Talk:M3 submachine gun

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
United States Portal
This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

This page should be marged with the M3 SMG page. Lefty July 8, 2005 19:39 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] MCEM 1 Submachine gun relation?

Has the M3 led to the Australian MCEM 1 SMG?, Just asking since it has a similar layout User:EX STAB 2nd April 2007

[edit] M3 SMG "Grease Gun" Name

There are two different stories behind how the M3 received its name, both of which are practical. Which one is correct in this case, as both have been disputed. It should be mentioned that the M3 has one name stemming from two different stories.

1. The M3 received its name from its resemblance to a grease gun (That which applies grease.) 2. The m3 received its name from the fact that it has a hidden reservoir of gun oil in the grip.

Anyone have further information on this? Konraden88 06:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No where is this an official name, it's like I decided to call the M16 a Mattel from now on, we're not going to start including hearsay in articles. I've removed the grease gun reference. Koalorka 17:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes about as much sense as not calling the A-10 a "Warthog". I haven't met anybody yet who didn't call it a Grease Gun. 66.146.62.40 22:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Aircraft names are different. We don't call the Browning M2HB the "Ma Deuce" or the M60 "the pig" and I don't see any reason to call the M3 a "grease gun", even though it's probably called that in every one of your video games. Koalorka 23:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The common name of the weapon is 'grease gun'. Is someone actually disputing this? Tempshill 03:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Show me one official government or army document that refers to the M3 as the "grease gun". Koalorka 06:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It was never and official government designation, but it was a popular moniker for the firearm. This is still relevant to the article. Veritas Panther 07:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • So you're suggesting that we rename the Browning M2HB article to "Ma Deuce" or the MG-42 to Hitler's Buzzsaw? Repetitive misinformation and jargon does not make something fact. Koalorka 23:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I do not agree with renaming but if something is GENERALY known as something, there should be a note of it. Esskater11 23:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I personally think that you should just rename the article "Gun" because, despite the fact the government calls it the M3 and nearly everyone else calls it a Grease Gun...well, I think we can all agree its a gun. As far calling it a submachine gun, well, you might as well call it a Tommy Gun, right? If I'm not being logical, let me add, its because this is the dumbest argument I've ever seen on wikipedia. Maybe "Grease Gun" shouldn't be in the title but it should definitely be in the article. And "Greasegun" and whatever variant should redirect here. And how about this: Instead of calling the M16 an M16, we just rename that article "Gun" and in fact, why don't we take all relevant information off of wikipedia about guns and rename it all into one article labelled "Gun" which just has a few pictures of really big guns for really small men?J. M. (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the attempt at sarcasm but your argument is barely comprehensible. Are you offering a realistic solution or just making the waters even murkier? "Grease gun" was included in the text as requested. And that's about the only mention is deserves. Koalorka (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

My first knowledge of the M3 was talking to my friends dad's who used them in the South Pacific in WWII. They called them "Burp" guns, because of the sound they made. Saltysailor (talk) 05:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reliability

A friend of mine was a tunnel rat in Viet Nam. His perferred weapon was the M3 because it always worked. Saltysailor (talk) 05:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Main image

I suggest we change it to the the picture in the first sectiom. The current one is a dark grainy one that can barely be made out without looking hard. Esskater11 22:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, any objections? Koalorka (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In Service Dates

This were used after 1992, and to at least 1996 in units, particularly those stationed at Ft. Lewis, WA that still maintained M577s. Because of this, I've changed dates to "mid 1990's". Mefanch (talk) 06:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)