M231 Port Firing Weapon

[Draq]

Resurrecting this thread because Ian covered the M231 on Forgotten Weapons this week.

https://www.forgottenweapons.com/really-not-an-m16-at-all-colts-m231-port-firing-weapon/

Unfortunately, not an episode where he gets to fire the gun

First thing that came to mind when I saw the video was you guys...

[pmulcahy11b]

Has anyone here ever had a PC use an M231 as his/her primary weapon If so, please do tell.

This is not exactly what you're asking for, but the M231 issued with the M2 has a sliding stock to allow the shooter to adjust the weapon more fully himself. The rest of the Bradley series had no such stock, but the brackets for the stock are still there and could be used to attach a stock, In addition, there are many aftermarket stocks (even in all Twilight 2000 timelines) that would allow a stock to be attached to an M231. Unfortunately, their availability in Europe in the V1 and V2.2 timelines is questionable.

I've never have had to dismount with the M231, but I have noticed in pictures from Iraq that some Bradley BCs have the M231 (without stock) held by the BC.

[mpipes]

I've had militia and marauders using M231s. Some horse cavalry as well.

[Raellus]

Same here. I'm just wondering if anyone's ever had a PC or significant NPC use one. It'd be an appropriate weapon for a former track driver/crewman/mechanic- turned-infantry character to be equipped with.

[copeab]

ROF 5 seems a bit low for a weapon with a cyclic rate on par with the MG42 ...

[The Dark]

ROF 5 seems a bit low for a weapon with a cyclic rate on par with the MG42 ...

Yes, it is. The M231 should be at least 10 if not 15. Per IWW, 5 is for weapons with up to 700 rpm, 10 for 701-1000 rpm, and above that it's just sort of eyeballed. The M231 is around 1200 rpm. The XM231 was only around 200 due to differences in the buffer assembly, which would be ROF 5.

[James Langham]

A point not mentioned is that the rationale for the M231 is that it would not compromise the NBC system of the vehicle by putting a great big hole in the vehicle for people to poke guns out of!

A nice solution in need of a problem....

[dragoon500ly]

The idea was to take a a gun that wasn't effective and some parts off a broken weapon and make an effective weapon.

Why they built firearms that were nearly useless off of a vehicle is beyond me. Did people never think that the crew of a disabled vehicle may need every bit of firepower they can lay their hands on

As far as Army doctrine goes, the answer is no.

I date back to the transition time between M48/M60 and M1, my experiences may shed some light. Tankers were always considered to be weapon system operators, self defense took a very far second place. Primary weapon for a tanker was a pistol, on the 48/60 series, you had two M3 series SMGs, and it was not unusual to see the older WWII M3, that was it. Others weapons was the M-2HB or M85 .50 HMG or a M73/M219 coax with no ground mount. Yes tankers had training on the M16 during our Basic/AIT, but the only personnel assigned rifles were some of the mechanics and the headquarters platoon personnel.

When the M1 came out, the SMGs were removed, in some units, and replaced by a single M16. The amusing thing was there was no additional training on the rifle and it was treated as a pain in the arse. You now had two M240s, and there was talk about discounting one, but both were the coax versions and could only be used dismounted with a great deal of trouble.

There was always a lot of talk about a ground mount kit for the loaders mg, but I only saw one kit in the six years I spent on the M1.

[copeab]

A point not mentioned is that the rationale for the M231 is that it would not compromise the NBC system of the vehicle by putting a great big hole in the vehicle for people to poke guns out of!

No firing ports would be even better

Given the relatively poor armor of AFVs, infantry huddling inside a stationary or slow-moving AFV as a mob swarms at them is not a terribly safe idea.

[dragoon500ly]

No firing ports would be even better

Given the relatively poor armor of AFVs, infantry huddling inside a stationary or slow-moving AFV as a mob swarms at them is not a terribly safe idea.

Don't forget those firing ports were also shot traps. Which is why the M231s were pulled, the firing ports blanked over and the later covered with armor plate.

[Olefin]

Personally I would think the old grease gun would be a better weapon than the M231 if I had to dismount and fight with it

[CDAT]

As far as Army doctrine goes, the answer is no.

I date back to the transition time between M48/M60 and M1, my experiences may shed some light. Tankers were always considered to be weapon system operators, self defense took a very far second place. Primary weapon for a tanker was a pistol, on the 48/60 series, you had two M3 series SMGs, and it was not unusual to see the older WWII M3, that was it. Others weapons was the M-2HB or M85 .50 HMG or a M73/M219 coax with no ground mount. Yes tankers had training on the M16 during our Basic/AIT, but the only personnel assigned rifles were some of the mechanics and the headquarters platoon personnel.

When the M1 came out, the SMGs were removed, in some units, and replaced by a single M16. The amusing thing was there was no additional training on the rifle and it was treated as a pain in the arse. You now had two M240s, and there was talk about discounting one, but both were the coax versions and could only be used dismounted with a great deal of trouble.

There was always a lot of talk about a ground mount kit for the loaders mg, but I only saw one kit in the six years I spent on the M1.

You are correct that it is not Military Doctrine but for some commands it is. I started with tanks (spent about ten years, all with M-1/IPM-1/M1-A1's) after they had officially made the switch (about eight years after) but we still had the M1911A1, and M3's, we also had two dismount kits for each tank (one for loaders and second for Coaxial). They fought and delayed as long as they could the switch to the M9/M16. Now I am not saying that the M16 is a bad weapon, but it is a bad weapon for tanks. My brother was in the same unit years later and they switched from the M16 to the M4 as quick as they could (at a one M16 for two M4).

[copeab]

Personally I would think the old grease gun would be a better weapon than the M231 if I had to dismount and fight with it

Possibly, but by the time of the competition, the M3's in service were around 30 years old and would have needed serious refurbishing. Also, the rate of fire is a bit low for a last-ditch defense weapon.

[Olefin]

Any idea if the Army ever looked at the Uzi for a tanker weapon It puts out a good rate of fire and it would be a better crewman/tanker weapon than an M16 for sure

[dragoon500ly]

Personally I would think the old grease gun would be a better weapon than the M231 if I had to dismount and fight with it

I've fired both, given the choice, then M3 would be my choice as well, nice heavy slow moving cartridge, reasonable recoil and clunky enough that you could feather off single shots all day long.

BUT

M3/M3A1 were last manufactured in 1946-47 and only refurbished since then, worn out does not Bevin to describe almost all of the grease guns that I saw or handled. By 1980 or so, you were having problems with worn Sears leading to run always, misfired due to worn firing pins, magazines that wouldn't load, the list was long and growing longer.

When M1 came into service a lot of units were glad to trade grease guns for M16s. And we were promised ground kits for at least the leader's weapon.
And a lot of units kept the grease guns, but after 1982, the decision was made for no more depot rebuilds.