Man Returns Rare Handgun to Medal of Honor Winner.

[one-eyed fat man]

Medford Man Returns Rare Handgun to Medal of Honor Winner

The MoH recipient returns the favor, with a one that had belonged to another MoH recipient.

[iverglas]

1. a lovely story

No question, a lovely story. Except for some of the things that weapon was used for ...

I guess the moral of the story is that firearms owners should take better care of their possessions so their guns don't fall into inappropriate hands?

In this case it may have been just an enthusiast who stole the thing and kept it hidden away, although reselling it would have been risky in that case; we don't know. In others, the consequences are more negative.

[WAFS]

2. Class act. n/t

[MineralMan]

3. An excellent story. Thanks for posting it.

Honor is in evidence all around.

[ileus]

4. Excellent post, Imagine the great stories that go along with that 1911.

[era veteran]

5. Good for that man, did the right thing, great story.

I have wondered why this weapon discontinued. I have seen a British Soldier, Queens Own Highlanders, shit his pants because of it. He came inside the 577 TOC wire to steal our battalion sign for a souvenir. I did not know what was up so as I crept through the blackout curtain and let the bolt forward, he lost it. He didn't get the sign, he didn't get shot, I did not kill a drunk dumb boy when I could have with no repercussions. There is no sound in the world like that bolt. My father swore by the weapon, his sidearm for 20 plus years.

[oneshooter]

12. It was discontinued due to politics.

When NATO accepted the M-16/223 rifle the only producer was Colt. Nato suppliers demanded that the Berreta 92 be used as the US standard sidearm. It was a done deal, they got Colt M-16's and we were stuck with low powered semi reliable sidearm.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Glassunion]

13. With a way too big grip.

[MicaelS]

15. I always considered replacement of the .45 as payback..

For the way the US Army treated the .280 British aka 7 mm MK1Z. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.280_British

They hypocrisy of the US Army never ceases to amaze me. First, claiming the .280 was not powerful enough. Second, they would accept nothing less than a .30 projectile. So, only later the US Army adopts their own intermediate cartridge 10% less powerful than the .280, with a .22 projectile no less.

Of course since it was invented in the USA, that made the 5.56 x 45 perfect. :sarcasm:

The US Army has had a long history of arrogance. The whole "NIH" syndrome. This was just another example.

The whole sorry incident of the .280 brings to mind J. Walter Christie and his suspension system for tanks which the USSR later adopted for the T-34. So instead of a excellent tank, our soldiers got the POS Sherman.

As the old saying goes "Payback is a motherfucker." Unfortunately it's the grunt who ends up getting fucked, while the brass award themselves medals for their "superior" ideas.

[one-eyed fat man]

21. The supreme insult over the .280

Is the current infatuation with the 6.8 SPC, which pretty much is a wash in performance with the old Brit .280.

And the .280 was not the first time the British toyed with a 7mm cartridge.
Those wiley Dutch farmers were handing the Limeys their ass using the 7mm Mauser during the Second Boer War. Tommies complained enough that the MOD looked at adopting a new rifle, the P-13 in .276 aka 7x57 but the outbreak of World War One resulted in the decision to stick with the .303 cartridge and the P-13 was rechambered to .303 and served as the P-14 Enfield.

Another worthy gent who was highly impressed after being subjected to the wrong end the 7mm Mauser during the Spanish-American War was Teddy Roosevelt. When he became President one of the things he took a personal interest in was a suitable rifle to replace the Krag. When the Chief of Ordnance gave him an excuse as to the slow progress at Springfield, Teddy asked, "Why don't you just buy the Mauser?" (As it happens, Springfield copied enough from Paul Mauser, that in 1935 the US Supreme Court ruled in Mauser's favor over the patent infringements.)

When Springfield finally started issuing the 1903, the .30-03 cartridge (basically a 30-40 Krag rimless improved) was rendered hopelessly obsolete by the German development of the Spitzgeschoss or pointy bullet in 1905. The US answer was the cartridge caliber .30 of 1906, or the .30-06. The British developed the Mk VII ball version in 1907 (and did a better job) The US .30-03 cartridge was so short-lived that if you ask most people what catridge the 1903 model rifle was chambered for, they respond, ".30-06." Ask, "Why would anyone issue a rifle three years before they had ammunition for it?"

When the US entered WW1, there were still not enough M1903 rifles to issue the Army. Gen John Thompson (the Tommy gun was named after him) was the one who had Remington, Winchester, and Eddystone who had been making P-14 rifles under contract to the British to rechamber them for the US cartridge as the M1917 Enfield.

Between the wars, even we started looking at a 7mm class cartridge in the .276 Pedersen. The M1 Garand was adapted initially for that cartridge. MacArthur nixed that idea for the same reasons the British had earlier. With a major war looming, being in the middle of changing rifle calibers was just a dumb idea. (Think Italian or Japanese supply sergeant in WW2.)

The 6.5x55 Swede and the 7x57 Mauser class of cartridges and their modern short case descendants STILL have all the attributes that made them exceptional in the 1890's.

[era veteran]

17. May be old fashioned and know the arguments for .556

I would prefer to carry a 7.62 if I was a grunt.

[DonP]

19. For me it had more to do with the ammo load out

We started out with M-14s when I first got in-country and we usually tried to carry maybe 100 rounds each, 5 or so mags per man. But between the rifle an the ammo that was a hell of a load in the heat.

Then, after a couple months, we switched to the M-16A1 and our load out was more like 300 to 400 rounds per man. Some guys carried a lot more.

Smaller round but a whole lot more of them in hand.

[TexasProgresive]

6. I learned to shoot a pistol with one of those.

It belonged to a friend of mine, he also had a 38 super, commonly called a 38 on a 45 frame. We would go to the range and shoot a couple of hundred rounds (we reloaded) and leave with our ears ringing for a day or two. Ear protection, ha, no body did it back then. What's that you say? I don't hear so good.

It's a great story. I'm glad the MofH recipient got his back before death and both men were extremely generous. It's also neat that the Navy man received a 45 that belonged to a Navy man.

[Hangingon]

9. You can tell the older shooters because,

they wear a "shooter's consequence". The .38 Super is under appreciated.

[ileus]

10. hearing protection....what's that?

The men I used to shoot around as a kid none of them ever wore hearing protection. 300magnum no problem. Shoot the 44 Blackhawk 100 times big deal... I have one really messed up ear and always wore plugs/muffs because if it....that's probably the only reason I wore hearing protection. We still have a old timer here in the shop that never wears ear plugs...He shot his new 45LC this weekend without protection (then again he can't hear out of one ear)

I won't even mow the yard without hearing protection...LOL

[era veteran]

16. I cant't hear jack shit now.

When standing around a stationary tank range I usually wore my cheap Bundeswehr earplugs, still better than US issue but now and then you would have them out. It sucks the wind back an forth and moves your spine. I still suffer from being on a 3 man tank crew under Nixxon and putting cooks in to have 4 men. With a round loaded in a 105, a cease fire called, he fiddled fucked around with the Cadillacs and fired a heat round. Too bad I was in drivers hatch, popped up, no CVC on smoking. The blood came out my ears. The cook was a junkie on the road to Chapter 13. I will wear hearing protection at an indoor range but its a little too late.

[Hangingon]

7. Great story. Two good men.

[diveguy]

8. I cant get the link to work

:shrug:

[PavePusher]

11. Copy and paste into a new tab/window, then remove the two extra // from the address. n/t

[ileus]

14. Shouldn't it have read Medal of Honor recipient?

[Glassunion]

18. Winner is also appropriate

[DissedByBush]

20. You are correct, you don't "win" it

It's a big nit-pick of mine.

You are awarded, you are a recipient, you are bestowed.

Nobody ever goes to win that medal unless they're a particularly suicidal case looking for posthumous glory.

[burf]

22. The lottery has winners....

The Medal of Honor, recipients.

To see what these brave soldiers did to be awarded this honor, take a lookkee see http://www.history.army.mil/moh.html

[DWC]

23. Excellent Story. Semper Fi n/t