operation market garden, A4 or A6?

it would be a mixture im sure...They wouldn't have put out of service perfectly good guns. The A6 is the later model. Which is why you wont see it around the time of D-Day.

yeah, i know they wouldve had the A4 for the gun emplacements.

Tom.

I guess it depends..You've gotta remember for the most part the US forces were under supplied and cut off from supplies for weeks. As the A6 was relativly new at that time. It might not have got to the front line.

Maybe someone else can fill in the gaps.

It's a mix, obviously due to being under supplied; however the A6's were just converted A4's anyway. It's only a bipod on the front and a stock fitted to the already existing trigger/ pistol grip section plus the removal of the fitting which attaches on to M2 Tripod. Apart from that it's identical...

Anyway! 1919A6 for Market Garden.

okay, well apart from the barrel having a 'flare' at the front?
would you reccomend the gas grease gun ? ive heard its pretty crap.

Tom.

The hudson grease gun is temper-mental. Its a great gun to fire and play around with, but like your marushin garand. Its not really suited for skirmishing. Its a collector piece (wall hanger) and plinking.

yeah, i suppose i should really steer clear of gas guns

Tom.

Yes and the flash hider on the end of the barrel also.

M1A1 Thompson
AEG Garand
AEG M1/M1A1 Carbine

I would say these were your skirmishable choices, I'd say the B.A.R too but from the chronic problems I've seen that Webby has with his...even if I had the money I don't think I'd get one.

Otherwise you could get/make a 30.Cal. Not that hard to make and you have a choice of guns which you can fit in to it.

yeah, i suppose i should really steer clear of gas guns

Tom.

Gas is good when the weather suits it. I've got a marushin M2 (M1 Mk2 as its also called) Carbine, and its very skirmishable. Great power, good gas consumption. But they need looking after, regular cleaning, good storage. Cold weather is a no no for them.

Alot of Axis guys will say the same thing about there Gas K98's. Ive seen them in action, they are excellent. Just need looking after.

So if you dont have alot of experience with GBB's and Airsoft guns in general then id steer clear of them. I'd go down the AEG route like Spiers has said.

With regard to the flash-hider on the A6, there was a discussion about it on the US forum and the feeling was that it was a post-war addition.

As far as the Hudson M3 goes it's a better option than the Garand as it uses 6mm bbs and doesn't have the ejecting clip, however it does suffer from the normal gas gun issues with regard to temprature and the cost of mags.

Issues specific to the M3 is the build quality, many of the fittings are just glued on not very securely, and tend to fall off, and the sling points are such thin plastic that they break if you try to use them but the biggest problem I had when using mine at 'The Eagle Has Landed' game was that all bar 1 of the mags wouldn't feed properly which was really frustrating.

These problems can be solved and despite the problems I had it was fun using it, sounded great too I'm hoping to sort mine out in time for the UCAP game as it should really sound good in the tunnels

Also watch the For Sale section as hopefully in the next few weeks I'll have a M3 AEG for sale

How much will you be looking for, for an M3 AEG Pete?

yeah, sounds interesting

Tom.

How much will you be looking for, for an M3 AEG Pete?

I haven't finalised the price yet, it's going to be built out of a Hudson M3 and a MP7 with a TM Mac-10 mag, that lot stands me at about £200 so it'll be more than that, how much depends on any other bits I need to buy and how much time it takes me.

Just jumping back to the M1919a6 query for a second - if you check T/O&e 7-17 (the Table of Organization and equipment for US rifle company) you'll see that the a6 is listed as of the 26th Feb 1944). However, it is clear from photos that it doesn't appear to have been available in sufficient numbers to infantry or airborne units until after D-Day. Indeed, Graham Webster E/506 (in his book Parachute Infantry) says his unit got them on returning to England in July and prior to jumping in Holland. I would guess infantry units got theirs, as stockpiles became widely available. I have combat reports from the 29th Division saying how they had modified some of their 1919a4's with BAR bipods so they could use them in the hedgerows as the tops of the hedgerows were too narrow to provide support. I don't see how this could physically be done with a BAR bipod - as it's too narrow to fit in/on/around the a4 barrel jacket, but there is an account in a "Battle Experiences" booklet which suggests some units were getting divisional ordnance to weld bipods on. So, despite being available, this show a6s or a6 furniture can't have reached the troops who were improvising it in the field!
As the owner of a deactivated a6, it's not as simple as furniture changes as someone earlier mentioned. There are subtle changes in inner components between the a4 & A6 ( lighter barrels and differently machined inners) to make it lighter. In addirion, on the a6 the barrel jacket is shorter than the a4 to hold the "booster" on which the chunkier bipod swivels. There also isn't a flash hider on the wartime a6 - just a stubby barrel plug (the flash hider was Korean war - but not a lot of people know that ). The stock, true, was a clamp on affair, which fitted on the back of the pistol grip - which has been described elsewhere. There was also a carry handle on the barrel jacket for when it had to be moved after firing. (There's a great 22d Inf Rgt story about a gunner running away from an ambush with a glowing barrel waving away like a neon striplight - until he threw the complete machine-gun into a puddle.
Anyhow, the a6 is a complete pain - and an example of the army meddling with the way they saw the .30 should be used in combat. It make the two man load of the 1919a4 gun and tripod, effectively a one person burden and strips the traverse and stability that a tripod offers. Quite often photos will still show an a6 in a defensive position fitted on a tripod,with the shoulder stock removed but the bipod legs visible and folded back. This would allow traversing fire and I'm guessing the stock went on in the attack where fixed or searching fire was needed.

I hope this helps and doesn't sound too ant f*cker?

I consider myself educated, always thought that the A6 was just a quick fix to make the A4 more mobile.
Thanks for the insight

Depending on where you're travelling from you want to take the A2 which turns into the M2 towards Ramsgate. From there you can get the ferry to Ostend for the quickest route to Eindhoven via Gent and Antwerp.....or have I misunderstood you....

The leg detail on the .30cal's bipod is similar to the BAR, but like the other chap said, the diameter of the .30cal outer barrel is about twice the size of the BARs, I had made a copy of my BAR bipod to put around my .30cal's but using a bigger tube section. Plus you have the addition of the BAR style carry handle, and the rifle stock. I didn't know the flash killer was a post war idea, I guess that saves me a lot of hastle as I now don't have to make 1!

Hullo, you have to watch out for the grab handle on the barrel jacket. The wartime ones are not like those you are probably thinking of (i.e. like the Bren or later the BAR). Although that type is shown in the July '45 TM, they are never seen in combat and don't seem to have reached the front in time or numbers.

The wartime grab handles are different. Imagine two long tear drop shaped plates of metal, with a hole (the same size as the barrel jacket) in the wide part of the tear drop. The tip of the tear drops are connected by a rod with a bakelite/plastic handle. The whole handle slides up and down the jacket wearing away the parkerizing which is partly why it was abandoned. The Korean type grab handle is a better design, but....yep, not right.

I got an original 1 on mine