[Milsurplus] re: OH GRC-9 sold on Epay

[Rian Robison]

Hi,

To add my two cents.....I had one with mixed serial numbers that I was selling at a hamfest.  A fellow came over and told me that he worked on them when he was in the Army and (as been said) that matching serial numbers are rare.  He said when they got one in for service with a bad module, they would swap it out with good module from another GRC-9 that had a different bad module in order to get the radio back into the field as quickly as possible.  Later, when things were slower, they would repair the bad modules that they had collected.

Rian

-----Original Message-----
>From: Scott Johnson <scottjohnson1 at cox.net>
>Sent: Aug 2, 2006 9:28 AM
>To: WA5CAB at cs.com
>Cc: kargo_cult at msn.com, milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
>Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] re: OH GRC-9 sold on Epay
>
>I don't know about the Army, but in the USAF, the only equipment in 
>which the serial is tracked and accountable is that of crypto, 
>classified, or under warranty.  Mixing and matching is commonplace, even 
>necessary to get equipment back in service. Sub assemblies are sorted 
>out later, and repaired or turned in DIFM.  (this was under three level 
>maintenance, things may be different now).
>
>Scott
>
>
>WA5CAB at cs.com wrote:
>> Hue,
>>
>> 99-44/100% of all BC-1306's and RT-77(*)/GRC-9's have mismatched serial 
>> numbers.  I've had a stack of both, and have only ever had one of each where all 
>> three serial numbers matched (and the RT-77 was stolen).  Most likely they were 
>> either unissued or were only briefly in service before being surplused.  As 
>> with the BC-611's, the Army and Marine Corps made no effort to marry back up 
>> matching subassemblies whenever a radio set went through repair or Depot.  
>>
>> So the answers are yes, this is typical (expected, even).  No, the receiver 
>> didn't get more wear.  Yes, the transmitter almost certainly has a different 
>> serial number (and probably so does the case).  And yes, the transmitter was 
>> probably pulled off the end of the line and plugged into the next case off the 
>> line along with the next receiver off the line because a working radio was 
>> important and only the case serial number was accountable.
>>
>> It's like the smooth finish LSD nameplated BC-611's that are so commonly sold 
>> as NOS.  Any buyer dumb enough not to know that it can't possibly be so 
>> deserves what they get.
>>
>> In a message dated 8/2/2006 12:00:20 AM Central Daylight Time, 
>> kargo_cult at msn.com writes: 
>>   
>>> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200011286039&indexURL=0&
>>> photoDisplayType=2#ebayph
>>> otohosting
>>>
>>> is a GRC-9 that recently sold on Epay for over $300. As one of the viewers 
>>> commented to the seller,
>>> this is not new, but
>>> a rebuild, because when you look straight on at the receiver you can see 
>>> that the control markings
>>> were masked off for
>>> repaint of front panel. However, the transmitter appears not to be 
>>> repainted. Is this typical?  Is
>>> it maybe because the
>>> receiver gets more wear &tear?  Or- maybe the transmitter is not even the 
>>> matching S/N, and was
>>> just picked for a
>>> ready to go match to the receiver.  -Hue Miller
>>>
>>>     
>>
>> Robert Downs - Houston
>> <http://www.wa5cab.com> (Web Store)
>> MVPA 9480
>> <wa5cab at cs.com> (Primary email)
>> <wa5cab at houston.rr.com> (Backup email)
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Milsurplus mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
>>
>>   
>______________________________________________________________
>Milsurplus mailing list
>Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
>Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net