Talk:Springfield Armory M6 Scout

.410 vs. 20 gauge

The 20 gauge would not in any way violate the laws of war, because the 12 gauge does not. Even use of expanding ammunition, in a survival arm, would probably squeak by under the argument that any use on enemy combatants was incidental, not a deliberate violation of the prohibitions in the Hauge accords. See the legal analysis by the US JAG in the Joint Service Combat Shotgun Program document. scot (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the most likely reason for switching from 20 gauge to .410 was to lighten the gun and/or reduce the recoil. As far as the legality of shotguns in war, I think that was pretty well established back in World War I when Germany's complaints about American trench guns got rejected. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a hodge podge of double speak, and ridiculous citations! This gun was made in the 1950's the proto-type was indeed a .22/20ga and WAS INDEED rejected as a violation of the "Laws of War" in effect AT THAT TIME the Hague accord dealing with Trench guns has nothing to do with this weapon and have nothing to do with anything mentioned in the article. As always a little knowledge is worse than none. As stated in the Geneva Accord There is no one "Geneva Convention." Like any other body of law, the laws of war have been assembled piecemeal, and are, in fact, still under construction.. And your less than relevant US JAG legal analysis is no where near relevant to the laws in the 1950's. Dubious discussion fits this very well. If you would do research instead of guessing people would not need to correct your mistakes.

So how does the 20 gauge violate the laws of war, where the 12 gauge and the .410 bore do not? Show me the laws of war in question--because I can certainly show you most of a century of legal precedent that says the 12 gauge shotgun is NOT a violation of the laws of war. scot (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bull, once again, the laws of today governing warfare do not apply to what was in effect in the 1950's! Are you truly daft? a .50 caliber is legal today does that mean it was in the 50's?? NO. You have shown no proof of anything. "Trench guns" JAG legal analysis, none of this pertains to the laws at the time of manufacture in the 1950's. Yet apparently it is the only thing you can find on the internet that fit your version of reality? Like I constantly state nearly everywhere people are allowed to put their stupidity, assumptions and opinions on the internet, they will, and claim them to be fact and demand proof they are wrong instead of proving they are right. Unfortunately it is a near mirror of our society as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.206.146 (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't read the analysis in the Joint Service Combat Shotgun Program report, did you? Let me list the combat shotgun uses that it covered:

Use of buck and ball loads, from George Washington in the American Indian Wars (the British Brown Bess was about a 12 gauge), to the Texas Revolution, through the American Civil War, where the typical musket was a .58 to .69 caliber (about 24 to 14 gauge), and up into the later Indian wars to 1891
Use by the US Marines in the Philippines' Moro Rebellion, 1899-1914.
Use by John J. Pershing's punitive expedition into Mexico after Pancho Villa, 1916
Use by the US American Expeditionary Force (also commanded by Pershing) in 1917, and the result of the 1918 challenge by the Germans (this is the origin of the trench shotgun)
Use by US supported partisans in World War II in both the European and Asian theaters of war, and by US forces in the Pacific, 1939-1945
Use by US forces in the Korean War, 1950-present
Use by the British in their counter-insurgency campaign during the Malayan Emergency, 1948-1959
Use by British, Australian, and New Zealand forces in Borneo during the Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation, 1963-1966
Use by French and Viet Minh forces in the Indochina War, 1946-1954
Use by Viet Cong against the South Vietnam government, 1956 - 1975
Use by Australia, New Zealand, and US forces in the Viet Nam War, 1965-1972 (this includes both 12 gauge and the 40mm M79 loaded with buckshot)
Use by the United States during Operation Desert Storm, 1990-1991

That's over 200 years of use of the combat shotgun and similar weapons, in conflicts spanning the globe, by a number of governments, including at least three permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, and covering the entire decade of 1950-1960. You have yet to provide a single source to back up your claims. I'll even help: here is a summary of the laws of war relating to conventional weapons, covering treaties all the way back to the 1868 St. Petersburg Declaration to the 1980 UN Convention on Conventional Weapons. I challenge you to find ANYTHING in there, other than the previously mentioned 1918 German challenge, that EVER restricted the use of a 20 gauge shotgun, because I surely can't find it. scot (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, just because I believe that nothing should ever be considered true unless it can be confirmed by two independent sources, here is a summary on combat shotgun use by Jane's Information Group, which states, in part:

However, the tactical shotgun was determined by international tribunal to be no less humane than any other weapon in use at the time and has been present in every war since, used mostly by US forces. (emphasis added)

scot (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I see that 75.17.206.146 has also fallen for the myth that .50 caliber ammo is, or was at one point, illegal for use against personnel. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 05:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barrel length

Barrel length on my factory Springfield M6 Scout is very close to 18 inches exact: less than 1/16 inch over 18 inches. It is certainly shorter than 18.25 inch. Naaman Brown (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my Blue Book of Gun Values lists it as 18 1/2 inches. Most measurements provided by manufacturers are approximate, but what matters here is what's verifiable. Your measurement is a single sample, which might be shorter than typical, or your means of measurement might be flawed. At any rate, it's considered original research, and not usable as a reference. scot (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone contemplating any muzzle work on a Springfield M6 scout had better measure the barrel by ATF standards before and after any recrowning or choke boring. An examination of two specimens so far has shown barrel length close to 18 1/32nds and ATF does not go by the Blue Book of Gun Values, but by their original research in actually measuring the barrel. There is nowhere near 1/4 or 1/2 inch margin of error with the M6. Naaman Brown (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this the M6 Scout version of the M6 Aircrew Survival Weapon

A lot of the discussion in the civilian M6 Scout article actually addresses issues more proper for the military M6 Aircrew Survival Weapon article. Naaman Brown (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Springfield Armory M6 Scout. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081201013006/http://www.smallarmsreview.com:80/may.htm to http://www.smallarmsreview.com/may.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Springfield Armory M6 Scout. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070610013656/http://www.bellum.nu:80/armoury/SAM6Scout.html to http://www.bellum.nu/armoury/SAM6Scout.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]