[Milsurplus] BC-348-Q being cheap

[Mike Morrow]

Robert wrote:

> ... if yours [BC-348-R] was built on a fiscal 1943 Order (between 01 July
> 1942 and 30 June 1943), it is not even close to being the next to the last
> one made. 

Not to mention the Soviet US-9 copies of the BC-348.  Those were built on
into the 1960s.  They copied the R version, not the JNQ version.  The JNQ
design departed much more radically from HKLR design than did the US-9.

> From 1941 (calendar), the three groups MOP, KLR and JNQ were built more
> or less concurrently by three contractors and one sub-contractor. 

Would it not be accurate to make these groupings EMOP (all CCT except O),
HKLR (all CDL), and JNQ (all CWQ)?

> Someone yesterday posted a Q model Order Number ending in DAY-DE. DAY means 
> Dayton (Signal Procurement District). 

Ken Corwin's (SK) BC-348 research ( http://www.nj7p.info/Common/History/bc348.html )
documents the last BC-348-Q order number as 928-DAY-DE.

> All that I can think of for DE to mean is 45.

I never would have thought of that correlation.

BTW, a few years ago IIRC Max Cotton posted the order number from a DM-28-G
he had.  This seems to be the concrete evidence for the rare BC-348-G.
I can't find the copy I made of Max's info.  It was posted well after Ken
had passed away and none of the many web copies of his BC-348 pages updated
the missing order and manufacturer info for the G model, AFAIK.

Does anyone recall that DM-28-G info?  I wonder if the G model was similar
to the E model.  There appears to be no single manuals for a EGMOP group,
so probably it's not.

73,
Mike / KK5F