PPSh-41, Thompson M1A1, or MP-40?

I would like to third that, but I have one more bit.
Subs (not the ones you eat) are not only good for Urban warfare, but they have their place in other terrains as well. I believe a unit with mixed weapons ranging from subs, the standard long rifle, carbines, etc., preform the best. Even in the woods when you have the enemy at 100+ yards, you can lay down some quick cover fire with a sub to help out your comrade with a Garand or whatever. Even though I am defending the sub right now, and a Thompson sure is a cool weapon, I think if it came down to it, I would prefer to have a Garand in combat over a sub, unless I was hungry.

 

Actually I would probably prefer a LMG (no, I would just prefer a Bren). Sure, it's heaver, but the Bren was accurate (like a rifle) and fast(ish)firing(like a SMG). Not that i would use it as a rifle, but it was accuate.

 

I like the MP-40. I have never shot one but I like the distinctive look and sound. Of course those are no factors for a combat weapon. Only a purely aesthetic love for the schmeisser. I can't really make a good decision until I have fired each of these weapons.

Have you ever used the drum magazine on a sub machine gun in combat?

 

Quite true, firing them is the true test, but I think we can make some pretty educated picks here just on knowledge of the weapon. The only one I have fired of the group is the Thompson, suprisingly, that is the one I would prefer.

 

Agreed, firing them is the truest test but deductions can be drawn from many excellent books and first-hand accounts of WWII which are now available.

After all, I'm not exactly going to be able to fire a Tiger's 88 or fly a Hawker Typhoon, but by all accounts I reckon they were pretty useful weapons....

 

I still think I would prefer the SMG over the LMG, mostly due to mobility. Also, the guy in the squad with the SAW is often targeted because he is laying down cover fire, and he often sticks out from the rest.
I can't really argue against the Bren, it was a good gun, even if I don't like it personally. The closest American comparison is the BAR, and the BAR was not the gun the Bren was. The BAR was actually a little lighter, had a faster rate of fire, and I like 30-06 better than .303, but thats about it. The BAR didn't have quick change barrels, while the Bren had bigger magazine capacity, two very important things in a LMG. So I guess I can see where your coming from.

 

Thompson---for the .45 knockdown power

Mp-40----well made craftsmanship

PPsh---- hardy and incredible production numbers

I also like the Suomi and Owens SMG's




Gunwriters' Suomi History 1/2



Owen Machine Carbine (OMC) (Owen Sub-machine Gun)

 

I prefer a good, solid, submachinegun that is well made. I don't care for the M-3 Grease gun, the Owens, the Sten. I don't need a cheap piece of shit that is going to break on me. Although the Thompson is heavy, its balance is excellent and, especially on the earlier models, they were well crafted. When you pick up that gun it fits you so well that you connect and almost seem to become one. The Thompson is a magical sub.
9mm isn't a bad caliber, but I think a full grown man should have a sub with something bigger. .45 was the great option in WWII times, 10mm today. .40 is a nice caliber as well.

 

I too enjoy the handling and balance of the Thompson. Although I have never fired a full automatic rig, I have had the pleasure of firing a semi-automatic '28 version.
I think the Owens often gets clumped in with the Sten unfairly. The Owens with its top feed magazine made for much better prone firing, was known to be reliable after sand and mud tests, and several could be made for the cost of one Thompson. It had only three internal moving parts compared to the 20 parts in the Thompson.
I do not attempt to compare the Owens to the Thompson, especially since the calibers are two different breeds. But I would not go so far as to call the Owens a piece of crap.

Respectfully, zippo

 

This is slightly off topic, but during the 1800's the British used a .455 caliber webley revolver. The .455 was powerful enough to take down a charging native, who would shrug off most smaller calibers. When the british changed their revolver to a .38 caliber, there are tales of a man resisting a whole 8 shots.

 

Interesting point Joe that I feel applies to the sub-gun calibers listed above.
The history and development of the Colt 1911 .45 pistol is closely related to similar situations.

Soldiers stationed in the Philippines reported that the .38 caliber pistol then in use was almost useless against the hard-charging Moros. These tribesmen wrapped themselves in tough leather bindings. Swinging their razor-sharp Kris like a windmill, their bodies absorbed two, three or four shots. On reaching the line of U.S. soldiers, they usually managed to kill one or two soldiers before the .38 shots had their effect and they fell in battle. The soldiers wanted more impact; more stopping power.
Colt .45 Automatic Pistol

 

Lets say on my list out of ten, a Thompson is an 8, the PPSh-41 is an 7, and the MP-40 is a 6. I would class the Sten as about a 2, and the M-3 and Owens as a 3. So the Sten is definately at the bottom, and yes the Owens was a better gun, but I don't see it as much of an upgrade over the Sten.

Reguarding the pistol calibers, I don't have much use for anything besides the .45, 10mm, and 44mag. I can see going down to a .40 as a nice medium cartrige, but .38 is too small, along with 9mm. I know you can't carry as much ammo with the larger calibers, but if it takes down the target with one shot, it doesn't matter. That changes some in subs, where there is a good chance you will be hitting a guy more than once, so many 9mm were made, and will do the job. I would rather just be overkill with the .45 instead of worrying about not enough power with something smaller.

 

Even I, a true Brit, can see why the Sten was not included in this list. As for the Owen, well the Aussies only ever built that weapon to take advantage of thier local metal pressing industries that were being unused.
The Sten has it's place in history, there can be no doubt about that ; if only for the fact that it could be mass produced by the hundreds of thousands so cheaply and easily, but it cannot compare from a qualitative point of view with either then Tommy or the MP40 both of which were engineered to a high standard that absorbed industrial production facilities to an unnecessarily high degree. Even the Americans were quick to recognise that when they introduced their little "grease gun" sub machine gun which was as "disposable" as the Sten. I can't comment on the Burp gun, but I strongly suspect that the Russians would have built this weapon just like they built their tanks - "Cheap and cheerful" - and none the worse for that. I have fired both all of the weapons mentioned here bar the Russian burp gun. The Owen made me feel like I'd be lucky to empty the magazine before the weapon fell to pieces. The Tommy was heavy and had a nasty recoil, not to mention a severe muzzle flash problem, but the MP40 was as sweet as a nut. It could be held on target reasonably easily and was comparitively quiet- all one had to do was to keep one's left thumb well away from that bloody bolt or else you'd soon be crawling around on the deck looking for the top half of your thumb !

 

"Survive eight shots" ? Yeah, maybe, but just how far was he able to throw his assegai, or swing his panga ?

 

'Whatever happens, we have got
The Maxim gun
And they have not ! '

( Hilaire Belloc )

 

The US M-3 'grease gun' was introduced because of the cost and time involved in manufacturing the Thompson. General Motors engineered the M-3 along the same thinking as the PPSH: Cheap and reliable. Another interesting feature was its deliberate design included the ability to change the ammunition by replacing the barrel and receiver so .45 or 9mm could be used although this was rarely used in service.
As for cost the M-3 was $11 to manufacture versus $25 for a Thompson.

An interesting in service practice late war by GIs was for infantry units operating with tanks in more urban areas to swap their M-1 rifles for the tanker's M-3's for house fighting and the swap back when finished. This could result in a US infantry company having hundreds of submachineguns in use during an urban fight. It wasn't doctrine, but it did happen.

 

I'm starting to study firearms more and more, in-fact I'm considering buying an AK-47. I know, I know, nothing special, but I like the classic wood stock and foregrip and that entire barrel and muzzle section is beefy looking. The wood makes the gun, after the fact that it's chambered for 7.62 x 39mm

That's why I like the Thompson, very sturdy, and I like a bit of heft to my weapons. That damn .45 is a nice feature too, haha. I think the butt would be more sturdy and quicker to place to your shoulder than a wire one.

I'm definately not an expert on weapons, no way, but I love 'em and I love to shoot. My dad owned a WWII Mauser rifle, the only thing he changed on it was he switched the original steel buttplate with a rubber one, and to this day he doesn't know why he sold it, and neither do I. I was never able to fire it.

I'm planning on collecting military firearms eventually. Once I get my AK, since I'm 18 and probably 19 when I get the money for my AK, I'll have about 2 years to save up for an authentic Luger. Which, by then, I'll be 21 and be able to have license to own a handgun legally and all that jive.

Sorry for my long post, I get carried away.

 

I was looking at The M-3 at the War & Peace show the weekend & it looked like it had the same build quality as a sten gun
Price was was Thompson £750.00 & £270.00 for the M-3

 

I bought a Romainian AK a couple years back, and I have been very pleased. The accuracy is what you would expect from and AK, but it has been very reliable. I have also had a lot of fun buying accessories for it. I tryed a scope for a while, but if you thought the sights were hard to get into, don't even bother. The $20 4x scope eventually just fell apart, but it was an interesting experiment. I bought the gun for $300 new at a gunshow, and I don't think the prices have gone up a bunch since then.
I know what you mean with the allure to the AK, it is a bad little gun, and if you think it looks cool with a 30rd mag in it, try a 40, or even a drum. I finally broke down and bought a Romainian 75 rd. drum a couple months back, and I would definately recommend it, even though it sets you back at least $100. When loaded, the drum weighs about as much as the gun, but it actually gives it good balance, and makes it feel "beefy" (kinda like a Thompson). I like the wood also, but I keep staining it in an effort to darken it up, and its still too light. I have often thought it would be nice to having a side-folding stock, cause that could really turn it into an even more compact little carbine.
I guess I view the AK as a modern day submachinegun, and its a nice little gun to have around. Especially when the vintage WWII guns are so pricy. I'll have to wait till I have a little more doe in my pocket before I move on to collecting those. I guess I go for practicality over collectability.

Alloyskull,
Don't worry, your not the only one that gets long winded.

 

How old is the Romanian Ak?