Armory Sponsor
Posted: 10/30/2002 2:26:12 PM EDT
|
I was talking with a friend of mine and the topic of WW2 weapons came up, we were discussing SMG's and I was professing how fond I was of the Thompson (beautiful beautiful gun) and he interrupted me to say that it was the worst SMG in service of any of the combatants during the war. This made me just about drop my jaw, I know the greasegun was cheaper... but superior? I don't think so... I really don't know the sten or the mp38 well enough to offer an argument there... However I was always told that the thompson was a solid performer which would give modern smg's a run for thier money. So whats the truth was the Thompson the badass gun or just a pos? |
|
Though I've shot one on a couple occassions, most of my knowledge comes from reading WW2 history books on guns- but from that, the concensus was that it was a very sought after SMG, no reliability issues, but was far less available due to the time consuming milling required for construction, so the M3 Grease gun filled the void of quantity. Most of the bad things I've heard about WW2 SMG's were about the Sten having reliability problems due to mags, and the Reising SMG which was used by the USMC, which had some reliability problems if not kept clean. |
|
Your friend is an ass who doesn't know what he's talking about. I have an M1A1 Bridgeport Thompson, Ithaca M3, a tube Sten II and a tube MP40. As a matter a fact, they all rock, but the M1A1 is by far the leader in this pack. Tell him to check some history of ordnance books or maybe borrow a copy of Tales of the Gun. |
The Thompson is still being made by Khar. I can understand the owning of one for nostalgic reasons, but cant anyone produce a modern variant with lighter weight materials? Like a polymer or aluminum frame and stock. longer and more comfortable grip and extended controls. I might buy one then. 
|
|
I remember wathing the History channel, and they interviewed this old german guy who said the Thompson was the most feared infantry weapon they faced. He stated that they would tremble at the sound/sight of them, 'cause they knew they would be dead. My understanding is that they are one of the most reliable smg's ever. If I ever go Class III- That's what I want. |
|
Thompson is the most beautiful SMG in the WW2, I had the pleasure to shoot my C3 friend's M1 over and over again, I found the Thompson very easy to control, and very accurate. I have shot MP40, M3, Sterlings, and Thompason, I have to say they are all a pleasure to shoot and they all functioned flawlessly. I have to rate the MP and the M1 to be the best of the group, follow closely by the M3 and the Sterling. BTW, tell your friend to get off drugs. |
|
About the only Thompsons I've ever heard about being crappy were some 80s and mid 90s Auto Ord Semi-Auto replicas. Something comes to mind that those wernt even real Thompsons, lacking the blish lock or any other "thompson" features. But I'm just talking out of my ass here. I'm a 20th Century Military History major and I've read a LOT of first hand accounts (as well as chatted up more ol' vets than I can count) and never have I heard one complaint about Thompsons. Same with the old British Lanchesters- beautiful guns. Closest I ever got was a "Commando MkIII" that I'd reworked the lower to look more like an original M1A1 Thompson, shot out of grease gun mags. For the $100 I paid for it, it was an incredibly fun gun to shoot. I just regret not trying to 'bump fire' it when I had it :( Guess I'll just have to buy another. Rebel Gray |
|
Read Stephen A. Ambrose's "D-Day" A major problem the Thompson had was actually a problem with the magazines. The Army issued everyone a 30 round magazine for their Thompsons. If you loaded all 30 rounds into the magazine it became so heavy it would fall off the weapon so when you needed it and raised it up to fire, no magazine! The solution was to just load 28 rounds into the magazine. A lot of our soldiers who stormed ashore during D-Day did so with no ammo in their Thompsons because their magazine dropped into the water. Edited to add: Don't mistake this message as me saying the Thompson was a shitty weapon. I would have loved to have one, provided I had a different magazine or even just had someone tell me not to fully load it. |
|
Tell your friend to go ask somebody who carried one for a living what HE thinks about a Thompson. As for an M3? I |
Not really. The gun Kahr/AO is offering is a closed bolt semi with very little in common with any of the various FA Thompsons. At one time, AO made an open bolt semi 1927 that was fairly close in design to the M1 and M1A1, but no more. In fact, there was/is a RDIAS-type gizmo for those 1927s that would permit FA operation and not too expensive (by x-ferrable FA standards). Every so often one will come up on Subguns for about $3500. |
|
Interesting. I own a registered M1A1 Thompson that was a bring back from the Battle of the Bulge. It worked well enough that the veteran was able to come home - alive. I have a raft of 30 round mags. A couple are junk. All the rest work just fine. I have NEVER had a mag "fall" out of the gun. The thing weighs a ton, it seems, but it works well. I would feel much more confident carrying it into battle than a puny 9mm gun. I really like the Mp-40 and Uzi but .45 rules when it comes to defending oneself. If the Thompson was poor, why was it the choice of gangsters who could afford ANY gun they wanted? Why was it highly sought after during WWII, Korea and Vietnam? |
|
Just a point, my friend doesnt own any firearms at all... (to be fair, neither do I, I live in the Republik of New Jersey and am waiting for my papers to come through....) He would just go on about how the mp40 etc was considered far superior etc, so I think he may have gotten it from seeing some stuff on the mp40. Irregardless, I'm very relieved that the (beloved) thompson is vindicated in such a manner. It sounds to me as if the guns only real drawback is wieght... which can be easily remedied with synthetics and modern materials and techniques... Now that would be interesting, a synthetic stocked, aluminum-recievered Thompson to compete against the UMP45.... *drools* |
Auto-ordnance makes the thompson 1927A-1C, which has a lightweight aluminum reciever, brining the weight down to 9.5 pounds from 13 pounds. I'm considering one right now. |
Armory Sponsor