[Milsurplus] Strong Stomach Needed.

[Mike Morrow]

>My BC-348-Q has an SO-239 on the front, a modification done by the
>Navy for whatever reason.  ... It is therefore not worth the
>metal it's made of as far as being an authentic piece of equipment is
>concerned.

Modifications made by the military to equipment as part of the equipment's
service history are as authentically significant as the original design of the
equipment.  Look at those R-584/MRC-20 units made from a BC-348, or
those T-412/ART-13B units made from ATC, T-47, and T-47A units, or
all the MWOs performed on gear during its service period.

>It's either trash as the existing rules stated by John & Mike claim...

If you're referring to me, I'd be interested in a quote of any post that
I made to that effect.

I have commented on only ONE recently raised question about surplus
equipment use:  Does ham and hobbyist use have as much historical
interest as the military use of the equipment?

I can't see how such a question could ever be answered YES by anyone
who is interested in this equipment beyond the value of its parts.  Some
may find hobbyist use of this gear to have some level of interest, but
to assert that it has AS MUCH interest as the military's use is, IMHO,
just not credible.

I have not entered any earlier discussion about equipment condition.  I
actually prefer decent specimens that have seen military service use.
The "trash if not mint" discussion belongs to others.  IMHO, the
events that have usually trashed this gear happened after it was surplused.

About the only NOS gear I have is a BC-375-E, a BC-348-Q, a SCR-274-N,
a RU-16/GF-11, a SCR-AS-183, and a AN/ARC-4.  Notice that ALL of these
items are the most common and relatively inexpensive NOS stuff still to be
found today.  But my AN/ARC-1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 25, 27, and 38 sets all reflect
the many years of service that such gear saw, and I'm glad for it.

I can understand in earlier decades why common surplus gear was often
radically modified for hobbyist use, and why attempts were made to
re-design and "improve" performance.  I've done that myself, though
even fourty years ago I never did it to anything that wasn't in questionable
condition when I got it.  It was a way to get on the air at low cost.

The following is strictly my opinion, and its "rule" applies to me only:

Today there is no need to modify in any manner 65-year old equipment just
to get on the air.  The cheapest used 35-year-old rice box will do that with
far better performance characteristics and lower overall cost, if "getting on
the air" is really all that is to be achieved (as was the case after WWII).  
Now, the real value of putting vintage historical military equipment on the air
is to demonstrate and experience as much as is possible *exactly* how the
set performed as designed, and as operated by military personnel for whom
it was intended.  To modify and tweak such gear to "correct a [insert some 
flaw]" or "increase its [insert some quality]" or to "make it [insert some other
quality]" takes the equipment out of historical context and makes going to
all the trouble of putting the set on the air seem rather pointless.

Mike / KK5F