliable.
https://www.defensereview.com/letter-on-reliability-of-m60e4mk43-mod-o-762mm-machine-gun/
The latest version is the M60E-6, which has been adopted the Denmark.
850 rounds fired with one pull of the trigger (1 minute, 45 seconds)
Troops loved the Mark 43 until manufacturing quality control went to hades and it became unreliable.
https://www.defensereview.com/letter-on-reliability-of-m60e4mk43-mod-o-762mm-machine-gun/
The latest version is the M60E-6, which has been adopted the Denmark.
NIGHTLORD40K
Member
That is amazing. On a side note, I spoke to an Iraq vet once who said when the M2s showed up the fight was over.
tark
Member
Probably the general purpose machine gun, since that was what the post was describing. Lol. The tank? It was well liked but its two machine guns were not. The M-73 was the worst piece of crap the army ever adopted and the M-85 up in the Cupola broke so often that the army quit trying to qualify with them. I never saw or heard of one being fired.
Vern Humphrey
Member
I commanded a Mechanized Infantry company. We had the M113 Armored Personnel Carrier with the A-Cav kit. This was a tub and shield on the "commander's" hatch with the Browning M2 .50 cal machine gun, and two M60s mounted in antenna mounts, one on either side. One problem was that on the move the pistol grips hammered the deck of the track -- and when the pistol grip is squashed to 2 inches long and 2 inches wide, the gun is toast!
Another problem is, the M60 ain't a mudder -- in the monsoons, it was nearly impossible to keep them running.
And the point is made that many malfunctions and breakages were due to improper handling. Well, yeah -- but we knew all about the average GI before the gun was designed. There are plenty of other weapons that work well even with ham-handed GIs.
Terry G
Member
The M-3 Sub Machine Guns were still the crewman's weapon in the M-60 Tanks in 1985. National Guard, not Regular Army.
We still had M3A1's in the 1st Armored Division until late 1992/early 1993 when we turned them and the 1911 pistols in for the M9. And we were considering a forwarded deployed/high priority division being stationed in Germany.
You have to love ol' Ma Deuce! When Ma talks, people listen.
I carried the M60 for most of the time I was in the Army. I had an old platoon sergeant explain the pig to me. He said it was like an old beloved car, yes you had to tinker with it a little bit to keep it running, but it would not let you down if you did so. The only time I had a problem was with people dry firing the M60 during training which will break the extractor.
As far as the M60 series tanks. Engineer units were still using the M728 Combat Engineer Vehicle into the early 2000's. The co-ax gun on them was a M240.
NIGHTLORD40K
Member
My dear friend Roger was a tank commander in an M47 unit in Germany during the 50's. He described an incident when they were on high alert for the Soviets to come over the border one day and everyone turned out with full kit and live ammo. Fortunately, Ivan decided not to come out and play afterall, but one of the tanks in his unit had an M3 come loose from its bracket inside the turret and discharged when it hit the basket floor, killing the hull gunner.
After that, he refused to let Grease guns aboard his tank. He said they carried 1911s and grenades exclusively.
Roger passed last December, he was 83 and still working everyday at his shop. I miss him alot.
I'm thinking that the soldier did not close the ejection port door (the only safety on the M3/M3A1) or the weapon had something seriously wrong with it. I have seen the M3A1 get bounced around inside an M88 recovery vehicle without any problems. I even carried one as a backup to my M60 during Desert Storm. It was strapped to me pretty much all the time bouncing around the back open hatch of a M113. Yes Combat Engineer units had weird Modified Tables of Organizational Equipment and we were allowed to have all kinds of different toys.
NIGHTLORD40K
Member
IIRC, the M3 fires from an open bolt with a fixed FP, right? If the bolt was locked back with a full magazine inserted, the impact could have jarred a worn sear enough to allow the bolt to fly forward and cause the discharge......
As you say, assuming the cover was open too.
From what he remembered it was only a single shot, didnt dump the whole magazine. I guess its possible something caught the trigger as well.
Vern Humphrey
Member
This is why you carry them with the magazine not inserted. In my company we had the same rule for the M16 -- only an NCO can give the order to load, and that includes inserting the magazine.
I know that with the M3A1 we would always close the cover no matter what since the cover acted as a safety when closed. I usually kept a loaded magazine in the mag well with cover closed and bolt forward until I was ready to shoot. The inside of the cover on the A1 had a piece that fit into the cocking recess on the bolt to keep the bolt from moving. The original M3 had an actual cocking bolt sticking out.
NIGHTLORD40K
Member
What kept the cover closed, a ball detent? If so, I guess I could see the impact causing the cover to pop open. If the bolt were resting on a primer, that could do it, I suppose. In any event, clearly several safety precautions were ignored. It happens, ugh.
Tommygunn
Member
Dropping some open bolt smgs could cause the bolt to retract back far enough to pick up a round and fire it when the bolt slammed forward. I recall reading of a WW2 incident where a soldier in a chow line dropped his M3 and it landed on the grip and the bolt, on inertia, did this. It killed a nearby soldier.
Vern Humphrey
Member
The bolt can't rest on a primer -- if the bolt goes forward, the weapon fires. You could leave the bolt forward, uncocked, and load a magazine. That would be safe -- but better to leave the magazine out, so everyone can see it's safe.
a guy who should have never held a gun almost killed me with a BAR. it got away from him. just as he was about to cut me in half the clip went dry. he never held a gun again. man was the gunny mad. kick his butt all the way off the range. also a couple of marines were playing quick draw. of course one was shot right though the middle. i think he lived. some guys should not handle guns.
Sistema1927
Member
Vern Humphrey
Member
When William Calley was court-martialed at Fort Benning, there was an MP car parked in front of the court building, with two MPs whenever court was in session.
One of the MPs (I think his name was Einstein) was showing the other MP (I think his name was Aristotle) how the disconnector on the M1911A1 works. He was shoving a LOADED pistol into his palm and pulling the trigger. Of course, when the muzzle hit his palm, it would push the slide slightly back and the disconnector would prevent the pistol from firing.
SLAPCLICK! SLAPCLICK! SLAPCLICK! SLAPBANG!
It was a long time before he did that again!
Neo-Luddite
Member
Well...certainly NOT a "museum ship" in the legitimate sense she might be otherwise listed as she remains unlawfully seized U.S. property.... but I get your meaning. Maybe the Navy Seals should put an end to this mockery and properly scuttle her.
- Status
