Talk:M3 submachine gun

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: M3 SMG "Grease Gun" Name

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Reliability

message: 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)
thread_title: Main image

message: 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)
replies: text: The service date typically refers to the primary operator of the weapon, i.e. the USA. Koalorka (talk) 04:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: In Service Dates

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: RfC: Is M-3A1 troubleshooting artwork relevant

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)?--Pattont/c 22:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yes I see your point there. There is no precedent with weapons either, apart form the garand, though that's a more official name.--Pattont/c 13:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Move to M3 Grease Gun?  No Consensus? BS

message: From when to where was the M3 submachine gun used?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coffeekid (talk • contribs) 01:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the article. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 01:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: In Service Use

message: "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)
thread_title:  Operating mechanism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Foreign variants & derivatives -  any info on these? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why was it intended to replace the Thompsons is service? 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cost 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified