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

Yeah drum magazines are pretty unreliable. The common loadout for a red army infantryman was often a ppsh-41 with one drum mag and five or six stick mags, which were more reliable but emptied fast due to the rpm. But keep in mind this is the only major flaw of the ppsh-41.
I'm sure well-trained soldiers could shoot accurately with the thompson, and it was also a great weapon, but its heaviness and recoil were significant drawbacks.
As for the mp-40, it is a close second behind the ppsh-41 in my opinion because of its accuracy, overall controllibility, low recoil(low rof and recoil buffer), ammo with very good ballistics(9mm), and compactness. But I hear everywhere that its single feed magazine was prone to causing jams(as well as making it difficult to fire when lying prone), the steel wartime ammo caused further jams, and the folding stock was quite flimsy? Could anyone tell me if this is true, and if it occured often? Because knowing this might change my position on the best of these smgs.
**I havent shot any of these weapons so I can't say anything for sure.

 

+1

Russians copied their purp gun from it after the Winter War by special order from Stalin(!)
That should tell you something.

The Suomi had one great disadvatange though (according to my gandfather who used one during the whole war). In combat after few hundrer rounds the slug sometimes jammed inside the barrel due overheating. When this happened one had to replace the barrel which apparently was not an easy task. According to my grandfather the only way to get the red hot barrel out was to twist it with your fingers.
A design flaw which resulted many bad burns.

 

This used to be a topic which my granddad used to talk a lot with me. Except he used the Sten gun instead of the PPSH. He always said that he liked the Thompson, mainly because it felt better in his hands and was easier to reload he thought.
I think all 3 guns were exceptional though, and I can not pick between the three.

 

hello guys!
Well PPSh-41's rate of fire is unmatched ,but also its accurecy is unreliable
MP-40 has slow rate of fire &more accurecy ,but the german soldier was unable to fire from it in prone mode!! because of its long clip!!

The best is Thompson ,because of its high rate of Fire &good accurecy!!= Two in One!

 

Hey just wondering about mp-40 reliability. The magazine was prone to jamming and misfeeds due to its single feed single coluomn operation and debris getting in it easily, which a good shake would often cure(loosened debris, but I dont know about misfeeds due to the mag operation). But other than this how was it in terms of reliablity? Any other problems encountered?

 

The PPSH41 firing rate made it very innacurate and loud because of using drum mags (ammo inside was moving loudly during shooting). Altough high rof and high effectivity when shooting small distances it was also incomfortable when holding a drum magazine. I have airsoft thompson and real has a much of stopping power but i think the most usefull weapon would be Mp40 because of medium firing rate and small recoil. The Sten is very uncomfortable at holding and u have to bend hand to shoot it accuratly. Sorry for bad english

 

The PPSH-41 is a very unique gun, very well made too. But I just probably wouldn't use it because holding the drum as a fore-grip might be uncomfortable. Thompson would be nice too, but I'd like my gun to be as light as possible. So most likely I'd choose the MP-40.

 

The PPsH-41 was a mass produced, and not "well made". It was however as well made as necessary for combat use where the weapon may have a "shelf-life" of less than a day. The drum wasn't a "great" idea actually, and the Red Army soldiers preferred the stick magazines due to their ease of loading, better dependability, and easier "quick change" from empty to full again.

As to weight, the weight difference is really pretty minor between the M1A1 Thompson, the PPsH-41, and the MP-40.

4.76 kg Thompson M1A1 empty (10.49 lbs)
3.63 kg PPsH-41 empty (8.02 lbs)
4.03 kg MP-40 empty (8.88 lbs)

Only the higher weight of the rounds of the more potent .45 ACP make the "Tommy gun" heavier by huge amounts. But then again, 20 and 30 rd stick magazines in pouches don't add to the weapon's weight by much really. Empty weight is only between 1.5 and 2.5 pounds heavy for the Thompson compared to the others. And the .45 ACP round through that longer barrel was "killer powerful" compared to the 9.mm of the MP-40, or the 7.62mm of the PPsH.

 

Can anyone tell me how much ammunition were the Russian sub-machine gunners usually issued each time? And how did they load the drums as well? With the high rate of fire of those PPSH-41, the Russians would surely have expended their ammunition quickly and to load their magazines seems like more than a nuisance.

 

The amount of ammo was probably "unlimited" as to issue, now as to how the drums and sticks were loaded that is a greater query. I would assume the sticks could be loaded pre-battle by anyone, and in battle by the soldier carrying the weapon if he had loose rounds or access to ammo boxes.

The drums are another question as they were labor intensive to load, had flaws in feeding, and might be supplied "loaded" to the soldier pre-battle along with pre-loaded sticks. This site implies much the same:

The PPSh-41 (Pistolet Pulemjot Shpagina model of 1941 = Shpagin submachine gun) was one of major infantry weapons of the Soviet troops during the World war 2. Total number of PPSh's manufactured during WW2 estimates to more than 6 millions. The gun became one of the symbols of the Great Patriotic War. Retired from Soviet Army service soon after the WW2, the PPSh was widely exported to some pro-Soviet countries around the world, including China, Vietnam and many African countries.


It was effective, but somewhat crude weapon, reliable in combat but not without certain flaws. It has somewhat excessive rate of fire, and its drums were uncomfortable to carry and prone to feed problems once spring is weaken.

The PPSch-41 was designed as a cheap and simple but effective war-time weapon. It featured simple blowback operated action, and fired from open bolt. To decrease the recoil stress, gun was fitted with bolt buffer at the rear of receiver. The buffer was made from fiber and was attached to the return spring guide rod. The striker was permanently fixed to the bolt face. PPSh-41 was a select-fire weapon, with fire selector switch located inside the triggerguard, ahead of trigger. The safety was integrated into the charging handle and locked the bolt in forward or rearward position. The receiver and the barrel shroud was made from stamped steel. The front part of the barrel shroud extends beyond the muzzle and acted as a muzzle brake / muzzle flip compensator. Early PPSch-41's were issued with drum magazines with capacity of 71 round, similar to ones used in PPD-40.


Such high capacity increased the firepower but the magazines were too slow to refill and not too reliable, so in 1942 a curved box magazine was developed. This magazine held 35 rounds and was much more comfortable to carry in pouches. Early magazines were made from 0,5 mm sheet steel and were somewhat unreliable. Later magazines were made from 1 mm steel and were completely satisfactory. Usually, infantrymen carried one drum in the gun and some box magazines in the pouches or pockets.

See:

Modern Firearms - Shpagin PPSh-41 submachine gun

I would guess that the drums were discarded when empty, and replaced with 35 round sticks in the "fight", and then retreived and reloaded post-battle if possible. Also just a guess on my part.

 

For reliability, the PPSh without question. But all in all, I love the Thompson, so I'll have to go with that as my favorite.

 

I love the grip and versatility of the Thompson. I dont have a real one, but I do have a full metal airsoft version. Very effective might I add.

 

In fact, I have had a chance to test all of these guns and based on my own opinions and experiences, here are some pros and cons of each gun:

PPSh-41:

+ good rate of fire
+ penetration capability of the bullet
+ ammunition capacity
- lack of accuracy to longer range

Thompson M1A1:
+ effective caliber
- not very easy to control

MP40:
+ very easy to control even in full-auto fire
+ small (stock folded) and relatively light

Based ONLY on these experiences and if I would be choosing a gun for myself from these candidates, I would definately choose MP40. But if I would have to put up some factories to manufacture guns for 20 million soldiers, I would definately choose PPSh-41 for them.

Otherwise, I think you missed some other guns as well. Someone already mentioned Suomi M31 -submachinegun, but that is very heavy - which helps you to control it in full auto though... Also it was very hard to manufacture, which made it expensive and the quantities too low.

Two other guns are also very good choices, which both include the capabilities of MP40, but with the manufacturing prospects of PPSh-41. These are PPS-43 and the Finnish copy of it, Submachine-gun M/44.

But, as I said - if I would choose one WW2-era submachine-gun for myself, it definately would be MP40.

 

The PPSH is gwad-awful ugly :Short barreled; chunky, nasty stock; industrial-looking stamped metal parts; cheap unrefined appearance overall...but boy-oh-boy, was it effective in the urban environment! It was so effective, that it was often adopted by the Germans. In fact, they copied it and started producing their own version chambered for the GERMAN Mauser 7.63X25 round. The PPSH had a low recoil due to its built-in muzzle brake. It was generally reliable, rugged, and had low maintenance requirements. It was lethal and had twice the magazine capacity of its counterparts.

The Thompson M1 submachine gun was an aesthetically pleasing well-made weapon. It fired the very potent and lethal 45ACP. While it was heavier than its counterparts, its weight was also a positive factor, assisting with the control of its recoil/muzle climb. It was also used in Korea and Vietnamn. The fact that it was expensive to make, even though it was a fine weapon, led to its own demise. It was replaced by the M3 Grease gun, a cheap mass produced sub. I've fired both, the latter extensively, and hated the M3.

The German Scheisser MP40 was a fine weapon generally highly regarded. It was compact and fired the 9mm round. It had some feeding problems but frankly, this appears to have been a common issue with all submachineguns.

Given a choice for my own personal weapon for an urban or close-support environment only, I'd choose the Thompson...good firepower, lethal round, and accurate if you know how to shoot it. However, for anything over 50yds., give me the old reliable Garand M1 :tommygun:

 

The Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) was not a submachinegun. It was a squad based weapon with the ability to reach out and touch someone. It had an effective range from 0 to beyond 1000 yds. It shot the powerful 30-06 bullet. Like the Garand, it had a healthy recoil. The BAR/submachinegun were not comparable weapons.

 

the bren? man the bren isnt a sub machine gun so you cant pick that, if you pick bren i pick then i pick MG 34, so what it spits 15 bullets per second, i put it on a tripod if thats the case.

 

Which submachine-gun or machine carbine (in war-time British parlance) would I choose from the American Thompson M1A1, the German MP-40, or the Soviet PPSh-41.

I'd go for the MP-40 on looks alone, very sexy-looking firearm the MP-40.

But then I could go for the Thompson M1A1 as it is of excellent quality, really well-made forged, milled, and otherwise machined to perfection (and this is the 'rough' version which had been simplified for greater ease of manufacture), with comfy wooden furniture, and it fires that great body-stopping round the caliber .45 ACP (Automatic Colt Pistol) ( which in metric is 11.43 mm X 23 mm).

After that I don't know.

The PPSh-41 was roughly mass-produced and looked it; indeed, the PPSh-41 looked really clumsy and unsexy with its semi-pistol grip and butt, very uncomfy wooden furniture, and its bulbous 71-round drum magazine. And then it fired the Soviet pistol cartridge the 7.62 mm x 25mm Tokarev, a decidedly unglamorous round if ever there were one.

After that, in the final analysis, when all's said and done, I'd have to go with the PPSh-41, which as unsexy as she is she is as reliable as clockwork and with a big, high-capacity magazine which means I don't have to reload as often, which is a decided tactical advantage in the large-scale battles of the Eastern Front. The Germans agreed. So many PPSh-41s were captured by the Germans and used against their former owners in the Red Army that they were officially adopted by the Wehrmacht on the Ostfront and some were even converted to 9 mm Parabellum. The 7.62 x 25 round also produced low recoil on the gun which allowed the shooter to hold the weapon aimed on target and so not allow the gun to climb off the target, which made the PPSh-41 deadly at close range. And one other factor is important, the PPSh-41 was so devoid of gadgetry, it doesn't even have a safety catch, training on the weapon could be kept to a bare minimum. The other factors are of course that the PPSh-41 were as cheap as chips to make and because it didn't need skilled labour to make them, just about any State workshop could turn them out. So in this 3-field horse race, I'd have to say the PPSh-41 by a good length and a half.

 

1vs1 fights Kiraly 39M no doubt.
It's an Hungarian gun with the 9mm Mauser export round.
It isn't the best looking gun but it sure is powerfull with an effective range of 300-400meters!It had a better effective range as the ppsh and the ammunition had a similar effectiveness (muzzle velocity 450m/s, bullet weight 8.3 gram, muzzle energy 840 Joules vs 525/s,5.5 gram,760joules.)
Had made a mistake sorry but i edited it.

And btw for the ppsh loveruring 1941-42 the Hungarian Army captured a number of PPSh-41 machine guns on the Eastern Front. These guns were re-issued to Hungarian troops. The troops did not like them, compared to the Hungarian Danuvia 39.M machine guns. The ammunition had a similar effectiveness, but the workmanship and reliability of the PPSh-41 was nowhere when compared to the 39.M. The biggest difference was in accuracy, as PPSh-41's barrel length was only about half of the M.39's. The 71-round drum magazine had a tendency of jamming if it was loaded with 65-68 rounds or more. However, the PPSh-41's shorter length gave it the advantage during house-to-house combat situations.
Only better in house to house so Russia PPSH wasn't the best for people who say it was.;P

 

I would say the tompson purely on stopping power

 

I would go for PPSh-41, fast rate of fire, drum mag, and Germans and the soviet liked it.

Franz