The "Swedish K" submachine gun in Vietnam?
- Thread starter Lucky13
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
Indeed.
mikewint
Captain
SF pretty much got whatever it wanted. Our armorer would obtain almost any weapon you asked for. One guy in my unit actually carried a German Schmeiser. My choice was an Uzi. Suppressed .22 were also to be had for the taking of prisoners
Glider
Captain
Fair comment. I have seen pictures and papers showing the SF using Landrovers and Carl Gustav 84mm anti tank weapons. Clearly not standard US Army issue
When I was in NKP Thailand, but downtown, which was right on the Mekong river.
Just across the river was Thakhek, Laos.
We'd see troops in town dressed in strange uniforms, no markings, no real idea what they were, CIA, Special Forces, or whatever.
Always armed, but no standard arms, and driving Land Rovers, Mitsubishi Jeeps, even a Russian Jeep like vehicle. These had to have been brought across on a ferry, because there was no bridges across the Mekong anywhere nearby, it was about 1/2 mile wide there.
I saw some Swedish Ks carried by them, but they were called Carl Gustavs then.
That was in 1967, never saw any Uzi, the Israels were pretty tight with their Uzis, probably needed every one they made in that time period.
Just across the river was Thakhek, Laos.
We'd see troops in town dressed in strange uniforms, no markings, no real idea what they were, CIA, Special Forces, or whatever.
Always armed, but no standard arms, and driving Land Rovers, Mitsubishi Jeeps, even a Russian Jeep like vehicle. These had to have been brought across on a ferry, because there was no bridges across the Mekong anywhere nearby, it was about 1/2 mile wide there.
I saw some Swedish Ks carried by them, but they were called Carl Gustavs then.
That was in 1967, never saw any Uzi, the Israels were pretty tight with their Uzis, probably needed every one they made in that time period.
Last edited:
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
What is been asked?
Is Sweden an exporter of arms?
Did USA use thus particular gun?
Why use the K?
Sweden embargoed arms so there we go.
Although what the Australians and NZ guys used gets my attention. Hi-powers, SLRs and Sterings or Owens
Is Sweden an exporter of arms?
Did USA use thus particular gun?
Why use the K?
Sweden embargoed arms so there we go.
Although what the Australians and NZ guys used gets my attention. Hi-powers, SLRs and Sterings or Owens
Sweden never put a embargo on selling arms to the USA till 1966, I think.
A little too late. By then plenty had already been sold , and arms dealers have always been pretty adept at finding ways around embargoes.
S&W got a license to make Swedish Ks, but wasn't ready for production till 1967.
A little too late again. By then the Army, Navy, etc. was looking at other weapons.
The K had a reputation of being a well made, easy to control, and tough SMG.
By the time I was in Vietnam in 1971, and in the Army, I saw about every SMG made. There were a lot of loose guns . Owens, Stens, Sterlings, MP-38/40, Uzi, M-3, Grease Guns, Thompsons, various French SMGs, PPSh, and more. Even saw what I think was a MP28.
A little too late. By then plenty had already been sold , and arms dealers have always been pretty adept at finding ways around embargoes.
S&W got a license to make Swedish Ks, but wasn't ready for production till 1967.
A little too late again. By then the Army, Navy, etc. was looking at other weapons.
The K had a reputation of being a well made, easy to control, and tough SMG.
By the time I was in Vietnam in 1971, and in the Army, I saw about every SMG made. There were a lot of loose guns . Owens, Stens, Sterlings, MP-38/40, Uzi, M-3, Grease Guns, Thompsons, various French SMGs, PPSh, and more. Even saw what I think was a MP28.
Last edited:
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
Why the long list of different smgs?
I assume use of the K is to say well it's not American issue so any K found have nothing to do with America.
Why use different smgs in a squad? Mags won't fit?
I assume use of the K is to say well it's not American issue so any K found have nothing to do with America.
Why use different smgs in a squad? Mags won't fit?
soulezoo
Senior Airman
I agree. My brother loathed the M-16 (during 65-66 IIRC) and he chose a Para M-1 carbine as his personal weapon.
mikewint
Captain
And bullets in many cases. I guess it was kinda a kid in a candy store mind set...ANY weapon!! The first AR's I saw were a shock...thought they were BB-guns and the Mattel logo on the butt-stock did't help nor did the jamming. About '66 or so we began to see the CAR-15 Colt version with the 10 inch barrel and folding butt-stock. Very nice to carry but it had a muzzle-blast like a cannon and sounded like one. Colt soon supplied a flash/suppressor which helped with the flash and a bit with the noise. Its extra weight also helped with balancing. 30-round mags were like hen's teeth though. By about '67 everyone carried one
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
Yeah plenty of calibres in that mix of smgs.
Was the French stuff the leftovers from their Vietnam wars or more modern? I guess it would be the MAT-49 and not the MAS-38.
Any Japanese stuff left over too?
Was the French stuff the leftovers from their Vietnam wars or more modern? I guess it would be the MAT-49 and not the MAS-38.
Any Japanese stuff left over too?
Last edited:
The long list of SMGs was just some of what I saw in Vietnam.
Not all in the hands of GIs though.
You had ARVN, Viet militias of various sorts, South Koreans, Australians, CIA, and more.
Not many wore uniforms that you could identify for sure. Sometimes you could get a clue if they spoke a few words.
Most of the time I was there, you had to carry your issued firearms. But flight crew could carry "spares, just in case".
Vietnam for a gun nut was like a 8 year old being locked up in a candy store.
Not all in the hands of GIs though.
You had ARVN, Viet militias of various sorts, South Koreans, Australians, CIA, and more.
Not many wore uniforms that you could identify for sure. Sometimes you could get a clue if they spoke a few words.
Most of the time I was there, you had to carry your issued firearms. But flight crew could carry "spares, just in case".
Vietnam for a gun nut was like a 8 year old being locked up in a candy store.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
SLRs were supposed to be highly thought of by American forces. Were any use by Americans?
The Grease gun was standard issue so I have a fair understanding why other SMGs may have been preferred.
The Grease gun was standard issue so I have a fair understanding why other SMGs may have been preferred.
By 71 even the Marines had been converted to the M-16, but some still wanted the 7.62x51, so you still saw some M-14s.
I saw some SLRs, carried by who I assumed was Australians. But because of the mismash of uniforms, you sometimes didn't know who you were looking at.
My older brother had been in Vietnam, 63, 65, 67, and 70, maybe more. He was SF part of that time. But he was there in 64-65 during the debacle of the early M-16 introduction to combat.
By 1971, all of the M-16's problems were solved, according to the Army. But I trusted my older brother's experience with the M-16 more than I did the Army.
My primary weapon was a M-60, but my official standby was a what we called then a Car-15, sorta like today's M-4. My greatest fear was getting shot down and having to E&E in the dark. The Car-15 had a big muzzle blast, I didn't like that, nor did I trust the gun itself.
My chosen standby was a grease gun, that someone had fitted a pretty good muzzle suppressor. I bought wadcutter rounds thru the PX, that fed thru the action with no problems. So I had a easy to control SMG, plenty of knock-down power, no big muzzle signature, and accurate enough for my needs.
I just had to keep the wad-cutter rounds out of sight since some officers were " by the book".
Other door gunners made different choices, not many stayed with the Car-15.
I saw some SLRs, carried by who I assumed was Australians. But because of the mismash of uniforms, you sometimes didn't know who you were looking at.
My older brother had been in Vietnam, 63, 65, 67, and 70, maybe more. He was SF part of that time. But he was there in 64-65 during the debacle of the early M-16 introduction to combat.
By 1971, all of the M-16's problems were solved, according to the Army. But I trusted my older brother's experience with the M-16 more than I did the Army.
My primary weapon was a M-60, but my official standby was a what we called then a Car-15, sorta like today's M-4. My greatest fear was getting shot down and having to E&E in the dark. The Car-15 had a big muzzle blast, I didn't like that, nor did I trust the gun itself.
My chosen standby was a grease gun, that someone had fitted a pretty good muzzle suppressor. I bought wadcutter rounds thru the PX, that fed thru the action with no problems. So I had a easy to control SMG, plenty of knock-down power, no big muzzle signature, and accurate enough for my needs.
I just had to keep the wad-cutter rounds out of sight since some officers were " by the book".
Other door gunners made different choices, not many stayed with the Car-15.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
Love this kinda discussion
I'm learning!
Interested to hear about the M-16 experience in Vietnam and how that still taint the modern gun.
Although still wondering what Lucky was about in this thread and whether he was asking a question or just saying.
I'm learning!
Interested to hear about the M-16 experience in Vietnam and how that still taint the modern gun.
Although still wondering what Lucky was about in this thread and whether he was asking a question or just saying.
I went through Army basic in 1969, even though I'd been in the USAF 4 years, they made me go through Army basic training.
In basic training the Army put a strong emphasis on maintaining the M-16, and keeping it clean.
Maybe they over emphasised keeping it clean, leaving the impression if it wasn't perfectly clean it'd jamb.
That along with their over-exaggeration on how effective the fast moving round could be was counter productive in my case.
For example they said a M-16 hit in the lower leg could shattered the leg to the hip. Right across the knee joint?? Yeah right !
Their BS ended up tainting everything they said.
Everyone knows you clean your weapon every day, but they ended up making you think you had to maybe break off action and clean it, or it'd jamb. That didn't inspire a lot of confidence.
Right or wrong, I didn't trust it. And I wasn't by myself in that.
In basic training the Army put a strong emphasis on maintaining the M-16, and keeping it clean.
Maybe they over emphasised keeping it clean, leaving the impression if it wasn't perfectly clean it'd jamb.
That along with their over-exaggeration on how effective the fast moving round could be was counter productive in my case.
For example they said a M-16 hit in the lower leg could shattered the leg to the hip. Right across the knee joint?? Yeah right !
Their BS ended up tainting everything they said.
Everyone knows you clean your weapon every day, but they ended up making you think you had to maybe break off action and clean it, or it'd jamb. That didn't inspire a lot of confidence.
Right or wrong, I didn't trust it. And I wasn't by myself in that.
Last edited:
soulezoo
Senior Airman
The failures of the early M-16 were not born from the inherent design of the weapon, but big Army. Those failures are well documented. Everything from wrong propellant in the cartridge, the idea that it was so good it didn't need to be cleaned (and cleaning kits not even issued!), to an over reliance on the lethality of the bullet itself.
Since this is off topic to the OP and the info is so readily available, I'll not expound on this too much. However, much as this forum discusses the evolution of aircraft (take the Spitfire for instance), things evolve as lessons are learned and modifications made.
The modern M-4 is not even at the end of its development cycle and continues to improve and it's nearly as reliable today as an AK-47 is. (Nearly-- not quite) An example of this is an off the shelf AR-15 dubbed the "Filthy 14". It has been used in a training class for some years (EAG) and purposely not been cleaned at all for the duration. Last I saw, it was over 40,000 rounds with no cleaning and no adverse effects from the no cleaning. All that has been done is to lube the heck out of it. This flys in the face of the notion widely held that one does not want to over lube a weapon because it attracts dirt and could cause problems thusly. Well, what they found was "over lubing" tended to wash out crud and kept everything flowing smoothly. Like overeating exlax. The conventional wisdom now as a result is to keep the weapon properly cleaned of course, but also to keep it well lubed and not dry.
As far as the projectile goes, great advances have been made here as well. Current issue Mk318 is a wonderful round for terminal ballistics. For long range, I regularly shoot Mk262 clones out to 800 yards from a 16" barrel.
Comparing today's M-4 to yesterday's M-16 and thinking it's all the same is a lot like saying a Spit Mk XIV was the same as a Spit Mk I.
Since this is off topic to the OP and the info is so readily available, I'll not expound on this too much. However, much as this forum discusses the evolution of aircraft (take the Spitfire for instance), things evolve as lessons are learned and modifications made.
The modern M-4 is not even at the end of its development cycle and continues to improve and it's nearly as reliable today as an AK-47 is. (Nearly-- not quite) An example of this is an off the shelf AR-15 dubbed the "Filthy 14". It has been used in a training class for some years (EAG) and purposely not been cleaned at all for the duration. Last I saw, it was over 40,000 rounds with no cleaning and no adverse effects from the no cleaning. All that has been done is to lube the heck out of it. This flys in the face of the notion widely held that one does not want to over lube a weapon because it attracts dirt and could cause problems thusly. Well, what they found was "over lubing" tended to wash out crud and kept everything flowing smoothly. Like overeating exlax. The conventional wisdom now as a result is to keep the weapon properly cleaned of course, but also to keep it well lubed and not dry.
As far as the projectile goes, great advances have been made here as well. Current issue Mk318 is a wonderful round for terminal ballistics. For long range, I regularly shoot Mk262 clones out to 800 yards from a 16" barrel.
Comparing today's M-4 to yesterday's M-16 and thinking it's all the same is a lot like saying a Spit Mk XIV was the same as a Spit Mk I.
mikewint
Captain
We had the very first AR-15s and like I posted earlier they looked like BB-guns, had a Mattel logo on the butt-stock, and those tiny .22 cal bullets seemed to be a joke after having trained with the M-14. We were told specifically by the very factory reps that the new 15s were such precision instruments that they did not...not...not need to ever be cleaned and as such no cleaning kits. Then came the jams and the gas tube burn outs. I kept my nice little Uzi
The little .223 bullet is/was easily deflected. A leaf was enough. In flesh it did tend to tumble and did make some nasty lethal wounds quite different from the kind the big M-14 made. In a jungle the tenancy to deflect was a problem and we learned that we needed at least 1 or 2 M-14s in a squad.
The CAR-15s were very nice, small compact, folding butt-stock which was a wonder but badly balanced. Then you shot one and saw/heard that massive blast and unburned powder quickly fouled the barrel. All kinds/types of flash suppressors were tried and nothing worked. And big mighty Colt couldn't make a working 30-round mag!!! Eventually 4 or 5 arrived! WTF, this is COLT!!! When 30-rounders started appearing on the civilian market we STILL could not get any. Units started pooling money and actually sent away to buy them on the civilian market
The little .223 bullet is/was easily deflected. A leaf was enough. In flesh it did tend to tumble and did make some nasty lethal wounds quite different from the kind the big M-14 made. In a jungle the tenancy to deflect was a problem and we learned that we needed at least 1 or 2 M-14s in a squad.
The CAR-15s were very nice, small compact, folding butt-stock which was a wonder but badly balanced. Then you shot one and saw/heard that massive blast and unburned powder quickly fouled the barrel. All kinds/types of flash suppressors were tried and nothing worked. And big mighty Colt couldn't make a working 30-round mag!!! Eventually 4 or 5 arrived! WTF, this is COLT!!! When 30-rounders started appearing on the civilian market we STILL could not get any. Units started pooling money and actually sent away to buy them on the civilian market
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
As a former military medic myself....although not Special forces!!!! I would be interested in wounding of different rounds.
I do think the Swedish K and the M-16 is relevant to this thread as the K would be replaced by the AR-15 variant. And SMGs are been replaced by carbines. When the initial issues with the M-16 were resolved was it still unreliable or was it perceived to be unreliable.
I do think the Swedish K and the M-16 is relevant to this thread as the K would be replaced by the AR-15 variant. And SMGs are been replaced by carbines. When the initial issues with the M-16 were resolved was it still unreliable or was it perceived to be unreliable.
mikewint
Captain
Cleaning resolved most of the problems plus the addition of the forward assist. The gas tubes were strengthened and made of a higher temp metal as burnouts became less frequent. It remained the Swiss Watch in a jungle weapon. The VC would bury an AK in the mud and sand for months, dig them up and shoot. Cleaning was an old rope dipped in old motor oil.
The initial CAR-15s had the problems already posted above. Eventually a flashhider/suppressor about 4in long was developed that mostly eliminated the flash and reduced the sound a bit plus Colt lengthened the barrel (11.5in) with an indent for a grenade launcher, taken together they improved the balance and improved the shootability but barrel fouling, range, and accuracy problems remained and 30-round mags never did appear.
Can't say that we ever treated many wounded VC/NVA but I do have some pics which I hesitate to post. An AR wound: "looks like a grenade went off in there," University of Arizona trauma surgeon Peter Rhee stated when comparing the damage done by AR-15 bullets and 9mm handgun bullets. "The other looks like a bad knife cut."
The bullet from an AR-15 rifle leaves the muzzle at three times the speed of a handgun bullet. That means it has plenty of energy to "distribute" inside the body upon collision. It can disintegrate three inches of leg bone, turning it to "dust" according to Donald Jenkins, a trauma surgeon at the University of Texas Health Science Center. "The liver looks like a jello mold that's been dropped on the floor," if hit by the same bullet, Jenkins says. The exit would can be the size of an orange. In addition to turning a bone to dust or liver into jello, the high energy would also cause damage around the entry and exit wounds.
When a high-velocity bullet pierces the body, human tissue can ripple just like water does when you throw an object in it. But it all happens at increased velocity. The bullet and its ensuing fragments might miss a critical artery, but the cavitation effect could tear through blood vessels.
An AR-15 bullet wound needs three to ten surgeries to repair it.
The initial CAR-15s had the problems already posted above. Eventually a flashhider/suppressor about 4in long was developed that mostly eliminated the flash and reduced the sound a bit plus Colt lengthened the barrel (11.5in) with an indent for a grenade launcher, taken together they improved the balance and improved the shootability but barrel fouling, range, and accuracy problems remained and 30-round mags never did appear.
Can't say that we ever treated many wounded VC/NVA but I do have some pics which I hesitate to post. An AR wound: "looks like a grenade went off in there," University of Arizona trauma surgeon Peter Rhee stated when comparing the damage done by AR-15 bullets and 9mm handgun bullets. "The other looks like a bad knife cut."
The bullet from an AR-15 rifle leaves the muzzle at three times the speed of a handgun bullet. That means it has plenty of energy to "distribute" inside the body upon collision. It can disintegrate three inches of leg bone, turning it to "dust" according to Donald Jenkins, a trauma surgeon at the University of Texas Health Science Center. "The liver looks like a jello mold that's been dropped on the floor," if hit by the same bullet, Jenkins says. The exit would can be the size of an orange. In addition to turning a bone to dust or liver into jello, the high energy would also cause damage around the entry and exit wounds.
When a high-velocity bullet pierces the body, human tissue can ripple just like water does when you throw an object in it. But it all happens at increased velocity. The bullet and its ensuing fragments might miss a critical artery, but the cavitation effect could tear through blood vessels.
An AR-15 bullet wound needs three to ten surgeries to repair it.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
