Armory Sponsor
Posted: 9/24/2004 2:58:23 PM EDT
|
What do you think about this? www.valkyriearms.com/m3.htm With the SOS Fake Suppressor its $815. If I lived somewhere I could do a SBR it would be mine in an instant but since that's not an option right now I'm not sure I like the look with the standard 16" bbl. Anybody have one of have experience with them? |
The price seems a little funny to me. Are these full auto? The grease guns were produced because they cost about 1/10th as much to manufacture as a Thompson. If it's not full auto I don't understand why it's so expensive. Other than that, I always thought a grease gun would be cool just for the S and giggles factor.
|
Thanks for the information. Think maybe I'll wait for the retractable stock. Must have at least one evil feature. Did they have layoffs? |
Why? I figured it was just the wire stock welded....isnt it? |
Damn, thats expensive.  Id rather have one of these for the price, $595  www.vectorarms.com/indexframe.html |
They're semi only. And thats really cheap compared to the cost of a registered full-auto M3/M3A1; a real one would cost around $12k to $15k ...and thats IF you can find one. |
Considering they originally only sold for $18.50, I'll give you $650 for it right now. But you have to toss in some mags and a bit of ammo too 
|
Well, if I remember correctly from the website, she is a pilot, so maybe there is a possibility of joining the Mile High Club here....hmmmm......  Back to the original subject, I finally held a Thompson yesterday at the fun show, and I was surprised at how heavy it was. Yes, I have always read that of course, but it's different when you actually pick it up for the first time. So now the M3 is back to the near-top of my list. |
If she says what you claim she says, evidently she thought that you two were close enough that she could tell you something in confidence. Evidently she was wrong. Funny thing, in all the countless hours I have spent with her, the subject has never came up. Val is a good Woman & has more than a few friends around here, you may wish to reconsider this course of topic..    ETA: |
+100
|
I don't know her well..
Maybe it wasn't her, I never got a name, just the woman that answered the phone..
Beating excepted. I did'nt know my comment would offend you soo much. BTW I was never formally trained in political correctness... |
So now, by your own admission you are spreading unsubstantiated allegations based on an alleged phone call with someone who you cant even say who it was?
I am not offended, I think you are wrong, way wrong. For one the thread is about a gun, not some bullshit you wish to spread on the internet. You decided to go OT and then proceeded to cast dispersions about the gunmaker. It has shit to do with political correctness, it has to do with decorum, tact and manners, all of which is evident you were never "formally  |
Back in the day, I carrried both the M3 and M3A1 grease gun as it was a standard issue weapon for M60A3 tank crews thru the 80"s and up to the Mid 90"s. I was never impressed with the performace. it has a slow rate of fire (450 RPM) and had shit for acccuracy with non adjustable sheet metal sights. It was unreliable and would have numerous stoppages while emptying a 30 rd magazine. Tank crew Loaders and drivers were issued them. It was a pain to dissasemble the triggger group and even harder to reassemble. it came with a nylon pouch that could hold 6 mags. The running joke with crews use to be that if your tank got hit and you had to bail out, you would ditch the grease gun and grab the M240 Coax, an asbesto's mit and 2 box's of ammo.... . later they actually incorporated that procedure in the Field manual under evacuation procedures... for that kind of money I would pass on it unless you really have a burning desire to own one. I could find better weapons to blow that kinda cash on, just my Humble $.02 |
| Wow, I always thought the M3 had the rep of a reliable piece of equipment. Is it possible yours were just 40 year old worn out junk? I know when I was in the AF we unwrapped new AR15 marked M16's that were built in the early 70's and this was in the late 80's. The rifles we were first issued in 87 were built in 1969 and in service as Security Police service rifles since new. 18 year old rifles issued to 18 year olds. :) Btw, they had seen some very hard use before I ever got one. Also same with the M1911's the army had. Last one purchased in 1945 meant there was some very old stuff out there. |
|
You now how it goes. some people have positive experiences, some don't. That was just mine firing several different weapons when On the range. And actually thhe M3's and M3A1's we had in the Guard were in pretty Minty condition as they do not see the same wear and tear as tthe one's I had on Active duty. and we had boat loads of brand new mags still in he silver Mylar wrapper from the factory. I'm sure there are some that had a good experience with it. For the Tankers it was a spray and pray solution to compliment your individualy assigned M1911A1, which were just as old but I always had a Positive experience with them on thhe ranges. If it were me and I wanted a class 3 version I would opt for what I think would be more reliable. (like a M1928) which I think is very reliable and fun... just my $.02 |
Armory Sponsor