M231 Port Firing Weapon

[James Langham]

A point not mentioned is that the rationale for the M231 is that it would not compromise the NBC system of the vehicle by putting a great big hole in the vehicle for people to poke guns out of!

A nice solution in need of a problem....

[copeab]

Originally Posted by James Langham

A point not mentioned is that the rationale for the M231 is that it would not compromise the NBC system of the vehicle by putting a great big hole in the vehicle for people to poke guns out of!

No firing ports would be even better

Given the relatively poor armor of AFVs, infantry huddling inside a stationary or slow-moving AFV as a mob swarms at them is not a terribly safe idea.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by copeab

No firing ports would be even better

Given the relatively poor armor of AFVs, infantry huddling inside a stationary or slow-moving AFV as a mob swarms at them is not a terribly safe idea.

Don't forget those firing ports were also shot traps. Which is why the M231s were pulled, the firing ports blanked over and the later covered with armor plate.

[Olefin]

Personally I would think the old grease gun would be a better weapon than the M231 if I had to dismount and fight with it

[copeab]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Personally I would think the old grease gun would be a better weapon than the M231 if I had to dismount and fight with it

Possibly, but by the time of the competition, the M3's in service were around 30 years old and would have needed serious refurbishing. Also, the rate of fire is a bit low for a last-ditch defense weapon.

[Olefin]

Any idea if the Army ever looked at the Uzi for a tanker weapon? It puts out a good rate of fire and it would be a better crewman/tanker weapon than an M16 for sure

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Any idea if the Army ever looked at the Uzi for a tanker weapon? It puts out a good rate of fire and it would be a better crewman/tanker weapon than an M16 for sure

There was a lot of talk in the late 70s about picking up the Uzi, and believe me there was a lot of support, especially with the talk of the Army switching to a 9mm pistol, made sense, one of the best SMGs, with the new pistol, no brainer!

DOD rejected the idea, the current pistol was .45, and did not make sense to add a 9mm. In other words, NOT INVENTED HERE!

When the Beretta was selected, the talk was we would be going with the MP 5, but we now have M16s on the tanks and no longer need SMGs.

DOD truly lives in its private fantasy world!

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Personally I would think the old grease gun would be a better weapon than the M231 if I had to dismount and fight with it

I've fired both, given the choice, then M3 would be my choice as well, nice heavy slow moving cartridge, reasonable recoil and clunky enough that you could feather off single shots all day long.

BUT

M3/M3A1 were last manufactured in 1946-47 and only refurbished since then, worn out does not Bevin to describe almost all of the grease guns that I saw or handled. By 1980 or so, you were having problems with worn Sears leading to run always, misfired due to worn firing pins, magazines that wouldn't load, the list was long and growing longer.

When M1 came into service a lot of units were glad to trade grease guns for M16s. And we were promised ground kits for at least the leader's weapon.
And a lot of units kept the grease guns, but after 1982, the decision was made for no more depot rebuilds.

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

I've fired both, given the choice, then M3 would be my choice as well, nice heavy slow moving cartridge, reasonable recoil and clunky enough that you could feather off single shots all day long.

BUT

M3/M3A1 were last manufactured in 1946-47 and only refurbished since then, worn out does not Bevin to describe almost all of the grease guns that I saw or handled. By 1980 or so, you were having problems with worn Sears leading to run always, misfired due to worn firing pins, magazines that wouldn't load, the list was long and growing longer.

When M1 came into service a lot of units were glad to trade grease guns for M16s. And we were promised ground kits for at least the leader's weapon.
And a lot of units kept the grease guns, but after 1982, the decision was made for no more depot rebuilds.

It was also at least for me, very weird when I was first told that to charge the weapon you stick your finger in to the bold and pull back.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by CDAT

It was also at least for me, very weird when I was first told that to charge the weapon you stick your finger in to the bold and pull back.

It's odd, but it beats that little crank on the side!

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

I've fired both, given the choice, then M3 would be my choice as well, nice heavy slow moving cartridge, reasonable recoil and clunky enough that you could feather off single shots all day long.

BUT

M3/M3A1 were last manufactured in 1946-47 and only refurbished since then, worn out does not Bevin to describe almost all of the grease guns that I saw or handled. By 1980 or so, you were having problems with worn Sears leading to run always, misfired due to worn firing pins, magazines that wouldn't load, the list was long and growing longer.

When M1 came into service a lot of units were glad to trade grease guns for M16s. And we were promised ground kits for at least the leader's weapon.
And a lot of units kept the grease guns, but after 1982, the decision was made for no more depot rebuilds.

The M3A1s are a popular NFA weapon because they are on the cheaper end of the NFA price spectrum like Mac-10s (if $6-10K can be called "cheap"). They are popular in competition because of their 8lb weight and 420 to 450 rpm Cyclic Rate makes them easier to control during burst or autofire. My players like their ROF of 4 (see my post above) and DAM of 3D6 over the other SMG common in their region of Africa... the STEN Mk4. The STEN has a ROF 5 and 2D6 DAM but the same Recoil (4) due to its lighter weight and higher velocity cartridge.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

Don't forget those firing ports were also shot traps. Which is why the M231s were pulled, the firing ports blanked over and the later covered with armor plate.

Except for the two rear ports.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Except for the two rear ports.

This is true, as the old Arm or saying goes " Never show your ass to a live enemy!"