Research on Guns, Vietnam Vets

Alvah · Oct 20, 2007

If a man served in the military during the Vietnam war era, would he have been allowed to keep his guns when he was mustered out of the Army or Marines? What kind of handgun or rifle would a soldier have from that era - say late 1960s?

Is it possible to still get ammunition today for a handgun that's 40 years old?

Thanks for any information.

Duncan J Macdonald · Oct 20, 2007

Alvah said:
If a man served in the military during the Vietnam war era, would he have been allowed to keep his guns when he was mustered out of the Army or Marines? What kind of handgun or rifle would a soldier have from that era - say late 1960s?

Is it possible to still get ammunition today for a handgun that's 40 years old?

Thanks for any information.

Officially? No. If you were issued a weapon, you had to return it. If it was a personal weapon, then you could keep it, but that was generally reserved for officers, and sidearms only.

Issued sidearms were a .38 Special, or the Colt Model 1911A1 .45 automatics, but not necessarily made by Colt. Rilfe would be either an M-14 or M-16.

You can get ammunition today for weapons 200 years old. For your purposes (looking into my crystal ball to read your mind), yes, ammo for Viet Nam era weapons is still available, and if your character is sufficiently skilled, he could always hand-load his own.

This Link is a quick guide for further research.

Kentuk · Oct 20, 2007

They wouldn't be able to keep government issued weapons but if he went to buy a weapon his preference would be one he had trained with.

RoadBuddy · Oct 20, 2007

Or, perhaps, one of the AK-47 assault rifles favored by the Viet Cong. Could have picked one up along the way.

In the index of 'We Were Soldiers Once . . . And Young' by Lt. Gen. Harold G. Moore (ret.) and Joseph L. Calloway, there is a list of weapons used in Vietnam.

Cav Guy · Oct 22, 2007

The AK couldn't legally be brought home as a war trophy because it was fully automatic. However, the SKS could be, as could any pistols that were captured (Tokarevs and the like, though at least one Walther P-38 turned up in NVA/VC hands...).

JB_Finesse · Oct 24, 2007

Just about any major military cartridge of the last 100 or so years (pistol or rifle) is extremely common. There are a few exceptions (the British .455 Webley revolver round for example), but even those can be obtained at a high price from some companies.

And some war trophies are brought home by questionably legal methods (my grandpa brought home a German MP40 submachine gun by dismantling it and putting it in an old artillery shell). He could always have brought home an M-16 reciever and attached it to an AR-15 or something like that. Though VEEEEEERY few soldiers were enamored with the early M-16's.

Mauser C96 pistols weren't unknown to the Viet Cong, and they could chamber and fire the same rounds as the Tokarev (though according to some sources, not too reliably).

Oh, and the 1911 and M-16 were the more common handgun and rifle. .38 revolvers were rarely with front-line troops, and M-14's were being replaced by the inferior M-16. If he'd managed to get an M-14 he'd have hung onto it. Springfield made (and still makes) the M1A, a semi-auto only version.

Inukshuk · Nov 7, 2007

I have friends with multiple tours in SE Asia during the Vietnam era. One was issued an M-14 but found it far too heavy to lug through the boonies. He put it in a locker and "acquired" a Thompson sub machine gun. The second was an advisor up near the DMZ. His officer's issue M1 carbine (he was Airborne) also went in a locker for the duration (and inspections). He replaced it with, again, a Thompson. His seargent sidekick traded off until he got a Remington 870 12ga pump shotgun which he cut down and used on quite a few occasions including getting out of two ambushes and foiling an assassination attempt. The third was issued an M-16 which he never took farther than his quarters. He ran skimmers (small boats on the Mekong River) for special operations. His favorite was an M2 "Grease Gun" he acquired from some locals. It was a heavy sub gun but quick and rugged.

Kentuk · Nov 7, 2007

Inukshuk said:
I have friends with multiple tours in SE Asia during the Vietnam era. One was issued an M-14 but found it far too heavy to lug through the boonies. He put it in a locker and "acquired" a Thompson sub machine gun. The second was an advisor up near the DMZ. His officer's issue M1 carbine (he was Airborne) also went in a locker for the duration (and inspections). He replaced it with, again, a Thompson. His seargent sidekick traded off until he got a Remington 870 12ga pump shotgun which he cut down and used on quite a few occasions including getting out of two ambushes and foiling an assassination attempt. The third was issued an M-16 which he never took farther than his quarters. He ran skimmers (small boats on the Mekong River) for special operations. His favorite was an M2 "Grease Gun" he acquired from some locals. It was a heavy sub gun but quick and rugged.

Huh? A Thompson is two pounds heavier then an M14, an M2 grease gun about the same weight as an M14. An M2 has a folding stock so it is handier and lighter then a Thompson and more forgiving of conditions. An airborne M1 carbine is lighter then an M16 but lacks stopping power and doesn't like dirt. The problem of trading a M16 for a grease gun is range. A grease gun is a fantastic substitute for a pistol and hangs well from a neck strap, great for driving a tank or boat.

GeorgeK · Nov 8, 2007

Kentuk said:
Huh? A Thompson is two pounds heavier then an M14, an M2 grease gun about the same weight as an M14. An M2 has a folding stock so it is handier and lighter then a Thompson and more forgiving of conditions. An airborne M1 carbine is lighter then an M16 but lacks stopping power and doesn't like dirt. The problem of trading a M16 for a grease gun is range. A grease gun is a fantastic substitute for a pistol and hangs well from a neck strap, great for driving a tank or boat.

I'm not pretending to be an expert on those particular weapons but range isn't a big issue in jungles or rolling hills. I have an sks for the farm. With all the trees (orchards and light woods, not jungle) and rolling hills, you'll never have more than about 50 yards to shoot. When did the M-16 jungle carbine come out? I thought that was in the later years of the vietnam war. The earlier version tended to jam. Maybe that was the reason for the switch rather than weight?

Kentuk · Nov 8, 2007

Yes the early M16 had reliability issues. If I was working a boat which had a machinegun and maybe a mortar a grease gun would be a good choice, not humping so weight not an issue and a compact submachine gun is much handier. You're right about the matter of range, especially in Vietnam as the communists were mostly armed with light caliber weapons. The advantage of an M16 is it's light, handy enough to use as a submachine gun but with good range. I suspect that even today it isn't as reliable as a Springfield or Garand. The think I always hated about the M16 is that hates left hand shooters, used to drop hot brass down my shirt and leave hickey marks.

Inukshuk · Nov 8, 2007

Just a word about weight, Thompson / Grease gun vs M-14. It's true there's not a lot of difference in the guns themselves. The savings is in the ammunition. On a long patrol it's not uncommon for one of these guys to be carrying 200 rounds of ammo along with the gun. If you ever have the chance, pick up 200 rounds of .45 ACP, the pistol ammo used in the sub guns. Then pick up 200 rounds of 7.62 Nato (.308 Winchester), the fodder for the M-14. I think you'll quickly come to appreciate the shift in weaponry. This was one of the great logistics advantages of the M-16 and its .223 caliber ammunition, less weight for the soldier to carry with the same firepower. Unfortunately, the M-16 was plagued with reliability problems when the Army shifted to a dirtier, cheaper powder in the ammunition. The direct gas impingement system cruds up the bolt and carrier quickly causing it to jam. The redesigned gun has a "forward assist" plunger to force the bolt closed during a jam and some other features to make the action less vulnerable to fouling. The other thing the Army did to improve reliability was to enforce a strict and frequent cleaning and maintenance regimen. While the new generation of soldiers accepts this, a WWII vet would be astounded. His Garand might see a thorough cleaning twice a month in the field. Unfortunately M-16 reliability problems have started to reappear in the deserts and the military is once again looking at a redesign. Interestingly, this one may replace the uppers on the M-16 with a gas piston system ala the AK-47. In the meantime, the M-14 is making a comeback as a more suitable weapon for the long ranges involved. And, like its predecessor, the M1 Garand, it requires far less maintenance.

GeorgeK · Nov 9, 2007

Inukshuk said:
Just a word about weight, Thompson / Grease gun vs M-14. It's true there's not a lot of difference in the guns themselves. The savings is in the ammunition. On a long patrol it's not uncommon for one of these guys to be carrying 200 rounds of ammo along with the gun. If you ever have the chance, pick up 200 rounds of .45 ACP, the pistol ammo used in the sub guns. Then pick up 200 rounds of 7.62 Nato (.308 Winchester), the fodder for the M-14. I think you'll quickly come to appreciate the shift in weaponry. This was one of the great logistics advantages of the M-16 and its .223 caliber ammunition, less weight for the soldier to carry with the same firepower. Unfortunately, the M-16 was plagued with reliability problems when the Army shifted to a dirtier, cheaper powder in the ammunition. The direct gas impingement system cruds up the bolt and carrier quickly causing it to jam. The redesigned gun has a "forward assist" plunger to force the bolt closed during a jam and some other features to make the action less vulnerable to fouling. The other thing the Army did to improve reliability was to enforce a strict and frequent cleaning and maintenance regimen. While the new generation of soldiers accepts this, a WWII vet would be astounded. His Garand might see a thorough cleaning twice a month in the field. Unfortunately M-16 reliability problems have started to reappear in the deserts and the military is once again looking at a redesign. Interestingly, this one may replace the uppers on the M-16 with a gas piston system ala the AK-47. In the meantime, the M-14 is making a comeback as a more suitable weapon for the long ranges involved. And, like its predecessor, the M1 Garand, it requires far less maintenance.

So the jamming of the M-16 was because of the ammo? or I assume both the design and the ammo (it's second hand to me)? But, yeah, the weight of the ammo would certainly play a role, especially in a rapid fire anything. My sks only holds 5 rounds and it jams about 1 in 20. I'm pretty sure the 3 round burst in place of the full auto was in the 70's to 80's? Gee I must be getting old when my memory is failing for things that only happened 30 years ago.

Terry L. Sanders · Nov 10, 2007

It's a combination of ammunition and design, from what I've read over the years.

The AR-15 (the M-16's direct ancestor) uses gas from the explosion to cycle the action, loading the next round. That's not unusual--most rifle-caliber automatics and semi-auto's do (some of them--and most submachine guns--use the recoil). But the AR-15 simplified the mechanism by using the gas directly, instead of using the gas to push a piston which cycles the action.

This makes the action simpler and lighter, among other things, but it also means that burned powder is always getting into the action--by design. The powder the AR-15 was designed for was fairly clean, so this wasn't too much of a problem. But military ammunition uses a different type of powder, with more residue. It kept getting into the action and gumming up the parts. Combine that with tighter tolerances in the action and you get a gun that jams more often than a seemingly cruder design.

The AK-47 is in many ways the M-16's exact opposite--a fairly crude and heavy hunk of metal with less accuracy, but extremely reliable. The Russians were more worried about whether it would work than whether it would hit tiny targets at long ranges. Trade-offs. You know how that goes...

Inukshuk · Nov 11, 2007

I believe the three round burst as an actual selection on the M-16 was a fairly late addition for the Marines. Unlike the Army, the Marines have always stressed marksmanship and taught their people to stay in semi-auto for aimed fire. The advent of the rapid firing M-16 and cheaper ammunition led the Army down the path of "spray an pray". Hopefully, that's turned around. If you look up the number of rounds expended during the Vietnam war per single enemy dead, it's amazing, far higher than any other war.

George, I think you need to see a gunsmith. I have the feeling your SKS (more likely the magazine) is in need of some tuning. The one I had (Russian) would eat 7.62x39 all day without a burble. It could also be the ammunition. Some of the Eastern Block surplus leaves a lot to be desired. You're right about getting older. I just turned 58 and can't remember my name after lunch. Thank God for business cards.

GeorgeK · Nov 12, 2007

Inukshuk said:
It could also be the ammunition. Some of the Eastern Block surplus leaves a lot to be desired.

Yeah, I did get a "deal" on the ammo. It was something ridiculous like 50 bucks for an ammo case full, including the ammo case. The boxes say "Wolf" but I think they are reloads or repacked with something else because they look off compared to what I get if I just go and buy a box of "Wolf". I also have about 1 in 20 misfires. But seeing as I don't hunt and now my great pyranees do varmit control, it isn't a big deal. I pretty much use the sks for executions on butchering day.

Research on Guns, Vietnam Vets

Alvah

Life is what you make of it.

Duncan J Macdonald

Plotting! Not Plodding!

Kentuk

I want to write what I want to write

RoadBuddy

Cav Guy

Living in the backstory

JB_Finesse

Inukshuk

Kentuk

I want to write what I want to write

GeorgeK

ever seeking

Kentuk

I want to write what I want to write

Inukshuk

GeorgeK

ever seeking

Terry L. Sanders

Inukshuk

GeorgeK

ever seeking