WW2 SMG's

[gunnut]

Gotta agree with you, Anon; even the father of all assault rifles, the Stg. 44, was primarily made of stamped, pressed, low-grade steel, not unlike the Mg 42. The one drawback the Thompson had was expense of manufacture; as you said, the M-1927 (and earlier) models were essentially hand-assembled. However, the later military M1A1 & A2 models were cheaper to produce, partly by deleting the forward barrel handle and substituting a simple knurled stock.

Totally different uses though. Thompson is a work of art. It's craftsmanship. With it comes tight group and longer range.

The PPSh, Sten, and even the M3 grease gun were made as bullet hoses. They were cheap and they worked. No marksmanship was ever considered with one of those guys.

You can buy 10 grease guns for the price of a single Thompson. If you could arm either 10 men or 100 men, you'd pick the PPSh or the Sten or the grease gun.

[zraver]

Totally different uses though. Thompson is a work of art. It's craftsmanship. With it comes tight group and longer range.

The PPSh, Sten, and even the M3 grease gun were made as bullet hoses. They were cheap and they worked. No marksmanship was ever considered with one of those guys.

You can buy 10 grease guns for the price of a single Thompson. If you could arm either 10 men or 100 men, you'd pick the PPSh or the Sten or the grease gun.

of those bullet hoses they had differing uses. The Sten was used more like the Tommy for squad automatic suppressive fire in a rifle unit. Here the Tommy wins hands down. The M3 was primarily a suppressive weapon for vehicle crews forced out of thier tracks. The PPsh was an assault weapon its big drum and high rate of fire give it unmatched suppressive abilities and or tight quarters fire when used enmass per Soviet doctrine, but it was not well made.

[GraniteForge]

Totally different uses though. Thompson is a work of art. It's craftsmanship. With it comes tight group and longer range.

The PPSh, Sten, and even the M3 grease gun were made as bullet hoses. They were cheap and they worked. No marksmanship was ever considered with one of those guys.

You can buy 10 grease guns for the price of a single Thompson. If you could arm either 10 men or 100 men, you'd pick the PPSh or the Sten or the grease gun.

Of course a lot depends on the specific guns, but comparing basic shooters of both type, the ratio is more like 2-3 grease guns to one thompson, not anywhere near 10.

[fitz]

which of the 3 was the best of ww2?? i would choose the tompson for knock down power, the MP40 is cheap and easy to make light and accurate, PPSH was also easy to produce was cheap not exactly accurate realy durable had a 900 round per minute fireing rate and carried a drum mag. of 71 rounds.

When I'm playing Call of Duty 3 on the ol' PS I find that the only weapon I can consistently do anything useful with is the MP40, so it has my vote.

[leib10]

No offense, but video games are hardly valid grounds for comparing weapons.

[GraniteForge]

I voted for the PPSh. Its lighter than the Thompson, generally holds more rounds (the M1s only take stick mags), and the cartridge has good penetration. I have never found that the Thompson is greatly more accurate. Both guns work fine out to the ranges I have shot them.

As an aside, the M3 Grease Gun is certainly simpler, but its very tough. Thompsons, especially early ones, have a maintenance learing curve that some people have trouble getting over.

[fitz]

No offense, but video games are hardly valid grounds for comparing weapons.

It was a joke.

[leib10]

A smiley would've helped. ;)

[Maxor]

Granite not to impune some people, but anyone who can't figure out basic gun maintence such as field stripping cleain lubrication and assembly even for a relatively complicated gun isn't someone I want to have that weapon.

In pulling over from one of the other threads part of the mental test to see if you should be allowed to have the gun should be you are shown the basic maintence once given a superived/assisted practice. If you can't then take care of the gun you aren't bright enough to have the gun.

[GraniteForge]

Granite not to impune some people, but anyone who can't figure out basic gun maintence such as field stripping cleain lubrication and assembly even for a relatively complicated gun isn't someone I want to have that weapon.

In pulling over from one of the other threads part of the mental test to see if you should be allowed to have the gun should be you are shown the basic maintence once given a superived/assisted practice. If you can't then take care of the gun you aren't bright enough to have the gun.

I don't disagree with you, but that would exclude a lot of current gun owners. Here are a few examples.

This is something I see frequently: A Glock isn't running right. Extraction/ejection is erratic, and of course that affects the whole cycle of operation. I strip the gun down, find it dripping with oil - enough for a couple dozen Glocks, which is a problem right there. I notice that the ejector is just a jagged nub, instead of being a long angled point. I talk to the owner and mention the ejector. He says that, yeah, the part looked broken to him, too, after the last time he took it apart. What really happened is that he field stripped the gun, grossly overlubed it, then took a pair of pliers to "straighten" the angled ejector because it "looked wrong," and broke it off.

Another classic, from last week: A group visits the range to shoot. Only one guy brought his own gun, but its a nice, new HK. He arrogantly trumpets that he had custom work done on the gun, and the package cost him a bundle, but "you get what you pay for, and I'm not going to trust my life to a cheap gun." He asks for a box of 9mm ammo and starts shooting. He complains several times about the ammo he bought, deriding it as underpowered and "not good enough for [his expensive] gun." One of the staff takes a look, and it turns out that while he had asked for 9mm, his gun is a .40.

Finally, on the Thompson. Older models have the Blish lock, which can be replaced either the right way or the wrong way. The gun can be reassembled and shot for a bit with the Blish lock in wrong, but that [expensive] part will fail, breaking into pieces. Its something you either you just have to know or not, and unless you strip down Thompsons often, its relatively easy to make this particular mistake.

[Stan187]

This is something I see frequently: A Glock isn't running right. Extraction/ejection is erratic, and of course that affects the whole cycle of operation. I strip the gun down, find it dripping with oil - enough for a couple dozen Glocks, which is a problem right there. I notice that the ejector is just a jagged nub, instead of being a long angled point. I talk to the owner and mention the ejector. He says that, yeah, the part looked broken to him, too, after the last time he took it apart. What really happened is that he field stripped the gun, grossly overlubed it, then took a pair of pliers to "straighten" the angled ejector because it "looked wrong," and broke it off.

Another classic, from last week: A group visits the range to shoot. Only one guy brought his own gun, but its a nice, new HK. He arrogantly trumpets that he had custom work done on the gun, and the package cost him a bundle, but "you get what you pay for, and I'm not going to trust my life to a cheap gun." He asks for a box of 9mm ammo and starts shooting. He complains several times about the ammo he bought, deriding it as underpowered and "not good enough for [his expensive] gun." One of the staff takes a look, and it turns out that while he had asked for 9mm, his gun is a .40.

I was dying for minute after reading this!!

Partially because it's just too true.. "crooked ejector" is what one of my friends remarked about my Glock.

So long as that crooked ejector is ejecting, stfu and stop telling me that something is wrong with my gun.:P

[omon]

ppsh did have longer range, than tommy gun, it fired 7.62 mauser round, russian version of it, first ones had rifle sights for up to 500m, but it was too optimistic, later versions had simple flip sights, ppsh was simpler and more reliable than tommy, so was mp40.
ww2 battle condition were not even close of todays, so stripping and cleaning wasn,t as easy as today, mud, dirt, lack of supplyes.
tommy gun was too heavy and too good for ww2, on eastern front, it jamed a lot, russians threw them away, they liked mp40 much better, but lack of ammo, made it second choise, after ppsh, plus sound of mp40 was different from ppsh, and russians using mp40 were somethimes mistaken for germans by their own forces, especially at night. (in 1943 pps came out, and it was liked by troops more than any of those 3.
how do i know it? my grandperents fought ww2, and i tend to belive them much more than anyone on this site.
if one thinks after he fired ppsh few times at the range, and not in ww2 on the front lines, he knows all about it, their posts make me lmao.

[fitz]

A smiley would've helped. ;)

I didn't want to be that obvious. I thought the answer spoke for itself in that regard. What good is a joke if you have to tell people its a joke after all?

[leib10]

I don't disagree with you, but that would exclude a lot of current gun owners. Here are a few examples.

This is something I see frequently: A Glock isn't running right. Extraction/ejection is erratic, and of course that affects the whole cycle of operation. I strip the gun down, find it dripping with oil - enough for a couple dozen Glocks, which is a problem right there. I notice that the ejector is just a jagged nub, instead of being a long angled point. I talk to the owner and mention the ejector. He says that, yeah, the part looked broken to him, too, after the last time he took it apart. What really happened is that he field stripped the gun, grossly overlubed it, then took a pair of pliers to "straighten" the angled ejector because it "looked wrong," and broke it off.

Another classic, from last week: A group visits the range to shoot. Only one guy brought his own gun, but its a nice, new HK. He arrogantly trumpets that he had custom work done on the gun, and the package cost him a bundle, but "you get what you pay for, and I'm not going to trust my life to a cheap gun." He asks for a box of 9mm ammo and starts shooting. He complains several times about the ammo he bought, deriding it as underpowered and "not good enough for [his expensive] gun." One of the staff takes a look, and it turns out that while he had asked for 9mm, his gun is a .40.

Finally, on the Thompson. Older models have the Blish lock, which can be replaced either the right way or the wrong way. The gun can be reassembled and shot for a bit with the Blish lock in wrong, but that [expensive] part will fail, breaking into pieces. Its something you either you just have to know or not, and unless you strip down Thompsons often, its relatively easy to make this particular mistake.

It's surprising that the weapon functioned at all. But agreed, he doesn't deserve a zip gun let alone a decked out USP.

[Stitch]

It's surprising that the weapon functioned at all. But agreed, he doesn't deserve a zip gun let alone a decked out USP.

A USP in .40? I thought they only came in 9mm & .45 . . . . shows you what I know!