Talk:M3 submachine gun

Untitled

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

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

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)

• I have moved the mention of the name grease gun to the first sentence of the opening, after the official designations. I also added a link to the tool's page, as grease gun redirects here. Tealwisp 07:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tealwisp (talk • contribs)

---

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)

My father fought in WWII and my Uncle was in the National Guard in the 1950s. I discussed weapons of WWII and the US Army with them, and my uncle let me handle several National Guard weapons including the M3. The M3 was called a "grease gun" and most everyone I have heard said it was due to its crude resemblance to the garage tool. Also, 3rd generation submachineguns -- all metal construction, wire or folding stocks, magazine used as foregrip--were genericly called "burp guns" because of the low cyclic rate of fire (including the M3, M3A1, MP40 and Madsen 1950) but of "burp guns" in general, the M3 was specificly called the "grease gun". (For what it is worth, nicknames should be mentioned in the text but only official nomeclature used as the article head.) The M3 is called "grease gun" in Roy Dunlap's memoir of his service in WWII Ordnance Went Up Front (Samworth, 1948); Dunlap served the duration in the field with US Army Ordnance from North Africa to the Pacific. Naaman Brown (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Your classification of submachine guns into burp and grease categories is laughable. Koalorka (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

When soldiers in the field apply nicknames to weapons, they are most often trying for humor in a grim situation, so, yes, names like "burp gun" or "grease gun" are laughable. Naaman Brown (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I have heard MP40s, Thompsons, and now grease guns called "burp guns". Which of these guns was actually called that?Blamazon (talk) 22:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

In fact, I just saw an interview of an actual WWII US veteran that said they called the MG-42 a "burp gun". So I don't think there is a proper system for deciding what gun deserves to be called a burp gun. And it definitely doesn't warrant this page to call the M3 or M3A1 a burp gun. And it already has a nickname, the "Grease Gun". Blamazon (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

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)

Absolutely true. I carried one much later. You couldn't make it not work. 98.101.227.58 (talk) 02:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

I have changed the in service date to "present" on the basis of my having seen three different M3s in Kolwezi Democratic Republic of Congo, in the period I have been working out here(Feb.-July 2008). Spoke to one of the police officers who I have seen with the weapon on a previous occasion and he assured me that the weapon was his personal weapon and remained in his charge at all times. The weapons are not returned to an armoury when officers off duty. I took a number of photographs of the weapon with the officers beret in an attempt to prove authenticity. DRC very complicated as far as use of cameras concerned and the officer was understandably unwilling to have his identity revealed. How do I upload an image?(Excr530 DRC (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC))

The service date typically refers to the primary operator of the weapon, i.e. the USA. Koalorka (talk) 04:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

As to the 'citation needed' for the service usage of greaseguns in Desert Storm, for reliability of the information included, I was a combat engineer officer with the 19th Engineer Battalion, 194th Sep. Armored Bde in Ft. Knox, KY from 1989-1992; we deployed Opn's Desert Shield and Storm, and became attached to the 1st Armored Division, VII Corps. Our Battalion Commander was Lt Col Robert G. Shields. Among our deployed service weapons were: M9 Beretta's, M16 A2's, M60's, and M3A1 grease guns. Officers could choose to carry M16's or Berettas, or both. I chose an M16 solely. It was a surprise to us as officers (I as a platoon leader, A Co. 3rd Plt.), and to the soldiers, to have learned we had grease guns in stock, but they were brought out and assigned on a voluntary carry basis with vehicle drivers, wheeled and track. The arms room for my unit, at the lowest level, was handled by a Spc. Mifflin during this time and he handled the stocks of arms. There was a one-time pre-deployment qualification on these weapons at Ft. Knox, and they were deployed overseas with our battalion. I have no recollection of ever having seen another unit with grease guns in-theater, or elsewhere for that matter, in my time in the army, but for this deployment overseas. I do not know what occurrred to these stocks of greaseguns, but we changed out our M60's to SAWs upon return from deployment, by approx. mid-1992. Perhaps the grease guns were also turned in at that time. It is an interesting piece of history and I wish I had had the sense at the time to have photographed the soldiers w/ those weapons at the time. If someone could utilize this Talk/Edit tool to eliminate the 'citation needed' remark next to the information therein applicable on the webpage for the M3 greasegun, I would appreciate it. Rrrgcy (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)rrrgcyrrrgcy

RfC: Is M-3A1 troubleshooting artwork relevant

I was wondering why you deleted the PS pinup of troubleshooting the M-3. It's an attractive image that would be of major use to owners and users of the weapon.Foofbun (talk) 01:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not relevant to the article. Instructions are to be avoided. Feel free however, to link it under "external links" or "see also". Koalorka (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't agree on this as 1) it contains relevant information for any owner/user or even serious historian 2) it's an entertaining image that livens up the piece 3) it's a U.S. Government image that means no copyright issues 4) submachine guns ARE fun, you know? May we have a readers challenge on this one please?Foofbun (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Move to M3 Grease Gun? No Consensus? BS

I'm calling BS on this one. Being bold is one thing, but moving a major page like this is just wrong. Please try to build a consensus first. For some reason I cannot undo the move, though I tried. You can't just do this and expect it to stand without a discussion. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey friend, I've undone the move, I was being bold, and was perfectly entitled to do so. Now that you've objected I've reverted it per the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Anyway, I think it should be moved to M3 Grease gun because that's a much more common name, the same reason M4 Sherman is at its current location, the same reason M10 Wolverine was recently moved from M10 tank destroyer to its current name. (Btw what does BS stand for)?--Patton^t/c 22:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I would have discussed first, since this has come up before, but that's beside the point now. The reason for the current title is WP:GUNS#Naming we want the article names to be the official ones.--LWF (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I can only speak to my experience with firearms articles on this, but I see no reason to put "Grease Gun" as the title of the article. It's not the "M16 plastic fantastic" or the "M2 Ma Duce" or "M79 Thumper," these articles are legitemate and encyclopedic, not BF1942 discussion boards. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes I see your point there. There is no precedent with weapons either, apart form the garand, though that's a more official name.--Patton^t/c 13:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, there are precedents. There's the M1941 Johnson and Browning designed guns, all commonly referred to with their designer. The M1941 rifle and MG articles both list Johnson. I'm feeling lazy now, but I'm sure there are others out there. Bottom line, it's a conventional way of designating rifles, bothe in the US and elsewhere including Russia. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

In Service Use

From when to where was the M3 submachine gun used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coffeekid (talk • contribs) 01:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It's in the article. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 01:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Operating mechanism

"the bolt was cocked to the rear using the retracting handle" I don't remember the weapon having a retracting handle. Wasn't there just a hole in the side of the bolt where you would stick a finger and pull the bolt back?76.27.142.209 (talk) 13:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• You're thinking of the M3A1. The original weapon was the M3, which did have a cocking lever on the right side of the ejector housing.Dellant (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Foreign variants & derivatives - any info on these?

Hi, I moved the info about the Argentinean derivatives (PAM 1 & 2) to a specific section dealing with "Foreign variants and derivatives". I was unable to find sources identifying other weapons based on the M3 SMG, can anyone please help? So this section can be expanded. Thank & regards, DPdH (talk) 03:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Why was it intended to replace the Thompsons is service?

Wouldn't it have been more fitting to replace M1 Garands with submachine guns?

No. It's too hard to carry that much ammo. As it was, in Vietnam everyone carried ammo for the machine gunner. If everyone has a SMG, the ammo burden is too much.98.101.227.58 (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

The Thompson was super expensive and the grease gun was super cheap. The grease gun's slow rate of fire compensated for its low weight and design, making it very controllable(it also probably ate up less ammo than the Thompson).(side note: it actually was supposed to replace the M2 hyde, but the hyde was never in service.)Blamazon (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Also why would you replace Garands(rifle) with SMGs(submachineguns)? New SMGs replace old SMGs. New rifles replace old rifles.Blamazon (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on M3 submachine gun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110513080639/http://www.fullaventura.com/eqmilitar/nota104168.php to http://www.fullaventura.com/eqmilitar/nota104168.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040626032023/http://www.dsca.mil/programs/eda/results.asp to http://www.dsca.mil/programs/eda/results.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Cost

Since cost was a (the?) principal criterion driving design decisions, it seems like the army's cost of procurement is an important item to add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drcampbell (talk • contribs) 19:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on M3 submachine gun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090201092905/http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/Argentineweapons.htm to http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/Argentineweapons.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080919150837/http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/grease.htm to http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/grease.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090224210448/http://www15.tok2.com/home/lttom/military-powers_jgsdf/shokaki/machinegun/greasegunframe.html to http://www15.tok2.com/home/lttom/military-powers_jgsdf/shokaki/machinegun/greasegunframe.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080926031923/http://www.timawa.net/m3/m3.htm to http://www.timawa.net/m3/m3.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080926033730/http://timawa.net/m3/m3gen2.htm to http://www.timawa.net/m3/m3gen2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)