I sure wouldn't pay extra for the so called provenance of his Johnson rifle.
Printable View
I sure wouldn't pay extra for the so called provenance of his Johnson rifle.
Probably a slip of the tongue but I don't think that any Japanese invaders got as far as the Netherlands. Alternatively, he may not know where the Netherlands is. The latter would not surprise me.Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
He means the Dutch East Indies. I find the sight modifications interesting. I've had several over the years and still retain one. It's refinished with no provenance but has both .30-06 and 7x57 barrels.
I am glad he deduced it went to South Africa which makes it a rare weapon, I thought the mag cut offs were deleted way before 1918 and why would you take the risk of changing out a mag dropping it say in the dark and reducing your rifle to a club, rather than a stripper at least if you drop that you can grab another, perhaps he does not know Ian Skennerton wrote articles on the said lineage of the Lee Enfields. Still I would not mind that collection
Well, apparently issuing extra mags was prohibited in writing...anywayzzz, I'd like the collection, but I wouldn't need his provenance of where anything came from.
Nice to know the Johnson had a barrel that could be changed, not that it could be broken down for paratroop use... I'd guess he bought the bayonet from a guy that swore he bought it from a guy that found it in...sure thing.
But he did say "the Netherlands and their colonies" .... "were overrun by the Japanese". The latter were indeed know as the Dutch East Indies but the "overrunning" of the former was carried out by the Wehrmacht last time I looked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Dick
I agree his choice of narrative leaves a little to be desired.
Jim, can you see us fumbling around to get the barrel back on after a jump into a hot LZ? :banghead:
---------- Post added at 01:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:09 PM ----------
God bless the M1 Rifle!!
No...and I often questioned the fastening of a rifle to my right leg and landing with it. The lowered equipment is definitely better. Another story was when the barrel jacket took a ding on landing, you'd not get the barrel back in anyway. That would be harrowing to say the least. Bring your machinist's hammer to tap things back to shape using the collar as a mandrel...Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Dick
We had a big dude do a PLF on his early M249 SAW which was lowered on the 15' line and it warped the receiver. I went through Hell with higher level maintenance to try and repair it. They gave me every replacement part known to God and the gun still would't run. I finally had to take the acting Arms Room Officer with me across the road to the battalion workshops and he duked it out with the other LT over there while I stood in the corner. They final gave us a direct exchange for a new weapon after much back and forth between the two officers. The early SAW's were a real headache. I guess they're better now but I've heard good and bad. I don't have an opinion since I haven't touched one since 1986. They make them about an hour and a half from here at FNMI in Columbia, SC!
The odd one does get damaged by landing, that's unavoidable. The newer ones are a bit nicer, the mods, shorter barrel, retractable butt...better lines. But, if you land on them they won't always take it.