I've only recently found out about this weapon. Can someone please answer a few questions i have for it and a overview? Thanks. When and where was it created? When did it go into service? Did it replace the thompson m1? Did the americans get it design off the mp40? What caliber does it take? I would really love to know!
By the beginning of 1941, although the United States was not yet directly involved in World War II, the American military authorities had acknowledged that he sub-machine gun had a definite role to perform on the modern battlefield. They had to hand numbers of Thompson guns and more were on their way, but the appearance of the German MP38 and the British Sten indicated the production methods that could be employed in future mass produced designs. Using an imported Sten, the US Army Ordinance Board initiated a design study to produce an American Sten-type weapon. The study was handed over to a team of specialists who included the same George Hyde who had developed the Hyde M2 and to executives from General Motors, to whom the mass production aspects were entrusted. In a very short time they had designed a weapon and development models were produced for trials. The first of these models were handed over for trials just before Pearl Harbor brought the United States into World War II. As a result the project got a higher priority and it was not long before the design was issued with the designation M3. The M3 as just as unpleasant-looking as the Sten. Construction was all metal with most parts simple steel stampings welded into place. Only the barrel, breech block and parts of the trigger mechanism required any machining. A telescopic wire butt was fitted and the design was simple to the point that there was no safety system fitted and the gun could fire fully-automatic only. The main gun body was tubular and below it hung a long 20-round box magazine. An awkwardly placed and flimsy cocking handle was placed just forward of the trigger on the right-hand side, and the cartridge ejection port was under a hinged cover. The barrel screwed into the tubular body. sights were very rudimentary and there were no luxuries such as sling swivels. The M3 was rushed into production and once issued to the troops it soon ran into acceptance troubles. The very appearance of the weapon soon provided it with the nickname of 'Grease Gun' and it was regarded with about as much affection. But once in action it soon showed itself to be effective, but the rush into production on lines that were more used to producing motor car and lorry components led to all manner of in-service problems. The cocking handles broke off, the wire stocks bent in use, some important parts of the mechanism broke because they were made of too soft a metal, and so on. Consequently the M3 received more than its fair share of in-service development and modification, but what was more important at the same time, it rolled off the production lines in huge numbers for issue to the troops at the front. The M3 never overcame the initial reception its appearance engendered. Whenever possible the troops in the front line opted for the Thompson M1 or used captured German MP38s and MP40s, but in the Pacific there was often there was often no choice other than to use the M3 and when this happened the design often gained grudging acceptance. For some arms of the Us forces the M3 became a virtual blanket issue. These arms included the drivers in the many transport units and tank crews. For both the M3 was easy to slow and easy to handle in lose confines. From the outset the M3 had been designed to have the capability of being rapidly converted to 9-mm calibre by simply changing the barrel, magazine and breech block. This facility was sometimes employed in Europe when the M3 was dropped to resistance forces. A silenced variant of the M3 was produced in small numbers. Simple as the M3 was to produce, it was decided in 1944 to make it simpler. The result of combat experience allied with production know-how resulted in the M3A1, which followed the same general lines as the M3 but with some quite substantial changes. For the soldier the most important item was that the ejection cover was enlarged to the point where the full breech block travel was exposed. This enabled the firer to place his finger into a recess in the block to pull the block to the rear for cocking, thus doing away with the awkward and flimsy cocking handle. The M3A1 was still in production when the war ended, by which time it had been decided to phase out the Thompson guns in favor of the M3 and M3A1. Apart from the appearance problem, the M3 guns were not perfect weapons. They were rather prone to breakages, the ammunition feed was often far from perfect was often far from perfect and the lack of a safety often gave ruse to alarm. But it worked and it was available, and in war those two factors are more important than hankering after the something that might be better. Thus the M3 and M3A1 were used wherever the US Military went, and that was all over the world. Chris Bishop
This is what I know about it. I don't use a grease gun in my reenactments but a couple guys that I know do. This is what I have gathered from talking with them. To answer your question: 1) It was made by GM (General Motors) in 1942 2) Not sure on a specific date of when they were put into action but I have heard that it was either at the beginning of 1943 or late 1942 3/4) Originally it was made to be used as a disposable weapon, meaning that it was used until it no longer functioned and was thrown away. The cost per gun was somewhere around $25 USD so it was much cheaper to produce compared to the Thompson sub machine gun. It was first conceived in 1941 when the US decided they wanted to have an effective and cheap submachine gun after observing the German's MP40 and the UK's Sten. 5) Also it takes .45 caliber rounds just like the Thompson. I know that it was designed to be able to have the barrel replaced with a barrel bored for 9mm rounds as well. Hope this helps you out a bit. You could probably search the internet though. I'm sure you could find all the specifics that you are looking for.
Here is what I have found out about the M3A1 over the years, it was designed to replace the .45 Thompson, since in 1939 Thompsons cost the government $209 apiece. By Spring of 1942 cost reduction design changes had brought this down to $70. In February of 1944 the M1A1 reached a low price of about $45 each, including accessories and spare parts. But by the end of 1944, the M1A1 Thompson was completely replaced with the even lower cost M3 "Grease Gun" as standard issue. The M3 ($15) was designed and introduced in 1942, and an even more simplified M3A1 ($11) was introduced in late 1943, early 1944, and the A1 version remained in issued service (in the USA) until 1960 or so as standard SMG weapons, especially in issue for "tankers". They continued to "soldier on" in various units (transportation) until well into the late '80-mid '90s however. Only the M3A1's of WW2 were able to be converted to use 9mm rounds by replacing the barrel, the bolt, and installing the magazine adapter to use British STEN magazines. This might be why they continued to be used when the US adopted the 9mm pistol round in the Barretta so as to be compatible with other NATO ammunition supply. This allowed the A1 version to use the 9mm NATO pistol rounds.
The M3a1 was i believe a compromise between the very crude sten and soviet ppsh designs and the complicated Thompson. They needed to give US support troops a more effective weapon than a pistol and the choice was either a paratrooper type folding stock, M1 carbine or a new sub gun. The new gun had to be inexpensive but not cheap - its obvious the designers took a close look at the "stench gun" and carefully designed in just the right amount of sophistication but not an ounce more! It did the job in its role of close quarters defense almost as well as a thompson and for a fraction of the price. Its true the M3s never had a safety catch but since it was possible to do without one in order to keep the design simpler, the engineers did so. In the M3a1 there was a hook-like catch spot welded to the underside of the ejection port cover. If it was desired to carry the weapon with bolt back (the gun fired from an open bolt meaning the bolt stayed back after every shot), the user simply swung the port cover down over the bolt. The catch on the underside of the cover engaged the hole in the bolt and locked it in place until the port cover was opened by the user for firing.
Yes, the M3 was a failed replacement for the thompson. It was very inacurate, and I think it was usualy only used by vehicle drivers, or "non-firing personel"
This is false, it wasn't as accurate as the Thompson, but it was a quite serviceable SMG which remained in US service well into the 1990s. It might still be issued as a "support" weapon for men in transport (trucking) command, since it could be altered to fire the 9mm pistol round now so prevalent in the NATO arsenal. As a light-weight, inexpensive "lead pump", it was as accurate as was needed in the range it was designed to fight within.
The m3a1 was for people who needed something more than a pistol but not a full size rifle: tank crews, vehicle operators, truck drivers, and so on. You'd think a folding stock carbine would be good enough in this role since they were available at the time. but apparently the army still felt the need for something smaller, cheaper, and less sophisticated than the thompson; im guessing because at the time it was designed no one had any idea how long the war was going to last and how many men would have to go into uniform. Like i said i think the M3a1 was just the right combination of cheapness and utility, it was more reliable than that awful stench gun and at least as good as an mp 40, and fired a caliber (.45 acp) that was much more harder hitting than the 9mm parabellum fired by same. Like the other two the m3a1 fired from an open bolt with fixed firing pin - when the heavy bolt went forward, a round would be fired - this made it inacurate at any range but served the larger purpose of simplifying the gun. I knew an old guy who served in the early 1960's in the US Army and he was trained on these guns. He said the sights were seldom used, since they were fairly useless in real life anyway - the gun was used as a bullet hose and you walked the bullets to the target by shooting at it.
In regard to Marc780's post, I spent a good deal of time with a former WWII tanker (Silver Star recipient in fact) who told me a very similar story. He said that as tankers they were issued the m3s but no one like them. He said they tended to rise up when fired making them pretty much useless for anything other than scaring people.
Several years ago a friend (Army engineer w/ a tank unit) said they still issue the grease gun, two per tank. He said they are accurate to the distance of a man climbing on your tank. But they do the job. I've found the TSMG to be hard to control, but I don't shoot it often enough to get proficient (barrel rises).
How accurate was the M3A1? Was it in the main comparable to PPSh or Sten, or was it competitive with the MP40? I wonder if semi-automatic shots at 100 meters would be viable. I was told that the sights were too crude for precision, but the inherent accuracy of the Grease Gun is not all that poor, for a bullet hose that is. Jadgpanther, got a source for that post? In a couple of post-war memoirs I remember reading about the occasional grease gun totting GI, but no mention of people using the German machine pistols. That said, the Russians did it all the time, and the Germans also liked suing Red Army weapons... who knows? I would imagine keeping a supply of 9mm bullets would be a pain in the neck if one fires the weapon often.
can't say for sure for the ww2 weapons, but the British Sterling was not worth shooting at 100m auto or otherwise. the technique we were (unofficially) taught was aim at their feet and hope for gravel. It was said at anything more than about 40m the round would flatten against a wet combat jacket, although never had the chance to test that out - I think the .45 would have a touch more power, but probably not much once you get past that sort of range they were phased out precisely because they couldn't shoot accurately
This is most certainly true for the M3 "Grease Gun" with it's shorter barrel and rudimentary sights. But, in the Thompson with it's longer barrel and the early sights (discontinued in the A1 combat versions) the .45 ACP was quite a surprise to those who tested it in the twenties and thirties. Here is a portion of an interesting report (Philip B. Sharpe review of the M1928A1 Thompson from 1929): "This .45 automatic pistol cartridge, in the arm designed for it, delivers about 810 foot per seconds velocity. In the 10 1/2-inch barreled Thompson it delivers about 925 f.p.s. Tests indicate that accuracy and penetration is quite respectable, even at the longer ranges. A single shot two feet from the muzzle, using the 230 grain bullet, tested on 3/4-inch yellow pine boards spaced one inch apart, ran through 6 3/4 boards. At 100 yards it would plough (sic) through six boards; at 200 yards through 5 1/4; at 300 yards, 4 1/2; at the 400 mark through four boards, and at 500 yards it could still stumble through 3 3/4 boards sufficient to cause very unpleasant sensations in the body of a recipient." [Page 1107] This indicates that the "pistol round" in the longer barrel of the Thompson made the range and accuracy of the same round a much different "ball of wax" than it was in the pistol for which it was designed. Then there is this test from 1921. The accuracy of the sub-machine gun is decidedly interesting. File records of the Auto-Ordnance firm indicate that in a Mann rest test fired at Hartford, Conn., May 2, 1921, the mean radius using a Remington Standard 230 grain bullet at 100 yards ran 1.89 inches. At 200 yards mean radius was 4.92 inches; at 300 yards 7.63 inches at 400 yards it increased to 18.31; while at 500 yards it jumped to 20.45 inches. Accordingly, one can assume that the accuracy of the more or less spent bullets is quite uncontrolled at the longer ranges. This writer suggests that the effective range of the weapon is under 300 yards. At 200 yards,, using the gun from the sitting position, I experienced no difficulty in placing deliberate fire in "killing" portions of the standard Colt Police Pistol "silhouette" target. It is safe to state that an officer could readily "get his man" at that range. which is well out of normal revolver range. Further factory figures of Mann rest tests fired at 200 yards on June 10, 1922, include six lots of ammunition, commercial and Government. One lot of war ammunition showed an extreme vertical deviation of 37.6 inches as compared with 18.04 inches average for the other five lots. Even with this poor lot included, the tests show an average extreme horizontal deviation of 15.9 inches; extreme vertical average of 21.3 inches; and an average mean radius of 5.8 inches. Goto: THE THOMPSON SUB-MACHINE GUN Remember, this last portion (from Law Reviews) was with the Cutts compensator installed, and not under combat conditions which would certainly make a difference. But rather interesting findings on the "pistol round" of the .45 ACP.
The M3 was quite good when used within its capabilities. I was in a MACV team in Vietnam. We kept scrounged M3's in bunkers because an RPG hit would stir up enough dust to jam the carbines we were issued and the M3 would still function. They do rise when fired. Fire the three round (nuts, guts, and head) burst. They are accurate enough at smg ranges (20-30 meters) The M60 tank had racks for holding them. Tank crews were to use them for sentry duty and for the event their tank was knocked out. Granted, not as good as a real rifle, but a damned sight better than nothing. I was a tank company commander in US Army, Europe and we fired M3's for familiarization annually. I would always set up two E-type sillotte (can't spell that sucker) targets with balloons thumbtacked to them and challenge one of the Lts to a contest. He would spray and pray from the hip---John Wayne style and I would aim fire and burst the balloons before he did. After this demonstration the troops bypassed any bad habits w them.
