User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/22/2003 1:27:52 PM EDT
[#1]
I don't have any working knowelledge of the M3 but I do have a client that wants one. He used one in Nam and loved it. He said that it looked and felt like it was going to fall apart but it was "a sweet weapon".
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2003 5:35:36 PM EDT
[#2]
They kept them in service through the late 80s or early 90s.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2003 5:43:30 PM EDT
[#3]
I've heard that a few guard units still have M3 machine guns since they haven't got M4's to replace them yet.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2003 6:15:18 PM EDT
[#4]
I've always heard that the M3 was, by sub-gun standards, pretty accurate and very reliable.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2003 6:23:22 PM EDT
[#5]
If you mean the M3 greasegun, it was beloved as controllable, light and durable.
Outdated these days but I'd love to get one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2003 6:40:42 PM EDT
[#6]
Used properly. i.e. for last ditch defense of a vehicle or something of that dort, it was a great weapon. To take it into the field as a promary combat weapon is almost pointless.
They were cheap, and they worked, so they stuck around. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2003 7:12:38 PM EDT
[#7]
Some company is making "clones". I've heard nothing but that they exist. It looked kinda goofy with the pinned open stock and 16 inch barrel. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2003 7:34:48 PM EDT
[#8]
 The M3 was a cheap, stamped-steel tube-based sub-gun based somewhat on the concept of the STEN. They were made by the Guide Lamp division of GM as a cheap, fast alternative to the M1 Thompson. M3s are open-bolt, full-auto-only sub-guns in .45 ACP, though a small number of 9mm adapters were made. As production went along, they were made ever more cheaply, omitting features to increase production and reduce cost. Most notably, to charge the bolt, you had to use your thumb on a depression on the bolt itself through the ejection port. This is NOT something you want to do with a hot bolt! These guns were very crude, and were primarily a bullet hose. The heavy bolt makes them chug along reliably, but they are nearly impossible to fire with any real accuracy, and the wire stock was near worthless. Let's not even mention the fixed sights. These guns were suitable only for close-in work, such as trench-clearing, or for hosing "crunchies" off of tanks, a role they continued to do until the early 90s in a few units, because they were better than full-length M16s. A few GIs really liked them in Vietnam as they were reliable, fairly compact, and fired a nice big bullet, but remember that they had a squad of guys to back them up with M14s, M16s, and M60s. -Troy |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2003 3:38:21 AM EDT
[#9]
when I was a kid my dad had one (perk or being a local judge), along with the 9mm conversion kit. very reliable, but not accurate. The sights on his were welded metal tabs. The rear peep was a tab with a hole drilled through and not really centered!
Fired from an open bolt, and it worked every time. Stamped steel and painted. Boy was it fun! |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2003 8:07:03 AM EDT
[#10]
I beleive I read where it cost $300 to build a Thompson machinegun, it cost $11 to make a M3 .Not a bad savings. Yeap they was very good for what they was intended and made to do.WD
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2003 10:25:18 PM EDT
[#11]
Thompsons were a cadillac of .45 SMGs, but have your ever compared the weight of a Tommy to a grease gun? If I was going to have to lug an SMG around the hedgerows I'd rather like the grease gun, or maybe an M1 carbine.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2003 4:33:27 PM EDT
[#12]
Read the third post from the top www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=168477&page=2&w=myTopicPop
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2003 9:47:52 AM EDT
[#13]
I've shot one at a MG rental range in NH. Fun gun, and exceedingly controllable due to the slow cyclic rate. It was reasonably accurate at the close range (<25 rds) I was able to shoot it. I shot a Thompson the same day. Heavier and more muzzle climb on FA.
Aimless, you NEED to visit the Manchester Firing Line 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2003 1:49:45 AM EDT
[#14]
Special Ops liked to bring one along on operations in RVN cause they could be silenced, weight of gun and amount of ammo able to be carried was prohibitive though. I picked one up in RVN but it was too heavy to drag around so I traded it for a folding stock AK. Traded that for a M14, traded that for a semi auto M79. It had a four round clip that loaded from the right side. As you fired it a coil spring pushed the entire clip from left to right. Traded that for a shotgun.
rk |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2003 1:56:47 AM EDT
[#15]
Valkyrie Arms makes the semi with the goofy-looking 16" bbl and pinned stock.
I thnik it looks pretty stupid. Semi M79??! THIS I have to see a pic of! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2003 2:02:11 AM EDT
[#16]
I would get one of the repo's, but they look retarded. Get rid of the stock all together, cut the barrel back to a few inches, and make it a pistol. Then i'd be all over it. That permanent wire stock doesn't look very sturdy. And that barrel would definitly snag shit.
Anyone know if there is a company making such a pistol version? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2003 2:54:23 AM EDT
[#17]
This one is a pump, is this what he meant?  
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2003 3:21:23 AM EDT
[#18]
And Ithaca, but I think most of the Ithacas were produced during the Korean War. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2003 4:07:23 AM EDT
[#19]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2003 2:45:57 PM EDT
[#20]
This M79 was same lenght as issue model. It did not break open. There was an empty slot in the breech for the clip holding four rounds to slide in from right to left. On the left side was a coil spring that extended as the clip was inserted. When the trigger was pulled the round fired and the spring pushed the clip to the left. Pull trigger and it did it again.
rk |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2003 12:06:31 PM EDT
[#21]
Axl, I saw one in a museum in Maryland.
I have shot the Greasegun in one range session in Korea in 1989, our Brigade had a few and we got to FAM fire them. I put a couple of dozen mags through it, and the other guys shot the few we had a lot, too. They never failed once. My roomies and I cleaned them (I was the only one who had Small Arms of the World so we could feild strip them, plus I wanted to play with them some more) and they were dirty as hell. The sights are crude, but they were pretty much on, for SMG range they are OK. Delta Force carried a few suppressed ones during the aborted Iran raid. JLM at Manchester Firing Line had one in once that was new in the foil-sweet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2003 1:46:28 PM EDT
[#22]
Hmmmmm unknown versions of the M79.... very interesting.
that's one of the cool things about this site... you can always learn something new or see some weapon you had no idea existed. One question..was the pump M79 a bottom ejector? I suspect it is but can't tell by the picture. M3s are great... If they weren't so F'en expensive I would get one as they are so fun to shoot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/8/2003 12:08:07 PM EDT
[#23]
I knew I should've included the other side. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/10/2003 11:36:23 AM EDT
[#24]
I was issued one. My impression was;
Heavy and always beat your hip to a bruise when carrying it on a sling. Inaccurate, Some when you would screw the barrel in you would see the end of the barrel making a 1 1/2 diameter circle. It was reliable and easy to shoot, not much recoil, it just rocked back and forth in your hands. The way we looked at it was if your vehicle got shot out from under you (M60A3) and you were attacked by enemy forces you would immediately throw the gun at them (more accurate that way) and hope they would pick it up and fire at you. If they did you could casually stroll from the area being assured no way in hell anyone could ever hit what they wanted with one. BTW, The Army doesn't have a qualification for the grease gun, only familiarization, it ain't accurate enough to qualify with. Editted to add, once the turret monster ate one, the schmuck that allowed this to happen had to repay the army for what he had allowed to be destroyed through his negligence. It cost him 17 bucks.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2003 12:23:00 PM EDT
[#25]
despite their inaccuracy, I would be willing to part with 17 bucks for one. -Spaceman |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/11/2003 1:14:48 PM EDT
[#26]
Heck, for 17 bux the tax stamp would even seem a bargain.
I wonder how many are in storage, and if we could get the rules (not laws, rules) changed so they could be surplused out? Hmmmmm. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
