[Boatanchors] Fw: Revised/tamed version/ here we go again -- sanctity of mil gear

[rbethman]

Henry,

I'd rather see it being used than setting around gathering dust!

Good on ya mate!

Bob - N0DGN

On 5/7/2011 3:21 PM, Henry Mei'l's wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Henry Mei'l's"<meils at get2net.dk>
> Cc:<boatanchors at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 11:24 PM
> Subject: Re: [Boatanchors] here we go again -- sanctity of mil gear aka
> original sin
>
> This is a toned-down revision of a mail I sent to this reflector yesterday.
> (I hope the original version has been trashed).
>
>
>
>> And for the n-th time -- many/most of us wouldn't be on these radio
>> reflectors today if we hadn't
>> cut our radio teeth on the then-abundant mil surplus gear.
>>
>> It's a compliment to the very fine quality of vintage mil gear that many
>> prefer to update them rather than modify commercial gear. Also many
>    prefer the rugged and solid look of mil gear.
>    Radios that look like real radios and having historical significance.
>> Limited, retro-able modernization of mil gear is fine with me -- still nuf
>> original stuff around for collectors and museums. -- So much (most?)
>      mil gear has been modified by the  military via field changes and
> updated revised
>     (hopefully improved/modified ) versions of earlier productions. Can also
> imagine
>     that many of the original design engineers did themselves do mods on the
> these rigs
>     when they used them on the ham bands years later.
>    .
>
> Also, using the vintage mil rigs on the air, even if they have been adapted
> to today's
> higher standards of stability and signal quality, is a great  QSO
> conversation topic
> in iteself and is a first class way of perpetuating the history of  WWII mil
> gear.
>
> Why not accept the fact that there are different views on this subject as
> there are
> on just about every other subject you can name.
>
> HFM
> oz3o n2nr