Understanding the Military "M" designations - Page 2

emcon5 · September 26, 2012, 11:00 AM

There is a partial list here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_firearms

Scroll down to "M" obviously.

BlueTrain · September 26, 2012, 11:10 AM

One theory is that the army stopped giving model numbers as the year of adoption because you didn't want anyone thinking they had something old, although it doesn't seem to bother anyone who likes .45 autos. That's what they used to be called, you know. However, the year of adoption continued to be used in some cases, though not for firearms. There was the 1956 model webgear and the 1952 field jacket and so on. In some cases model numbers seem to be applied retroactively.

A similiar thought process seemed to be at work when Winchester quit calling it a Model 1894 and using just Model 94 instead. But I've suspected the Model 88 had more to do with the Model 99 Savage (formerly the Model 1899!). Someone just had to come up with a Model 77, too, didn't they?

I think US Army rifles were officially, "U.S. Rifle, M14," etc.

Bart B. · September 27, 2012, 01:15 PM

I've never seen a regulation US government rifle marked "M-1" or "M-16" or "M-14" so therefore if anybody has one, they are probably counterfeits. Real ones don't have that "-" between the letter and number. On the other hand, a friend's been looking for a Garand marked "M-1" for his collection and has never seen one. So maybe there are no counterfeits

JimPage · September 27, 2012, 02:49 PM

"Because we are, if you ain't a pilot, you ain't xxxx."

Amen.

FrankenMauser · September 27, 2012, 05:10 PM

Quote:

"Because we are, if you ain't a pilot, you ain't xxxx."

Amen.

And that's why your maintainers hate you.

Scorch · September 27, 2012, 06:02 PM

Quote:

And that's why your maintainers hate you.

Nah! We never hated pilots, it was always more like how you treat your spoiled cousins. You have to play with them becasue Mom said so, but you don't have to like them.

Besides, crew members get to tell the pilots where to put it. We didn't didn't call them "zeros" for nothing, you know.

TimW77 · September 27, 2012, 08:52 PM

"As time goes by, they add more and more complications and exceptions to the rules."

And up until 1962 the Navy had a totally different designation system...

"maintainers"?

Those are called RAMP RATS...

T.

BlueTrain · September 28, 2012, 07:00 AM

A Russian, writing many years ago, expressed confusion as to why the US Army tended to give the same designations to so many things. He believed it surely led to serious confusion. How many things were "M-1 (or M1)," for example? However, he mentioned that calibers had so much overlap. How many things were 75mm? Personally, I suspect he may have been overstating a point, since the Soviets used at least three different small arms cartridges that were .30 caliber or 7.62mm.

I believe I have mentioned before that while there are advantages to standardization and simplification in ammunition, it was theoretically possible early in WWII for a British light tank to require five different small arms ammunition. Some early tanks had a 15mm and a 7.92mm Besa guns, .38-200 for the crew's revolvers, probably .45 ACP for the Thompson they probably had and if there was an extermally mounted Bren, .303. But they probably didn't have a Bren and they probably rarely used their revolvers.

Big Shrek · October 3, 2012, 08:26 PM

Join the Army, enjoy the life for 20 years...you'll know a TON of designations by then and have good retirement benefits!!

Besides, its awfully fun to get paid to fire full-auto firearms & blow up stuff!!
I heartily recommend Mechanized Infantry Battalions...its almost like RV camping!!

(yes, I'm a cruel rascal, comes from having been an 11-M...hehehe)

spearpoint · October 14, 2012, 07:29 PM

There is a very nice compilation here:

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/index.html

--Mark

September 26, 2012, 11:10 AM	#27
BlueTrain Senior Member Join Date: September 26, 2005 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 6,141	One theory is that the army stopped giving model numbers as the year of adoption because you didn't want anyone thinking they had something old, although it doesn't seem to bother anyone who likes .45 autos. That's what they used to be called, you know. However, the year of adoption continued to be used in some cases, though not for firearms. There was the 1956 model webgear and the 1952 field jacket and so on. In some cases model numbers seem to be applied retroactively. A similiar thought process seemed to be at work when Winchester quit calling it a Model 1894 and using just Model 94 instead. But I've suspected the Model 88 had more to do with the Model 99 Savage (formerly the Model 1899!). Someone just had to come up with a Model 77, too, didn't they? I think US Army rifles were officially, "U.S. Rifle, M14," etc. __________________ Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds.

September 27, 2012, 02:49 PM	#29
JimPage Senior Member Join Date: February 21, 2010 Location: Rome, NY Posts: 941	"Because we are, if you ain't a pilot, you ain't xxxx." Amen. __________________ Jim Page Cogito, ergo armatum sum

September 27, 2012, 08:52 PM	#32
TimW77 Senior Member Join Date: September 21, 2008 Posts: 485	You shouldn't even get started on aircraft. "As time goes by, they add more and more complications and exceptions to the rules." And up until 1962 the Navy had a totally different designation system... "maintainers"? Those are called RAMP RATS... T.

September 28, 2012, 07:00 AM	#33
BlueTrain Senior Member Join Date: September 26, 2005 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 6,141	A Russian, writing many years ago, expressed confusion as to why the US Army tended to give the same designations to so many things. He believed it surely led to serious confusion. How many things were "M-1 (or M1)," for example? However, he mentioned that calibers had so much overlap. How many things were 75mm? Personally, I suspect he may have been overstating a point, since the Soviets used at least three different small arms cartridges that were .30 caliber or 7.62mm. I believe I have mentioned before that while there are advantages to standardization and simplification in ammunition, it was theoretically possible early in WWII for a British light tank to require five different small arms ammunition. Some early tanks had a 15mm and a 7.92mm Besa guns, .38-200 for the crew's revolvers, probably .45 ACP for the Thompson they probably had and if there was an extermally mounted Bren, .303. But they probably didn't have a Bren and they probably rarely used their revolvers. __________________ Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds.

October 3, 2012, 08:26 PM	#34
Big Shrek Senior Member Join Date: August 6, 2009 Location: NorthWest Florida Posts: 1,358	Join the Army, enjoy the life for 20 years...you'll know a TON of designations by then and have good retirement benefits!! Besides, its awfully fun to get paid to fire full-auto firearms & blow up stuff!! I heartily recommend Mechanized Infantry Battalions...its almost like RV camping!! (yes, I'm a cruel rascal, comes from having been an 11-M...hehehe) __________________ Marlin Specialist Calico Specialist A gun should be a tool in the hands of a deadly weapon, not a deadly weapon in the hands of a tool.

September 26, 2012, 11:00 AM	#26
emcon5 Senior Member Join Date: July 10, 1999 Location: High Desert NV Posts: 2,850	There is a partial list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_firearms Scroll down to "M" obviously.

September 27, 2012, 01:15 PM	#28
Bart B. Senior Member Join Date: February 15, 2009 Posts: 8,927	I've never seen a regulation US government rifle marked "M-1" or "M-16" or "M-14" so therefore if anybody has one, they are probably counterfeits. Real ones don't have that "-" between the letter and number. On the other hand, a friend's been looking for a Garand marked "M-1" for his collection and has never seen one. So maybe there are no counterfeits

October 14, 2012, 07:29 PM	#35
spearpoint Junior Member Join Date: February 4, 2012 Posts: 3	US Weapons There is a very nice compilation here: http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/index.html --Mark