Cutts vs No Ring Sight

[RChapman]

Despite the skill of the shooter in handling the recoil, how effective is the Cutts compensator vs ring sight at mitigating the muzzle rise during full auto fire?

Edited November 12, 2017 by RChapman

[dalbert]

Personally, I don't think there's a noticeable difference. It's all about your stance while firing a Thompson that mitigates muzzle rise. If you stand with your feet together, the muzzle is going to rise. If you take the classic Thompson "FBI Stance," you will be able to control it, and fire it quite accurately.

 

David Albert

dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

[Sandman1957]

It mattered so little, they dropped it completely when adopting the M1 version. They dropped it for a reason. It didn't really work.

[huggytree]

but they put so much time into it that they had multiple versions....id assume testing was done to change the arrangement and size of the holes in the top? Auto Ordnance thought it was worth so much that they increased their cost and added it to many of their guns...

 

someone had data showing 1 version worked better than another version? or was it just a con job?

 

what about putting similar things on today?

 

compensators are pretty popular on many rifles and some hand guns...my 357 has one made into it....all fake?

[shadycon]

Huggy; My 357 mag has a factory comp barrel and max load 357's feel like 38' sp...................

[huggytree]

So why does the comp on the Thompson not work

 

I even bought one for my ruger 22:45 lite. Video slo mo shows they do work even on 22 lr

 

I think part of the reason its not on m1s is cost. Simplification. Maybe the only reason.

[deerslayer]

The cutts certainly works at putting gasses up in front of your sight picture.

[Sandman1957]

Too many folks put too much stock in only comparing one variable. You also need to define "they". Auto Ord and Colt did not make Cutts Compensators, CUTTs did. They sold that to Auto Ord for a very expensive price. $25.00. The entire gun only costs $175. back in the day. With Cutts added it was now $200.

 

When the Navy adopted the Cutts version via 1928, future Navy purchases had to have the Cutts. It was now In the contract. Older guns had to be upgraded. Auto Ord and Cutts made money on this. They are a for profit enterprise. Then Auto Ordnance used the new improved NAVY Models as a marketing tool to get more profit in their sales.

 

Does the cutts work. Yes. It does vent gas upward. Did it work so well that it justifies the cost. Obviously not. Do more powerful calibers etc get more benefit. Yes. A cutts on a .45ACP on a 14 lb gun isn't the same as a 357 with a vented barrel in a pistol.

 

Another egghead argument you hear is when folks compare 5.56 and .223... are they the same or different. If they are not the same, how come .308 and 7.62 are the same. What is the variable being measured? The eggheads instantly go into arguing bullet weight, increased loads etc. If you add weight, bullet length etc, that the same as making plus P too powerful for some guns. Just because it can be argued doesn't mean it should.

 

Its what you like, and what you are willing to pay. All kinds of stuff got added to M4s in Iraq. All kinds of hang on gadgets. After awhile the M4 started weighing as much as a Garand. Over time you started seeing cool looking stuff getting stripped off. When you had to hump it all day it was different than the Fobbits, who only carried theirs to the chow how, the palace, and back to their air conditioned room with cot etc.

 

Anyway, which do yo like? I have them both.

[RChapman]

Thanks for all the suggestions.Personally I prefer the older 1921 Models with no Cutts on top. In my opinion it looks better and its more pratical considering the weight reduction. You can feel the difference between a ring sight

 

barrel, and one with a Cutts on top. Even taking in consideration that a good portion of the recoil comes from the bolt slamming at the back. and the Cutts compensator cant really solve this issue.

Edited November 12, 2017 by RChapman

[gijive]

Thanks for all the suggestions.Personally I prefer the older 1921 Models with no Cutts on top. In my opinion it looks better and its more pratical considering the weight reduction. You can feel the difference between a ring sight

 

barrel, and one with a Cutts on top. Even taking in consideration that a good portion of the recoil comes from the bolt slamming at the back. and the Cutts compensator cant really solve this issue.

You can feel the difference in weight between a Thompson with a compensator and one without, really? You must have pretty finely-tuned senses. In my opinion, the Thompson really has very little recoil and the reciprocating bolt has virtually no impact on the shoulder if the gun is held properly. I believe the compensator does make the gun smoother to shoot. In my experience, it is a bit easier to hold on target with longer bursts. It is all a matter of personal preference. The late WWII guns were made without the compensator as a cost-saving device, not because the compensator was totally ineffective.

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

True that, Chuck.

 

Discussed in 2006 thread:

http://www.machinegunboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=6682&hl=%2Bcutts+%2Band+%2Brecoil&do=findComment&comment=55898

 

Col. Cutts & son Lieutenant Cutts invented this device originally for the BAR in 1920. It was this BAR Cutts that the Army declined. AOC did its own testing of TSMG's equipped with the Cutts Compensator and believed it did indeed increase accuracy in full auto mode. Since 1921, the Colt TSMG was not exactly flying off AOC's storage racks. Why add another $25 to the price of a weapon that was not selling if the damn thing didn't work? Then again, why did the military and the FBI request their Colt TSMG's be fitted with Cutts? Was it the fact that they were using federal funds to procure their TSMG's and didn't care about the expense? But that doesn't explain why a myriad of other buyers fancied the Cutts as well. Was this merely another AOC promotional "gimmick" to increase sales and revenue?

[Sandman1957]

Cutts compensators were popular. They were on alot of shotguns. At some point they lost popularity.

[thirtyround]

The 1921, as we know initially had a higher rate of fire. The 1919 had from my understanding had an even higher rate of fire. I'm sure this concerned Auto Ordnance. We have the luxury of incredible firearms technology today and almost a hundred years of Thompson history to draw from. It appears from years of history gathering, learning from this forum and even talking to old timers who used Thompson's, that at least the higher rate of fire 21's were somewhat tamed with the Cutts. The Marines were no sh@t the first hardcore war fighters with the Thompson, with extensive use. No one else at the time, especially no other military establishment was slinging lead in hardcore fire fights with a Thompson like these guys were.... anywhere. They especially used it and learned it in the jungles of Nicaragua and elsewhere. They knew its every attribute and weakness. The Marines wanted the Cutts after their own testing and experience, that's gotta be worth noting. They did however want the slower 28's and also converted their 21's with 28 internals. Later during WW2 it was pretty obvious due to cost and better training the slower rate of fire could be handled without the Cutts. I'm thinking the Marines of the 20's and 30's time frame wouldn't want something extra (the Cutts) when basically they didn't have two dimes to rub together. But then again the Navy was buying them. Stepping off the soap box now.

[Adg105200]

In 1942 the Ordinance department did a series of tests where they determined that a Thompson without a Cutts was more accurate. On a 6x6 foot target at 25 yards a tsmg with a cuts hit 74%, and without the Cutts the hits went up to 91%. At 50yds it was still 49% vs 61%. (AT III pg330)

 

It would be very interesting to know how exactly conducted the tests.

 

I think if you did a similar test today with someone who really knows how to handle a Thompson I think the results would differ a little less.

 

Andrew

[dalbert]

A 6x6 foot target is huge. I would venture to guess that most of the members of both Thompson associations would score 100% on both the 25 yard, and the 50 yard target, regardless of compensator.

 

David Albert

dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

[huggytree]

Not if they were shooting back.

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

In 1942 the Ordinance department did a series of tests where they determined that a Thompson without a Cutts was more accurate. On a 6x6 foot target at 25 yards a tsmg with a cuts hit 74%, and without the Cutts the hits went up to 91%. At 50yds it was still 49% vs 61%. (AT III pg330)

 

What sort of rear sight did the TSMG without a Cutts have?

 

In April of 1942, the Hyde M2 and Thompson T2 were tested. At 50 yards, the M2 put 99 out of 100 rounds onto a six-by-six-foot target. The T2 managed 80 out of 100 rounds. In November, 1942, Ordnance Department conducted trials of the T2 at Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland. Testers compared the results to the data from the earlier trials of Hyde’s M2. As Paul Harvey would say, now you know the rest of the story. They went with the M3 Grease Gun. What does this mean? Army Ordnance were moving on from the once vaunted 1920's Cutts just as they were moving on from the wood stocked smg.

[Adg105200]

 

In 1942 the Ordinance department did a series of tests where they determined that a Thompson without a Cutts was more accurate. On a 6x6 foot target at 25 yards a tsmg with a cuts hit 74%, and without the Cutts the hits went up to 91%. At 50yds it was still 49% vs 61%. (AT III pg330)

 

What sort of rear sight did the TSMG without a Cutts have?

The testing with and without the Cutts was done while testing the inline stock.

 

The baseline gun for factory original was a Colt so a Lyman ladder sight there. However nothing was mentioned for the 1928A1s. Since the testing was done in the first few months of 1942 that is also when the switch was made to the L sight so it could have been either although I'd guess they would keep things even and use a ladder sight on all the normal stocked weapons used.

 

Andrew

[giantpanda4]

This one? The sights are a little different... and it is 1943, not 1942.

[Adg105200]

This one? The sights are a little different... and it is 1943, not 1942.

Yes. That was tested (with and without a Cutts) along side the factory Colt and probably other normal configuration Savage 1928A1s but without.the Cutts. All to evaluate the recoil of the 1928.

 

I'll have to double check the dates in Frank's book.

 

Andrew

[giantpanda4]

Don't bother - the picture says 1942!

Edited November 15, 2017 by giantpanda4

[TD.]

(Early) Savage Thompson, S-25618. More information and pictures on Page 399 of The Ultimate Thompson Book. ​A slightly different butt stock installed on S-25618 is pictured on Page 397.