I find it interesting to compare and contrast shooting the Thompson (a 1921 with a 1928 recoil setup installed), the M16 with a couple different .45 ACP uppers, and the full size Uzi with a .45 ACP conversion.  Each setup as its own "personality".  At the end of the day, .45 ACP is too expensive to shoot full auto no matter what you use.

MHO, YMMV, etc.

Pearls were made in the 1960s by a guy named Marty Pearl, he made about 60 of them as a hobby project.  They are generally considered to be inferior to the West Hurley guns in terms of dimensional problems and receiver warping due to not being stress-relieved.

Thompsons are like a Garand in terms of being sculpted from solid billet by many different complicated machining operations.  

When you consider that Numrich had the West Hurley guns made without blueprints, it's kind of amazing how well they came out.

The cost of a WWII 1928 Thompson was $4,500 in 2024 dollars, whereas the M3 Grease Gun was $270 in 2024 dollars.  

The M1 model Thompsons were only $1200 or so in 2024 dollars, because they stripped A LOT of frou-frou out of it.  Most notably changing the delayed blowback Blish design to a simple blowback.

The guy who designed the original 1921 Thompson must have been a maker of custom shop fowling pieces, because the gun is absurdly feature-laden and expensive.  The fit and finish on the Colts is amazing.  

BEWARE THAT THERE ARE A TON OF BAD REWELDS OUT THERE IN ADDITION TO THE KNOCK-OFFS.

FUN FACTOID:

British commandos preferred to use Thompsons in WWII.  You almost always see commandos carrying Thompsons in pictures.  They absolutely would not use STENs, because a STEN can slam fire if the user falls down hard.

It's remarkable how various guns feel different.  Some feel perfect and some feel like crap.

I had one of those flyweight H&R Topper single-shot shotguns in 16 ga, and nobody but me could stand to shoot it.  It felt fine to me, but everyone else would practically start crying when that skinny little steel buttplate would jam into their shoulder joint.

The first time I ever shouldered a Thompson was amazing to me, it felt absolutely perfect.  But I'm tall and I have large hands.  So could see a shorter or different shaped guy not liking it.  It looks weird, but the placement of the grips and buttstock is about right.  The LOP is kind of long.



I can reload 100 rounds of 45acp on my RCBS Pro 2000 in about 15 minutes for about $22.  

I think that's what the cost was last time I totaled it up.  That's with lead heads.

So that takes the sting out of it a little.

I'm trying to figure out how to lower the ammo cost for my new M16.  I came up with $37 for 100 reloads.  That's hardly worth it.

If you guys never saw "Public Enemies", check it out.

IT'S A GENUINELY GREAT MOVIE

It's pre-DEI, so there are no Empowered Girl Bosses in it.  So don't count on any empowerment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_4S_-cr9Rs

My undergrad degree is Mechanical Engineering. Your discussion is exactly what I have in mind, but I think you're ignoring that the shape of the stock is what controls where the contact area of your shoulder is in relation to the bore line (X in your annotations). If the stock extended straight back without so much drop at the heel, X would be reduced.

I am just familiar with the 1942 prototypes; I don't know anything about the testing or results thereof. I don't have the book in question.

Also, while I'm aware that the 1942 stock is an example of a straight stock, the design that I am familiar with is not what I'm suggesting or asking about. In the 1942 version that I'm aware of, the stock actually rises up over the rear of the receiver necessitating taller sights. I am not sure what the other prototype looks like, I'm only aware of this one:



The version I'm envisioning is different. Specifically, I'm wondering how much it would help recoil if you made a more-or-less traditionally shaped Thompson stock with the same drop at comb but made it extend straight back so that the drop at comb is equal to the drop at heel. I think you'd still be able to use the stock sights with that setup because most people seem to place their cheek at or close to the front of the comb when shooting. This would not eliminate the X dimension as sleestakwhisperer annotated above, but it would reduce it.

The fact that you have done 10,000 free body diagrams makes me happy.  I love talking about physics but I'm too lazy to type it out much.  

By the word "shape", I was referring to it being straight or curved, as opposed to the vertical distance between the bore and butt plate.

It seems to me that a lot of shooters are under the impression that a straight stock will automatically have less climb than a curved stock, even if it's angled sharply downward like on the MP40, and there is a significant distance between the forces in the moment couple.

On a side note:  even when a gun has a butt plate that is very high relative to the bore, if the shooter has to put his shoulder down low on the butt plate, it negates the advantages of having the butt plated lifted so high.  Because the center of pressure on the butt plate is down low.

Speaking of which, I am tall and I always have the chicken wing going and end up with just the very toe of the buttstock on my shoulder when I shoot an AR15.  Which basically negates a lot of the advantage of that design.

Like this guy, only worse:

Can you make a sketch of your idea and post it up?

Seeing as how the shooter's shoulder location is fixed, is it possible to reduce the moment couple without lowering the axis of the bore relative to the shoulder?

Checkout the first and last posts here:
https://www.machinegunboards.com/forums/index.php?/topic/28431-straight-stock-mystery/

ETA: it didn't seem like anyone knew anything about the first one. No one commented on the last one either. It just seems like an interesting idea to play with to see if it improved the control of the gun.

Ost. I've always wanted a thompson. I need to find someone local and handle/ shoot one.  

I'm sure i could Google it but is there a model where the furniture is interchangeable between the war time and gangster style guns? And I remember reading that only certain models took drums?

Anyone want to trade a 1919 lol. I like shooting it (especially with the 22lr kit) but it is truly a pain / inconvenience to own a crew served weapon without a crew to serve it....it has a lot of baggage when I take it to the range.

I have had my 1928 Savage Thompson for probably about a decade.  Like every machinegun there are pros/cons to the Thompson just like every model machinegun out there.

For a Thompson the biggest pros in my opinion is how it looks, how iconic it is in the firearm world, the robust construction being an all milled steel firearm (so you will never wear it out), the good availability of magazines/drums/replacement parts, and if you choose to nerd out on all things Thompson you can spend a venerable lifetime reading every book, chasing down esoteric accessories, leaning about every variation and marking nuance, going to TCA events, etc.

The biggest cons for the Thompson is that IMHO they are really not a great shooter.   They are very heavy for a subgun weighing in more than most 308 battle rifles, the stocks LOP is long and the stock angle is not very comfortable, the iron sites are marginal at best and even the Lyman is overly complicated for what it is (with no way to really improve the sights or add an optic), its open bolt so first shot accuracy like all open bolt guns is not great, its in a more expensive caliber to shoot in volume (45acp vs. 9mm), they really can't be easily suppressed  (yes I know folks have made one off adapters/suppressors for Thompsons), other than some 22LR kits there isn't much you can do to expand the shooting experience, and the fire control levers and mag release are awkward in positioning.

While the rearward recoil is not bad at all as its an 11+lbs gun shooting a pistol cartridge the muzzle climb controllability isn't the best.  Personally I think this is due to the fact that the vast majority of the actual weight in the Thompson is from the pistol grip and back (the steel grip frame, the wood stock, the whole rear end of the receiver, where the majority of the mass of the bolt is during the firing sequence, etc.) The front end of the Thompson where the weight needs to really be to control muzzle climb is actually pretty light.  The vertical front grip helps with this but the 1928A1, M1, M1A1 horizontal foregrips don't have a whole lot of material to grab onto and its easy to burn your hand on the barrel if you are not careful.  The  angle of the stock with the "high-rise" placement of the receiver and sights doesn't help to mitigate muzzle climb either.

For me personally, having shot machineguns since I was a kid and  being 6ft/200lbs controlling a Thompson is no big deal.  However, folks new to machineguns or shooters who don't have a lot of upper body strength (small women, kids) controllability is a very real concern.  Given how iconic the Thompson is, you seem to get never ending requests from folks to put a mag through it or let their 13 year old son shoot it.

I know this is probably sacrilege, but honestly I think the Reising is a better shooter being closed bolt and a better more ergonomic stock arrangement.  There are other downside to the Reising for sure but if you have one that runs I actually prefer shooting my Reising over the Thompson.

That said even though my Thompson doesn't get shot all that much, it is always on the front row in my safe as it just always makes me smile opening the door and seeing a wood and steel 1928 Thompson sitting there.

As for price, Thompsons have a huge variation in pricing and are probably one of the more daunting transferable machinegun purchases you can make.  Prices vary significantly depending upon model, manufacturer, and condition.  There are $75K+ cherry 1921 Colts all the way down to poorly done remans or registered firing pin 1927 conversions.   In between these two extremes are an ocean worth of pricing and nuance to consider.  Personally I think the WW2 manufactured (Savage and Bridgeport) 1928s represent the best value.  As for 1921/28 vs M1/M1A1,  the M1/M1A1 may be a product improved version, but to me the iconic Thompson SMG is the 21/28 in all of its vertical front grip, finned barrel, cuts compensator, removable stock, and drum capable glory.

Basically, the Thompson has two models:

The 1921 / 1928 type that uses a complicated retarded blowback system.  This is the "classic Thompson" that takes drum mags, has the vertical foregrip, detachable buttstock, finned barrel, Cutts compensator, fancy Lyman ladder sight.  This is the gangster model and also was used in early WWII battles like Guadalcanal.

The M1 / M1A1 type that uses a simple blowback system.  This is the stripped-down mid to late WWII version that you see soldiers using in later battles like D-Day and Iwo Jima.  It does not take drum mags, they got rid of the drums in favor of 30 round stick mags.

There is some part interchangeability between the two types, but people don't really swap parts back an forth between the two types.  Because it would be really weird looking and kind of a sacrilege.

It seems really complicated at first, but if you just dive in and start reading, you'll figure it all out soon enough.  

machinegunboards.com is a REALLY good Thompson site, if you have any specific questions to ask.

1928 at top, M1A1 at bottom

As far as shooting the Thompson goes, I learned very early on that one NEVER gives a first time Thompson shooter  - regardless of how much shooting experience they have - a mag with more than ten rounds in it.  They will invariably turn the Thompson into an anti-aircraft gun.  Their subsequent shooting will probably be okay as they have got a "feel" for how the Thompson behaves.

And for suppressed Thompson shooting (no personal experience):
https://www.griffinarmament.com/1-375x24-cutts-compensator-mount-for-the-bushwhacker-46/

MHO, YMMV, etc.

And yet for reasons that are a mystery to me the Thompson seems to always be the gun newbies want to shoot first.  

Its usually followed by the comment of "I can't believe how heavy this gun is"  followed up by "how do I aim this thing" as they awkwardly try and shoulder it while trying to figure out where to put their head/cheek.  

Its definitely a guns you have to help folks figure out how to hold properly.  Even folks who shoot and owns guns find the Thompson awkward the first time they try and shoulder it much less get their head in the right position to line up the sights.  Its not uncommon for me to end up telling folks "just use the big U slot in the charging  as the rear sight" and let them shoot half a mag semi auto to confirm point of impact and their ability to control it, then flip it to auto when they only have ~10rds left in the mag.  

A lot folks also struggle with the safety and fire selector (not turning them 180 degrees) or which one does what. Probably less than half can figure out how to install a magazine,  and almost no one can figure out how to get the mag release to function.  I usually just tell them I will install the mag for you and you most likely won't be able to figure out how to get the mag out, so just keep the gun pointed downrange and hand it back to me when its empty and I will remove the mag and rerack the gun.

The best gun I have found for new shooters is the suppressed MP5K-N with 4 position 3rb pack.   They are small, light, with almost no recoil, short stock LOP and you can graduate them to full auto through the mechanical burst setting.  For some reason way the, stock, foregrip, and  sights are set up on the K it seems like most new shooters can intuitively hold it up and shoulder it propertly and successfully align the front sight blade in the ghost-ring inside the rear drum sight and successfully shoot without much muzzle climb.  The pictos on the grip frame also make it very easy to understand how the gun will operate (or won't operate) when you pull the trigger and the paddle for the mag is usually really easy to operate as well.

From the email..

Most people who have never shouldered a rifle before will hold the rifle more or less 90 degrees to their chest, and then tilt their head very awkwardly to line their eye up with the sights.

They also plant their feet more or less square to the target and lean way backwards to counterbalance the weight of the gun and their arms.

I could see a heavy bastard with a longish LOP like the Thompson making that problem worse.

The Thompson fits me perfect.  The first time I picked one up I was amazed at how nice it felt.  Then again, I have a 37 inch shirt sleeve length.

How do you shoot with it?  Do you find it hard to hit with?

Obviously, it's a personal thing, but it's my favorite subgun to shoot.   I shoot steel plate matches with it.  I never win because I'm too slow, but I don't have any trouble hitting the targets.  I'm slow with my UZI too, and that has a really great red dot on it.

I'm going to have to do a "paper plate test" on myself now to see how good I actually am with the Thompson.  I'm curious now.

People always say that MAC10s are hard to shoot as well, but I loved mine.   I would pull the shoulder stock out and hold it with a firm two handed grip on the pistol grip, like I was shooting a magnum pistol, it was really accurate.  Very dependable too, it never jammed.

Here's a good video of some target shooting with the Thompson, give you an idea of it's shooting properties

I notice in the video that he uses that WWI-era tiny v-notch sight on the 28.

what I do is lift the ladder sight and use the peep at the lowest setting, for close in.  But I like peep sights.

The M1A1 model doesn't have the fancy Lyman ladder sight, it's just a fixed peep sight, with a notch on top for long range shooting.

Personally, I've never fired a rifle that feels as badly as the Thompson does.

The length of pull is too long for anyone who doesn't have long arms. the height of the sights compared to the stock makes you have to place the stock almost under your armpit, the weight isn't that heavy as a number but the balance is so poor it feels heavier than the M16/203 combo I carried in the Army.

It you're one of the (few) persons that it fits, great for you, but those are few and far between.  

It's an awesome looking, reliable SMG that has an iconic look.  That said, if I was in WWII I'd have traded or stolen about any other rifle to replace a Thompson, to include a Grease Gun, which feels and points far better for me.

It's a 1st generation submachine gun, they hadn't figgered out the ergonomics, the caliber, or the operating system.  But it worked, and it was the best gun on the battlefield for 200 yds & in shy of a LMG or automatic rifle.

Yes, it has been done.  I had a fine gentleman who goes by Deerslayer over on the Thompson Board (Machinegunboards.com) make me one to match the 1923 Thompson (which never went anywhere). He did so for $200 and it makes a world of difference in shooting the Thompson.  With the original stock, it's constantly trying to slide down off my shoulder, but with the 1923 stock with much less drop it acts like a normal stock and just sits there.  It worked so well another Thompson shooter at my gun club sent away for one also.  He can make one for you, too.

I have also experimented with a custom stock with a very high comb for use with a red dot optic.  It works, but looks a little silly.

That's fine, some people like ice cream, some people like blood sausage.

But isn't it true that 5% to 10% of the public will HATE literally ANY PRODUCT, no matter how good it is?

The vast majority of the popular products on Amazon have maybe 5 to 10% of their reviews in the "one star" column.  That actually really threw me when I first started shopping on Amazon, I'd go to buy a really well-known professional grade soldering iron or something like that and 6% of the reviewers would HATE it.  REALLY, REALLY HATE IT.  That would seem like huge number, worthy of concern.  

I'd think, "They sold 12,670 of these soldering irons and 760 of those buyers LOATHE it.  It must have some big problem."

If Taylor Swift gave out free lap dances on Amazon, the review summary would look like this:



In fact, they should use the above graphic for everything and call it good.

When discussing buttstocks and shooting techniques for the Thompson, it's important to remember that John Thompson designed it to be a "trench broom" for use in the  European trench battles of The War to End All Wars (later World War I).  The first commercial Thompsons, the Model 1919, did not have buttstocks.  It was the police and military - the target customers - who demanded that there be a buttstock.  John Dillinger recognized that the Thompson was best used sans buttstock, and so the term for shooting from the hip without a buttstock came to be called "gangster style" when it was actually the original intent "trench warfare - military style".

MHO, YMMV, etc.

Of course, it's fine if people like something or don't like something, but I suspect that a lot of the criticism of firearms and firearm products in general comes from people who have never owned or even used those products.  Or they just used it one time.   Sometimes you read stuff that just makes you roll your eyes.

For example, the Thompson has FRE of 1.7 ft-lbs.  How hard could it be to shoot a gun that has 1/3 the recoil of an AR15?  Come on.  Look at the video I posted, the guy is shooting it like a full auto BB gun.

So if you see someone acting like it's an M11/9 shooting +P ammo, it just does not smack of the truth.  

I'm not saying that all criticisms of guns are completely invalid.  

If you are used to shooting a featherweight gun like an M16 or AR15, a Thompson is going to feel like it's made from Uranium when you first pick it up.  

But in the objective sense, the heaviest model is 11.0 lbs, which is the same as a Garand.  You'll soon get used to it.  If the Garand is called the "best battle implement ever devised", obviously you can happily acclimate to an 11 lb gun.

Even an UZI SMG weighs 9 lbs and it's a sheet metal gun.  The Thompson is lovingly sculpted like industrial art from solid billet steel, and it only added 2 lbs.  

Same thing with people saying the ergonomics are bad.  The Thompson was in use with the US military and police from 1921 until the early 1970s.  They used 1.7 million of them in WWII.  The police loved them, the US army loved them, the British army loved them.  

The US military could have told Auto Ordnance Corp to shorten the stock by an inch or two at any time, but they didn't.   They literally completely redesigned the upper receiver in the middle of the war, but they left the stock the same length and shape.  So what does that tell you?   Think about it.

It just seems like a whole lot of happy users for a gun that has *awful* ergonomics.

Again, if you are used to shooting an AR15 for your whole life, it might seem weird.  But that doesn't necessarily mean it's bad.

Sometimes you have to use stuff for a while to get used to it, before you find out if you actually like it or not.

I bought a pinball machine called "Cirqus Voltaire" for my wife.  And I bought an Addams Family pin for me.  I DESPISED THE CIRQUS VOLTAIRE for the first 6 months.  And my wife thought the Addams was "ugly."  Now, my wife plays the Addams exclusively and thinks it's hilarious.  And the Cirqus Voltaire is my all-time favorite pin.  

If I had just played the Circus Voltaire at a Barcade a few times, I would have said it sucked for the rest of my life.



Of course, again, personal tastes are personal tastes.  

I have an UZI and I shoot it with the wood buttstock.  I absolutely HATE the metal folding stock on it.  But clearly, most people are fine with it.  But I don't like it.  (Actually, it's very cleverly designed.)



Also, on a related note, even when Expert Gun Gurus actually use a product and then review it, they usually don't give it a thorough enough of an evaluation.

The Expert Gun Gurus do youtube videos where they evaluate a gun or maybe compare guns, and their half-hour review is supposed to have some huge empirical gravity, while completely ignoring the real-life service record of the gun.

"NEW VIDEO!  TIMMY AND STEVE DO A HEAD-TO-HEAD SHOOTOUT OF THE M16 AND AK47!  THEY SHOOT 5 WHOLE MAGS EACH!  WHICH GUN WILL COME OUT ON TOP??"

Then the video is done like both guns are brand new products, completely ignoring the fact that both the M16 and AK had been adopted by a couple of humongous armies, used for decades on end, and used in a bunch of actual wars.  Maybe the video would be more useful if Timmy and Steve acknowledged that the Vietnam War had happened.




To conclude, I would say that if anyone was interested in buying a Thompson, or any other MG, see if you can find one to finger bang a little and see if it fits you OK.  If it feels OK on your shoulder, you're GTG.

I'm starting to sound like a Thompson salesman.  LOL

If you are interested in picking up a Thompson, be sure to watch that Hickcock45 video I posted.

I feel it's a very accurate portrayal of the "shootability" of the gun.  My experience of shooting maybe 10,000 rounds out of mine is very similar.  Put it to your shoulder, tear stuff up.


This is in Bosnia, I think.  Where would they get the ammo?  Probably from one of the plants that makes it for the american market

Thanks for sharing your experience!

I need to get a couple of those movie drums. They sure last a lot longer than my 50's

Notice at $30,000 nobody bid on either one

How much do you get paid per click?

Attached File

Attached File


Also the M1 and M1A1 are not "product improvement" in function.  They lost functions like the quick detach stock and ability to use drums, because they were cost cutting modifications.  Lack of useless Blish lock and more protection of the simplified later style 1928 rear sight are the only real "improvements".

It's hard to get that 500th round in the drum.  A real thumb buster.

Yes, that's why I posted the thread.

I'm not a gun dealer and I don't know any.  I'm neither buying or selling.  

I posted this thread to alert my fellow collectors to the fact that Thompson prices are relatively soft right now.

I do not know why they are soft.  They are historically an "apex" collector item.  

The prices of other WWII rifles, like Garands and M1 Carbines are SKY HIGH right now.  Garands are especially really, really strong now.

To my brain, that means a good opportunity to buy a Thompson.  But who knows.

So there you have it.  

Lol you posted spam ad tracking links that immediately got flagged by my ad blocker.  No way you are so technology naïve you don't understand what I posted.

Also neither of those guns you posted are good deals, unless someone directly messaged the seller to buy it off site since gunbroker fee's include sales tax.

dupe

My buddy has one and while it just works (and it’s a transferable re-weld) and is fun to shoot I would still rather have an MP40

It's $30K for about $1K worth of gun.

Sad to think that the only reason mg's are this expensive is legislation and politics.  It's an artificially inflated price created by .gov interference.

But then again, what isn't.  

I just bought an SP1 M16 conversion.  That's a $1,000 gun.

I don't think WWII full auto guns would be $1,000 if there was no NFA, they'd probably be more like $3,000 to $6,000.  Maybe even $10k.

Gun collectors spend a fortune on non-NFA guns from WWI and WWII.  

If stuff like an artillery luger or high-end M1 Carbine sells for $3k to $6k, you have to figure that an genuine MP-40 would sell for that least that.

But point taken, there is definitely an artificial scarcity here.

I remember reading an old article saying that collecting transferrable MGs was a bad idea, because each seller will want the buyer to cover the cost of HIS $200 stamp.  

They gave an example:  A guy buys a $200 MP18 and pays a $200 stamp.  When he sells, he's going to want the buyer to give him $400 to cover his total investment.  And where on earth is the $400 going to come from????  It's a dead end!

The article said that some sellers where chopping up their transferrables and selling the parts.

I wish I could find that article, it was kind of hilarious.  In was in a Gun Digest or something like that from around 1970.

My only experience with a Thompson is a SBR'd semi-auto and a blank fire only full auto.  I do enjoy shooting them both.  But What I want is a FA M1919A4 to o with my SA 1919.  But prices on them seem to have jumped quite a bit.

Even without the NFA many are still nearly 100 year old artifacts of significance from many different respects.  Like end of WWI wonder weapons, Law enforcement, notorious criminals and murders, extensive use by all of the allies in WWII in many significant operations and used extensively in literature, cinema and video games.

Auto ord. and Philadelphia ord. are the only ones making anything close in the last 50 years and they leave a lot to be desired.  I would say $5,000 gun so only inflated 6 times by the NFA.  A Remington model 8 was in the $70 range in the 20's which was very expensive (Winchesters were $30 and cheap shotguns $6) and a Thompson was $200.  Now a model 8 is $700-3000 and they have almost no significance compared to a Thompson.

Need to repeal the NFA as it is now easier to get a MG (which are generally banned) in this state than an AR.

My dad works at Nintendo.  Your gunbroker links are misleading and have hidden ad tracking.  You know this, of course, since to insert that ad tracking link you have to manually insert it and then the text of the non ad tracked gunbroker link separately.

Also only a retard would buy a MG directly off gunbroker.  Way better to look on Sturm or Gunboards.  The last MG I bought that I found on gunbroker I messaged the seller directly to avoid their BS fees.  You can keep your overpriced Thompsons.  You seem like a Rock Island Auction type buyer.

dupe

One of the guys at my gun club let me shoot a belt fed that was on a really tall stand.  

It was fun, but we just sort of fired a few belts to make noise.

What kind of target shooting is done with those kind of guns?  

In my experience, the most fun kind of target shooting with belt fed guns involves junk cars and old appliances.

No interest in target shooting.  I'd use it for WWII reenactments.  Would be much better than the semi I currently run.  Much more fun way to burn down the 10k DAG blanks I have. Bah I would take it to the local range and shoot up some 7.62x39 for fun.

I was thinking they were still in the $15k range for the weapon only.  All I can find are guns in the $20k+ range with tripods belt loaders and a lot of stuff I already have.

I loved the Thompson Twins. But I sold my rewatt Savage built M1A1, because I tended to shoot it twice a year, the weekend before the monthly February local subgun match and the match. We usually had a Thompson division that month. I like to tinker so I bought a M10 with an Uzi magwell grip and a M11/NINE. The seller of the M10 was also in line for the S.A.B.R.E. upper and gave me his spot in line. Both have Lage uppers, plus a .22lr kit for the M11/NINE.

With transferable guns being tens of thousands of dollars, most collectors can’t afford a dozen different guns. So most collectors need the few that they can afford, to be able to do more than run a couple of mags and be set aside to cool. A registered sear or a registered receiver that can have multiple configurations so the fun can continue tend to have increasing market value. With this market pressure guns such as the Thompson or MP40 just have not had the demand/price pressure that the M16, DIAS, Lightning Link, HK sear or registered trigger frames or even Mac style registered receivers have had. In the early 2000s an acquaintance bought a M11/NINE for $900 plus the stamp. Over 20 years later there is a 5.56X45 commercially available upper based on AR parts with a retail cost of $3,200. With over 17,000 of the M11/NINE registered, there would tend to be incentives to develop more conversion products that could be developed as “uppers” for the Mac style machine guns.

OP, I certainly believe that you are correct in your assessment. From a historical perspective the Thompson models are a better “value” than the more modular options of transferable machine guns compared to pricing in the past. But Baby Boomers my age and older were raised watching “Rat Patrol” on TV and WW II movies. When I lived in Las Vegas, the Armorer for the biggest machine gun rental establishment ran the local subgun match. Ten years ago he said that the three most popular machine gun rentals were the MP5, M4, and the AK-47. None of which are WW II guns.

This thread is interesting, but I think the current trend in market value will more than likely continue. Not just the Thompson but all the fixed barreled machine guns market values will continue to lag behind the modular options. To me as far as value, the Mac style family of registered receivers represents almost 20% of transferables. This family of machine guns are still below the teens. Where as, the others I mentioned have a market value around the $30,000 to $45,000 range. Can medium to full power rifle caliber belt fed options be available in the future for the Mac style family? Only time will tell. But there certainly is more market pressure to develop options for the family of firearms that represents the biggest number at the lowest price.

Scott

"Serious theft".  "Shoplifting".



The gun was on a forum ad already so you can pretend I saw it on there first.  Auction sites should be the last place to buy a gun from since the fees on most of them have gotten ridiculous.  Literally the opposite of a good deal.  EE, Sturm, Gunboards, etc are all superior.  I would never direct a machinegun newbie to an auction, especially when the starting bid is high.

I saw your other post with another hidden tracking link.  You obviously know what you are doing even if you have no idea about the Nintendo meme.

dupe

Thanks for this commentary.  It's obvious that something is driving the price of the multi-caliber guns up faster than the one-trick-ponies, and you could be 100% right as to why.

The only counter-point I could make is that WWII is the most dramatic and colorful historic event in human history, and it absolutely fascinates people, especially gun collectors. Dramatic history is the basic engine of collecting anything: the imagination of the collector supplies the value.  

I'm sure you've had someone ask you how much an old 22 or hardware store shotgun is worth, and you have to disappoint them by telling them $100.  Then they say, "But it's got a 1873 patent date on it!"  No collector cares that a factory in Patterson NJ rolled out 10,000 mediocre shotguns for Sears to sell to farmers.  There's no "historicity" there.

These young guys might not have watched "Rat Patrol", but they definitely are buying WWII guns like there is no tomorrow.  Baby Boomers are dying off at a rate of 5,000 per day, and yet Garand and M1 Carbine prices are sky high, literally the highest I ever saw.

When I was a kid, you'd go to a gun show and see M1 Carbines for $50.   WWII guys in general did not like military guns, they liked fancy sporting guns.  If you hunted with an 03 Springfield, they would call that a "poor man's gun."   There are chapters in old gunsmithing books that detail how to "sporterize" (and ruin) military guns.  

All the commercial guns that WWII guys bought were really high finished.  Actually kind of tacky.  The rifles had super high gloss stocks, white spacers, pistol grip caps, engraving, and ebony foretips.  

The value of military guns really zoomed with the Boomers in the 1980s.  Boomers have a shitload of money and they drive the prices of everything up.  Like muscle cars.

So if Boomers are kicking the bucket in droves, and the prices are still going up, there must be lots of new blood coming in.

I had a 9mm MAC10 that took those crappy plastic M11/9 mags, and so I had an UZI grip put on it.  WOW, what an improvement.  After that it literally never jammed.  Great gun.  It was pretty accurate too.  I would pull the stock out and hold it with both hands on the grip like a pistol and it was actually pretty easy to hit with.

It was a tough gun, too.  One time I fired it so much that it turned the Rem Oil to soot and stopped running.  When I handed it to my brother, he got one of those whitish-yellow burns on his hand, like a soldering iron would do.  

Right as it stopped running, there was a round in the chamber.  So I yanked the bolt back and the round ejected and it cooked off in midair.  The girl in the shooting range booth next to me said, "Ow!  Something hit me!"   She got tagged with shrapnel.  So that's a word to the wise:  let the gun sit a while before ejecting a misfire.   Not that anyone ever thinks to do it.   I sure don't.

Disappointed no one has put in the mpeg with Captain Picard going ham with a Thompson.