M1918a3 manual

Potential buyers intending to import the property into another country should be familiar with the relevant customs laws and regulations prior to bidding on goods containing material from protected species.

Regulations may vary as the U. It shall be the potential buyer's sole responsibility to research and satisfy the requirements of any laws and regulations that apply to the import and export of property as described in the aforementioned paragraphs. All buyers agree to comply with any and all domestic and international restrictions on the trade of protected species as a condition of the sale. Please note that the ability to obtain an export license or certificate does not ensure the ability to obtain an import license or certificate in another country, and vice versa.

The inability or delay in obtaining permits, licenses or other permissions to import or export goods containing material from protected species will not constitute a basis for rescission or cancellation of the sale of said goods or the delay in payment of purchased items in accordance with these Bidder Terms and Conditions. The auctioneer alone has the right to reopen the bidding of an item if deemed necessary due to a dispute.

If there is a tie bid between the floor and Internet or absentee bid, the floor bid takes precedence. The buyer will then assume all risk and full responsibility of the lot purchased once ownership has changed. We recommend that you arrange insurance for your items immediately upon becoming the highest bidder.

Absentee bidders must use the absentee bid form and clearly mark the lot number, title and maximum bid amount. Absentee bidding forms may be accessed online at www. If there are two 2 identical bids placed on the same item, priority will be given to the first bid received.

All bids must be left in increments as explained on our bid form. Bidders may preview, register and place bids online through our website, www. Absentee and online bids placed through www. During the live sale, the auctioneer will execute your absentee bid competitively up to the maximum amount you have indicated. A surcharge may be added for third party online platforms. If there is a tie bid between the internet bidding venues and the floor, the floor bid takes precedence.

Due to our fast paced auctions and bids coming from floor bidders, phone bidders, internet bidders and absentee bids, the auctioneer has the final word on all item s sold. You the bidder assume the risk of winning an item online and not having the item actually sell to you. This is due to the final call of the auctioneer and the operator not being able to re-open that lot.

Online bidders are fully responsible for accidental bidding as if they bid normally. The invoice will include item, hammer price, premium, packing and handling, shipping, insurance, and any other charges that apply. Please hold phone inquiries regarding bid success until after receiving your invoice. Phone lines are provided on a first come first served basis.

Please visit www. Please note that when a lot carries a reserve, the reserve is usually somewhere below our low estimate. In the case of a reserved item, the seller has authorized the auctioneer to bid on their behalf until the reserve price is reached. In addition, a surcharge will be added for certain third party online bidding platforms the bidder utilizes. Lots from different auctions may not be aggregated for sales tax purposes. All applicable charges will be applied to the invoice.

Shipping will be based on actual costs via FedEx, USPS, or other carriers required based upon the contents of the shipment. Packaging and insurance will vary in cost depending on the items on each invoice.

All packages will be shipped with insurance. Any additional insurance coverage should be purchased by the buyer through the carrier. Insurance for all 3rd party shipments must be arranged through that carrier.

Buyers must purchase their own insurance for shipments to other countries. An MA1, with the Springfield rear sight, no flash hider or bipod, and the M fire-selector, would be about the best all-around machine rifle you could ask for. It falls into a different category altogether.

The trouble is that apparently nobody in the chain of command, or at Ordnance, ever figured that out. If you had the monopod fold back, it could double as a stock protector i.

The steel butt plate. Perhaps the rack and pinion thing, going in different directions on the Hotchkiss was a recoil counter action idea Ak is it type lark.

Hi Eon, your about right on. MUCH lighter loads! I can assure anyone that cares.. Weight is kinda relative to the time.. When a 9. Too many time I believe we compare yesterdays weapons with what we are used to today. For the young soldier today the idea of carrying a 9. You are so right, Thomas — everything is relative. Rather amazing how one conveniently forgets certain comforts and inconveniences where it matters, and actually comes to staunchly support the very equipment one once swore at.

I think much the same can be said of the M rifle in Vietnam. Or the A6! We have always had a tail bigger than the dog, and always well have. Average 4 to 1 ratio. And does anyone, not having a serious drinking problem, believe that they all have soldiers well being at heart, above their OWN well being? Best to you Earl always. Thank you so much for sharing your experiences and for the wonderful insights.

Where the human condition is concerned, wisdom is so hard-won and seems to always come at the cost of enormous effort and much time. I am simply happy that you are here with us to share that wisdom. There are a lot of uses for this sort of thing, tactically.

Better solution? The resultant mutual pants-shitting led to us watching and cheering on the infantry component of our assault team beat the ever-loving snot out of the support-by-fire NCOIC at the conclusion of the exercise. If you look at the entire history of the machine-gun in the US Army, you can see the problems which were present from the beginning.

The fact that it was an American weapon, designed by a US Army Colonel, just makes it more ridiculous. Personalities, and the inability to grasp the essential nature of how combat worked on the modern battlefield are what led to this coming to pass. We all know how that one worked out, but instead of doing some deep thinking about just why we fell for that bullshit, we doubled down on it for the entirety of the inter-war period, never really grasping that the most manpower-economical way forward revolved around getting more firepower down to the lowest level.

You can see this in the wishful thinking wrapped around the intelligence reports in WWII that describe the MG34 and MG42 as inferior weapons, and in how we completely misunderstood German tactics, which were both unit- and weapon-centric. We worried about maneuvering individual soldiers; the Germans focused on maneuvering weapons and firepower.

Their approach was much more economical of manpower, and far more effective. If an officer of the US Army was asked to eliminate an enemy position, the first thing he was trained to do instinctively was attack the position. A German officer was instead trained to exploit spaces and gaps in the defenses in order to get his weapons into a position so as to make that position untenable, and force a withdrawal from it. Our concept of the machine-gun was that it was a weapon designed to support the individual rifleman in such attacks; the German was that the machine-gun was intended to be the primary tool used in the attack.

They concentrated on maneuvering their machine-guns and mortars, not maneuvering individual rifleman the way we did. Which in large part explains why the hell the Germans managed to inflict such horrendous casualties on the Allies, and fight on as long as they did. You can still see this dichotomy present in the modern era; a German unit will be far more likely to use their machine-guns in what amounts to an indirect manner, concentrating on getting them into a position of superiority, instead of making direct attacks with them in support of the infantry.

I would submit that the entire sorry history of US small arms design, doctrine, and procurement stems from our abysmal grasp of tactical and operational reality, from onwards. We continued with the flawed Automatic Rifle concept through the s, and into the s, never grasping the essential need for something like a true GPMG down at the squad level.

Why would he require the issuance of an asbestos mitten, in order to perform a very basic function of a GPMG, changing the barrel? Because of that, there has been a lack of focus, and a lack of clear thought on both utilizing and designing them. This still baffles me, to this day. You do not see organic NCO and junior officer involvement in developing tactics or operational techniques. Everything comes out of the bureaucracy, the schools.

Here in the US, the basic manuals are all schoolhouse-developed and the doctrine flows down from the top. Compare that with current British practices—I was astonished to find that the guy who was writing their Route Clearance Pamphlet, which was the equivalent of our Field Manual on the subject, was a Platoon Sergeant WO actually in a unit, which came to Fort Lewis on an exercise.

The US practice would have been that the doctrinal manual would be written and developed up at the schoolhouse, mostly by men who were failures from the Drill Sergeant program, and company-level officers who were awaiting assignment to the Advanced Course.

You do not see a hell of a lot of deep thinking going on with these issues going on in the US Army, nor do you see much in the way of information flowing back up the channels.

The Germans developed that, during WWI and after, and managed to punch well above their weight for six long years of war, and caused the allies millions of casualties dealing with them. When you consider that the Germans were mostly a horse-drawn 19th-Century army with a thin veneer of mechanization, and yet still managed to last as long as they did, you have to wonder what the hell made the difference. What are the features we need on our machine guns?

How do we fight with them? Despite the demonstratively greater efficiencies that the Germans had over us, we never really sat down and re-thought what we were doing. Hell, look at the personnel system, for the love of God: Individual replacements, trickled into units in combat? What the hell made us ever think that was a good idea, and yet… Our personnel system continued this asinine system from the early s up until around , and we still have issues grasping that unit personnel turbulence is horribly destructive of team building, primary group bonding, and unit efficiency.

I swear, sometimes you just want to rip the whole thing up, and start over. When it comes to small arms procurement in our system, I really fear that that is what it is going to take. Anyone familiar with how we came to replace the M60 with the MB would have to admit we have a completely dysfunctional procurement system, when it comes to these issues. Since we really have not produced anything other than the M2 Tripod which is little more than a stand.

The new M tripod is no different. It really does bother me to see how the economy of the bullet ruled US tactics for so long. One shot, one kill idea. The de-evolving of the Garand to the 8rd clip, Springfield trapdoor guns, the M14… The Germans with their small population could never afford not to put the life of the Soldier above all. Asinine, how very apt. Hmmm, well you certainly appear to have hit the nail on the head so to speak.

Anyone know Chuck Hagel, Kirk could do with a new job tearing a,s,s! We are certainly not immune to what you allude to however, for example. How do we most effectively use the machine gun? Have we been bribed sufficiently? Weapons, and weapons accessories seem to be limited to things like red-dot sights, cleaning kits, and scopes for individual weapons.

I know that things like better tripods were suggested on numerous occasions, but the winnowing process for getting something into the RFI program often winds up sidelining things like that, due mostly to their esoteric nature.

I sat down with a Command Sergeant Major, once, and tried to explain the advantages of the German Laffette-style tripod and sighting arrangements. See anything there that implements any of the superior features of the Lafette system, sixty-odd years after the Germans came up with it?

See a periscopic sight? Nearly every other country was also using WWI-era designs for their belt-fed MGs and my estimation is that the M and M were at least some of the better of that bunch. For the Italians I would like to comment that the 8mm Breda M37 was actually not that bad of a gun. Rate of fire was little on the slow side, but generally sufficient. As long as the oiler had oil left it proved to be a pretty reliable gun despite the many idiosyncrasies of the design. If your the boss of G.

M or whatever, having government contracts for pointless accessories is probably a good idea. Curtis Lemay shot up some watermelons at a fund raising barbecue. However, the receivers tended to stretch out of spec due to heat and battering.

Leave it to Ordnance to take parts of two phenomenal weapons, the MG 42 and FG 42, and turn them into something barely functional. My enduring memory of the M is running through the tall grass across the road from the Westminster College science center during an ROTC exercise, and suddenly finding myself with the pistol grip in my right hand and the rest of the gun in the other, and them not being connected in any way. Imagine how it felt to be the poor bastard charged with keeping them all running, and who had to train the gunners and crews….

When I think of all the hours I spent just teaching guys how to put the damn thing back together without screwing up the umpteen different ways it could be mis-assembled, instead of doing actual useful things like crew drills and gunnery instruction… I just want to weep with frustration.

Not to mention, all the hours spent on fruitless maintenance, trying to keep them running reliably. That thing was the equivalent of Kleenex, in a machine gun format. Excellent article. I am glad you got some use out of my YT Video! Its really nice to see these points researched more. I think most guns need to be viewed in their time.

I would argue maybe the best. The BAR gets a lot of criticism for being heavy. Most of the time I like to take the bipod off and shoot it standing. I myself have always found the Original design more interesting.

As far as the walking fire, has is really been shown that is did not work or was it something really only applicable to Trench Warfare? So by WWII, with trenches becoming a thing of the past, so was this tactic? However in WWI, you were still required to move across open ground without cover. Of course Walking Fire turned into the modern method of Cover fire with movement, into a kind of leap frogging motion.

However in WWI there was no where to leap to, so one would have had a fairly constant rate of fire in order to suppress the enemy trench. I guess I may just be ignorant of its failings, so any good material on it would be of interest to me. Early BAR belts included a sheet-steel cup for the butt of the weapon to rest in. Automatic fire, delivered from the hip?

From a rifle-caliber weapon? Not even if I were one of several hundred other BAR gunners going up against one machine gun position that was only a few hundred meters away….

Actual practice saw these weapons being used the way the British used the Lewis Gun, which was as a portable support weapon that leapfrogged from position to position, supporting the advance of the troops. If they did, the Germans or Japanese pretty much cut them down in windrows.

Not so smart, eh? True but a smart reply would direct you to the casualty reports of all nations during that time period. Nothing was really working. As far as the walking fire, the french seemed to have stuck with the tactic for a while. Is it going to be causality heavy? Sure but not as bad as the massed attack of standard infantry. The tanks and Storm troopers did not really come until Walking fire was really the precursor to it, being used mid war.

My guess is that the Germans took it to its next level with the Storm trooper idea later in the war. Again it seems crazy today but in its time, what else was any better?

As far as the walking fire with the BAR belt, I hope to test this out soon. I plan to do a little shooting from the hip and see how it actually was. Hopefully another video down the road.

Walking fire is moving suppression fire to keep the heads of the enemy down in their trench while your men move. Its not to shoot their MGers in their bunker. I really do suggest the CG book on the Chauchat. I found it very interesting on a subject really not well covered other then to outright dismiss. Was walking fire and the Chauchat the answer to Trench warfare? No but at the time it was one of the best solutions going in and Oh, it was a failure, all right—And, they knew it.

But, do you know where the Germans got the idea, at least initially? The idea stemmed not from a German source, but from a French one. The Germans captured a pamphlet written by a low-level French officer, Andre Laffargue, sometime in or The ideas of Laffargue gained no traction in the French Army, not the least because they were ideas which relied on stealth, infiltration, and the primacy of the small group. The key difference between the two armies? Laffargue was a prophet without honor in his own army, but the Germans not only listened to him, they actually republished his pamphlet for dissemination to the troops.

Further developments by the Germans by men like Hutier and Rohr led eventually to what might have been war-winning tactics, had the German supply system been able to keep their front-line troops sufficiently well-fed to keep them from losing their discipline when they captured Western supply dumps.

Better communications would have helped, as well, but the ability to counter the tactical problems of the trenches was developed by the Germans quite well, at least on the tactical level. Operational and strategic, not so much. All issues surrounding the conduct of war essentially boil down to culture.

Yes the tactics of the time were furthered and the Storm Trooper method was developed. However is walking fire not a step in that direction? I guess as I think about it, as successful or not, I am not asking was it a game changing tactic that solved the trench problem. No, it did not succeed in doing that. However was it not a more successful tactic than the mass charges that it replaced?

It certainly was more successful than the Walking fire but did not break the trenches. If the war would have played on, the Germans would have fielded their TuF 13mm Maxim machine guns and they probably would have cut up the tanks of the day. Of course we will never know. When I think about walking fire, I see one of the first tactics to introduce temporary suppression fire, to a limited area, to allow for the advancement of troops.

This really turned into the key for the future of warfare. Many of those Storm troops with a chest full of grenades and a Mauser rifle would have been a lot more effective with a BAR instead of the Mauser. The only people with idiocy necessary to even conceive of an idea that ludicrous were the French, and the idiots here in the US that copied them. Some things, the French did pretty well on, like the 75mm artillery piece they built for light supporting fires.

Much of the rest was actually flat-out self-destructive. The actual tactics we wound up using were far different, being fire-and-maneuver based, and wholly unsuited for the weapons we used. It was not for green infantry that would go to the ground and stop the advance at the firt german MG nest firing at them.

Assault units have to assure a continue stream of automatic firepower until the end of the assault. Marksmen with semiauto rifles were also widely used, equipped with the 8mm Lebel RSC , little less than have been made so it was not a exotic weapon. Photo: OOW. The pound M2-SLR package includes a custom-fitted hard case As well as reusable.

Featured Products. Latest News. Your browser does not support the video tag. If you don't see the Credova's checkout window click on the button below to continue. Popup content starts Reviews by. Site Reviews. You are connected as. Connect with:. Thank you for posting a review! We value your input. Share your review so everyone else can enjoy it too.

Your review was sent successfully and is now waiting for our staff to publish it. Verified Reviewer. Review by Anonymous User. Was this review helpful? D David A. Verified Buyer. Review by David A. I was able to pick up my guns at my gun shop in just 5 days from the time I ordered them. I will be ordering from Guns. I have been recommending Guns. D Daniel S.