Best WWII submachine gun. - Page 1

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Best WWII submachine gun. (Page 1 of 3)

Posted: 5/18/2015 11:24:11 AM EDT

What say the hive and why? If you could have only one, which would it be?

Poll inbound.

Posted: 5/18/2015 11:25:04 AM EDT

[#1]

IBTP

STEN

Posted: 5/18/2015 11:25:20 AM EDT

[#2]

U.S. M3 "Grease Gun"

Posted: 5/18/2015 11:26:21 AM EDT

[#3]

Quote History

Quoted:
U.S. M3 "Grease Gun"

View Quote

Posted: 5/18/2015 11:27:15 AM EDT

[#4]

"Best" by what metric?? Most Produced? Easiest to operate? Ease/Cost of production?? For me it would be either the Sterling or the Lanchester

Posted: 5/18/2015 11:27:26 AM EDT

[#5]

In order of preference

Thompson
MP40
PPsH
Suomi
Grease gun
Sten

Posted: 5/18/2015 11:29:25 AM EDT

[#6]

Thompson

Posted: 5/18/2015 11:29:52 AM EDT

[#7]

Thompson by years.

Posted: 5/18/2015 11:30:00 AM EDT

[#8]

If I could have just one?

Suomi KP/-31

Posted: 5/18/2015 11:30:21 AM EDT

[#9]

Thompson was the best. Couldn't make them fast enough.

Sturmgewehr 44 was the coolest...

ETA: I know it's not a submachine gun, I don't care. It's badass!!!

Posted: 5/18/2015 11:30:40 AM EDT

[#10]

cuz 45ACP.

Posted: 5/18/2015 11:31:05 AM EDT

[#11]

ppsh41

Posted: 5/18/2015 11:32:04 AM EDT

[#12]

MP-40 or Beretta Model 38.

Posted: 5/18/2015 11:33:27 AM EDT

[#13]

I would have a Sten.

I would put a fresh coat of paint over the rust blotches every few months or so.

Hopefully I could get a tetanus booster first.

Posted: 5/18/2015 11:33:34 AM EDT

[#14]

PPsH - easy to produce (stampings), very reliable, good at squirting bullets.

Posted: 5/18/2015 11:33:46 AM EDT

[#15]

Quote History

Quoted:
"Best" by what metric?? Most Produced? Easiest to operate? Ease/Cost of production?? For me it would be either the Sterling or the Lanchester

View Quote

Your choice. For me I'd say reliability/durability.

Posted: 5/18/2015 11:33:54 AM EDT

[#16]

Quote History

Quoted:
U.S. M3 "Grease Gun"

View Quote

It is a love hate. Some don't like it; but some do. I have an uncle who joined the Marines in WW II who was a Para Marine and fought on Iwo Jima, Chosin Reservoir for Korea, and partied with the NVA for Tet. He served his entire Marine Corps career in a combat assault role. He swears by the M-3.

Posted: 5/18/2015 11:40:22 AM EDT

[#17]

I had a chance to shoot one once.
Fucking awesome.

Now mind you, i have shot a Sten and a Thompson. Never a PPsH. But the German engineering is outstanding!

Posted: 5/18/2015 11:42:54 AM EDT

[#18]

Posted: 5/18/2015 11:44:00 AM EDT

[#19]

Quote History

Quoted:
ppsh41

View Quote

ETA: I like the PPSH41 the best. Interestingly enough Kalashnikov called the PPS43 the best machine gun of the war (Kalasnikov by Ezell pg. 58). Manufacturing comparisons were pretty telling between the two.

PPSH41 vs. PPS43
7.3 hours to produce reduced to 2.7 hours
No wood
Raw steel needed 13.7 compared to 30.6 pounds which saved 1000 tons of steel each month.
Production increased from 135,000 to 350,000 guns per month.
The ammo savings alone must of been pretty significant.

Posted: 5/18/2015 11:46:19 AM EDT

[#20]

I voted MP40.

IMHO, it represented the best "balance" between build quality and ease of manufacture. The STEN was a close second though... and had better sights.

Thompson: Way too complex and expensive to build, (the Beretta M38 had the same problem) very heavy.

M3: Too far on the "cheap and easy" side of the scale...

PPSh: ROF too high, lousy controls, also a little "too" cheap/crude

Posted: 5/18/2015 11:46:42 AM EDT

[#21]

You forgot to add PPSh 41 to the list.

The MP-40 is a close 2nd.

Posted: 5/18/2015 11:47:04 AM EDT

[#22]

Swedish k?

Posted: 5/18/2015 12:13:27 PM EDT

[#23]

Quote History

Quoted:

ppsh41

View Quote

Posted: 5/18/2015 12:19:45 PM EDT

[#24]

Which one is still in production?

Posted: 5/18/2015 12:28:49 PM EDT

[#25]

Quote History

Quoted:

ppsh41

View Quote

This and the tommy gun are tied in my book. One had a big round, good quality, accurate with a good sight picture for a subgun but heavy and somewhat cumbersome compared to other smaller subguns. The other was light short, incredibly high rate of fire, but a small round and poorer quality and poorer accuracy/sight picture.

Posted: 5/18/2015 12:31:45 PM EDT

[#26]

Quote History

Quoted:
incredibly high rate of fire,

View Quote

That's a bad quality in a subgun, not a good one.

Posted: 5/18/2015 12:33:31 PM EDT

[#27]

Overall I feel the MP40 provided the best balance between quality, ease of use, and accuracy.

Posted: 5/18/2015 12:36:44 PM EDT

[#28]

Quote History

Quoted:
U.S. M3 "Grease Gun"

View Quote

just cuz I was issued one until 1987

eta

and 45acp and controllable rate of fire, no problem getting singles off.

Posted: 5/18/2015 12:37:58 PM EDT

[#29]

Quote History

Quoted:
MP-40 or Beretta Model 38.

View Quote

Posted: 5/18/2015 12:39:17 PM EDT

[#30]

Quote History

Quoted:
That's a bad quality in a subgun, not a good one.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

incredibly high rate of fire,

That's a bad quality in a subgun, not a good one.

We will have to agree to disagree. Personally I'll take all the rof I can get when using a gun that is in its element in close quarters engagements where force of violence is a big factor

Posted: 5/18/2015 12:39:40 PM EDT

[#31]

Posted: 5/18/2015 12:42:32 PM EDT

[#32]

Quote History

Quoted:
U.S. M3 "Grease Gun"

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:
U.S. M3 "Grease Gun"

I'd sooner clear a house with a M1903 to quote cyborg543

I hate grease guns

all those really crude guns like the sten and greasegun look like something that the Chinese red army would give to troops before they marched them into the enemy MGs

there's a difference between simple and crude

Posted: 5/18/2015 1:48:50 PM EDT

[#33]

Quote History

Quoted:
I voted MP40.

IMHO, it represented the best "balance" between build quality and ease of manufacture. The STEN was a close second though... and had better sights.

Thompson: Way too complex and expensive to build, (the Beretta M38 had the same problem) very heavy.

M3: Too far on the "cheap and easy" side of the scale...

PPSh: ROF too high, lousy controls, also a little "too" cheap/crude

View Quote

Same here.
And I'm not a big fan of that .30cal Tok/Mauser cartridge, either, although as a bottle neck cartridge, I bet it does feed very reliably.

Posted: 5/18/2015 1:50:32 PM EDT

[#34]

Opps submachingun - Thompson

Posted: 5/18/2015 1:50:33 PM EDT

[#35]

Best sub-machine gun is easily the MP40. The Thompson was heavy, picky, hard to control, and no where as good as the grease gun in my opinion for the American offering.

Posted: 5/18/2015 2:03:00 PM EDT

[#36]

PPSH

Posted: 5/18/2015 2:04:10 PM EDT

[#37]

Aussie Owen

Posted: 5/18/2015 2:05:34 PM EDT

[#38]

Quote History

Quoted:
U.S. M3 "Grease Gun"

View Quote

Posted: 5/18/2015 2:07:47 PM EDT

[#39]

Quote History

Quoted:

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
U.S. M3 "Grease Gun"

I'm just shooting from the hip here, but I'd say the M3 probably had the longest service career.... they were still in tanks right up through Desert Storm, weren't they?

Posted: 5/18/2015 2:08:46 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
What say the hive and why? If you could have only one, which would it be?

Poll inbound.

View Quote

If I could have one, it'd be an M-1928A1 Thompson. They're beautiful, iconic, and fun to shoot.

If I had to be issued one to fight in a war, I'd want the MP-40. It's much lighter and handier, and it's reliable and functional.

If I had to choose one to issue out to an army in WWII, I'd choose the M-3 Greasegun. It's inexpensive, it's effective, and it doesn't have any major issues with it. Logistics would be much easier.

This is a silly poll.

Posted: 5/18/2015 2:09:02 PM EDT

[#41]

There was a Beretta SMG that was very good.

Posted: 5/18/2015 2:09:35 PM EDT

[#42]

Posted: 5/18/2015 2:09:37 PM EDT

[#43]

M2

Posted: 5/18/2015 2:17:24 PM EDT

[#44]

Lancaster is a nice one if not too costly to make.

Thompson would be my choice hands down for an SMG during WW2.

Posted: 5/18/2015 2:23:45 PM EDT

[#45]

Quote History

Quoted:
There was a Beretta SMG that was very good.

View Quote

M-38A and later M38/43 or M38/44.

Posted: 5/18/2015 2:25:27 PM EDT

[#46]

Quote History

Quoted:
M2

View Quote

That's playing a little fast and loose with semantics, but definitely the right choice.

Hell, with an optics rail, synthetic stock, de-bugged 30 round mags, and a decent JHP the M2 would be a damn good weapon in 2015.

Posted: 5/18/2015 2:29:07 PM EDT

[#47]

Major poll fail

Kp31

Ppsh 41 in 7.62x25

Posted: 5/18/2015 2:30:14 PM EDT

[#48]

Quote History

Quoted:

Same here.
And I'm not a big fan of that .30cal Tok/Mauser cartridge, either, although as a bottle neck cartridge, I bet it does feed very reliably.

View Quote

7.62x25 appears to be good for SMGs.

A drum mag with over 70 rounds that can fire at a rate of 900 rpm makes up for small bullet diameter.

The flat trajectory would be an edge at longish SMG engagement ranges.