Jump to content

Looking for advice on this M1A1


Recommended Posts

I don't mean to carp on the topic, but it perplexes me how somebody could look down their nose at any Thompson.

 

It just simply makes no logical sense.

 

No Thompson model lacks for anything, they're all excellent guns and they were all made extremely well and they're all tip-top level collectables.

 

And they run great.

 

 

Here's a quiz:

 

If you were a soldier in WWII and you were offered to carry four 50 round drums or seven 30 round stick mags, which would you take?

 

The 50 round drums currently sell for $500 each and the stick mags go for $30.

 

So the drums are the better choice for a soldier, right? They're worth 17 stick mags, so they must be a better mag for combat, right?

Edited by buzz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buzz, do have any photos of your RIA rebuild M1A1 you could share?

 

I like to think the M1 series was simply what the Savage engineers proposed to Army ordnance. A less costly to manufacture Thompson during a world war.

 

Answers to your quiz.

 

I choose the seven 30 round magazines.

 

Maybe a better quiz question would be ten 20 round box magazines or seven 30 round magazines. Today's value should not come into play.

Edited by Bridgeport28A1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the value of mags not being a factor, stick mags are a better choice for many reasons most of us know already, especially since the military decided to stop drum mag production for our own troops and the lack of the drum slot on the M1s.

 

Now me personally, I like both the 28 and the M1, but favouring ever so slightly the M1. I just like it's simplicity for a combat smg.

 

Andrew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like all of the Thompson models, what's not to like?

 

Thompsons are the coolest gun ever made.

 

The only one I wouldn't want is a West Hurley commemorative. Kind of hard to appreciate Liberace style guns.

 

The ideal thing would be to own one of each model but I need to win the lottery first.

 

I count myself as very fortunate to be able to own two of them.

Edited by buzz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

buz, my take the MP40 is German, why do people favor the BMW to Corvette,

 

 

Absolutely

 

People just like what they like.

 

Sometimes the new guys will ask what's the "best" MG to buy, the answer is the one you think is coolest.

 

If you think the Swedish K is cooler than an M16, then get the Swedish K

 

Of course there are some practical aspects like cost and durability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About 6 months ago I was at a local gun dealers home buying a sub gun. Im asking him if he knows of any Thompsons for sale locally. About all I knew about Thompsons back then was Vic Morrow carried one on tv when I was a kid and I wanted one then and now. The guy leaves the room comes back with a 95% original 1921. I pick it up say oh nice. Put back down and leave. I did not realize that this gun was the holy grail of Thompsons. Now that i know a little about the guns I would like to own EVERY model but that wont happen ha !! Anyway I can see the ford and Chevy mentality going on with these guns but its a good thing and it is what makes a hobby interesting and fun. Btw I called that dealer back later that same day ( after some research) to apologize for being ho hum about his pride and joy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

fighting over the words ''lower cost'' vs ''cheap' reminds me of a business man schooling...i was taught to never call my low end products cheap....they were just the lower cost alternative....

 

maybe the M1 was able to achieve lower cost and become more efficient.......maybe some of those extra's like removing the cutts and adding a smooth barrel didnt matter...or maybe they did, but not worth the extra cost....maybe simplifying the internals made it a better gun.......i will still take the gun that cost multiple times more in 1940 to produce for the same money today!...its more complex, but i dont hear of anyone having issues with them running well....i hear for the most part they run smoother....

 

you have to decide whether the WW2 look is what you want (m1) or the classic thompson look (pre and early war)....

 

ive never shot or handled a M1.....ive handled a WH and can compare smoothness between their 1928 and mine...no comparison...

 

Buzz you are lucky to own both......i cant justify 2 $52k for 1 of each....but if they were more affordable i probably would grab an M1 too like you have

Edited by huggytree
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know what reconbob means. One particular M1928A1 that I lucked into has an action that is just slicker than snot. Visually, there are no differences between this and any other TSMG I've handled. I suppose it's just a happy coincidence in manufacturing tolerances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

show me a 1928 for sale?

 

the market of Ruben says they are $27k.....i dont really see any other M1's for sale......and i havent seen a 1928a1 for sale in a long time....

 

all the m1's currently on the market have possible problems(besides rubens)

 

so i dont think there is enough data to say where the 1928 market is right now....and i dont think enough m1's have come up to say they are now worth $26k +

 

nobody's selling their thompsons

 

you could be right that the market has spoken, but show me the sold auctions of 1928's and m1's........then ill believe you....WH's are asking $20k, but i dont see any selling......asking $27k for an m1 (vs selling it for $27k) and no 1928 sales that i can remember doesnt = they are selling for the same price....show me 5+ guns on each side that sold in the $25-26k range and ill agree

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buzz - I never said the M1's were cheap. I confined my comments to the grip mount.

The original design was better than the later design.

 

Bob

 

 

I know. I'm too lazy to type enough to make myself clear.

 

The riveted M1 mount was definitely inferior to the original. That particular change was a flop.

 

The point that i was trying to make originally is that the cantilever mount would be an excellent mount for a target gun. A barrel vibrates violently like a tuning fork when a gun is fired.

 

So having a free floating barrel with a mount that presses upwards in the center of just one fin is ideal, it creates one precise vibration nodal point.

 

The guy who designed the mount understood gun design very well. But why was that fancy idea applied to a 10 inch long subgun barrel? it's overkill.

 

The could have hung the grip on the barrel just like an M16 or any number of other guns.

Edited by buzz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the original design had less to do with accuracy and more to do with just keeping things tight. Staking the later ones in kept them from wobbling around too much. After discontinuing the tension design, why did they even put front nub on either the straight or the later riveted design?

 

Andrew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice M1 and M1A1 TSMGs are selling for about the same prices as nice M1928A1s. The market has spoken. The guns are equally desirable.

 

 

I'm a buyer for a nice 1928A1 at Ruben's price of 27K.

Edited by lightguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Nice M1 and M1A1 TSMGs are selling for about the same prices as nice M1928A1s. The market has spoken. The guns are equally desirable.

 

 

I'm a buyer for a nice 1928A1 at Ruben's price of 27K.

 

 

He's got a nice M1 too.

 

See if he'll go for a 'buy one, get one free" deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that it is rather pointless to add, but Ill bring up again that the original overkill design was developed in the early 1900s when other sub machine guns did not exist. Keep in mind we were developing a new type of small arm here, hence all the fancy gun collector features. Look at comparable guns from the timeframe and all were extravagant and overkill. Comparing to a gun from the 1940s is sort of a moot point. Both are great guns, for differing reasons. The evolution of gun design is critical in the analysis and cannot be ignored.

 

The Achilles heel of the Thompson were slow sales and a lack of not wanting to accept that cheap guns were winning the contracts and winning the war. The design changes in the Thompson were not drastic enough to adapt to the evolving gun development climate. The M1 and M1A1s were more cost effective, but the M3 (thats for GotUzi) and the Stens were just as good and significantly less expensive.

 

This is similar to nobody wanting to drop blued steel frames when Gaston Glock introduced his plastic gun in the 1980s. Now everybody wants to and does make a polymer framed handgun.

 

Ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think people are reading too much into my comments.

 

The original Thompson was an overbuilt gun that was somewhat improved when it was simplified. As opposed to "cheapened".

 

That's pretty much my whole message.

 

This is something that dawned on me by accident, I bought an M1A1 for then heck of it and after a few months of ownership it dawned on me that the M1A1 was a excellently engineered weapon and not a "stripper".

 

The only reason I mention it is because occasionally people will refer to the M1 types as "cheap", which is a gun shop bubba opinion that floats around and around, not an accurate assessment of the gun.

 

 

I can't agree with the idea that the M3 and sten were "just as good" as the Thompson. The Thompson was a deluxe weapon, on par with the 1911, Garand and M1 Carbine.

 

The sten is almost the opposite, where the Thompson is overbuilt, the sten is very crude and had a very so-so service record. The brits were known to sort through a pile of them looking for a good one.

 

Also, that double-stack single feed mag design was a real turd, a deeply flawed WWI design that they unwisely copied from zee Germans.

 

The british commandos did not like to use the sten because it would slam fire if you fell down while holding it, and it would clog with dirt. They used Thompsons instead.

Edited by buzz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just save your money and get a PPS43...it will outshoot the Thompson any day of the week! Just kidding. While I do like the Thompsons and they are a very collectible and historic gun.. as Ron said they were very outdated by the time WWII came around. There is no doubt they were extremely well built and worked well, they do have a lot of shortcomings when compared to the rivals of the WWII time period. I personally find the gun very top heavy when shouldered. The mag changes are also sort of a pain to do quickly. I favor the guns with a magwell such as the MP40, PPS43, Beretta 38A's etc. they reload much quicker. The Thompson also takes a lot more practice to keep on target compared to many other subguns of the period. They are also dirt sensitive due to the tight tolerances in the receiver. The Thompson mags also are not very durable and can be dented pretty easily. I think the best magazines of the war had to be either the Beretta mags or the PPS43 mags. Very durable and work great.

Its amazing how the prices on all the Thompsons keep rising and it shows they will be a great collectible for a long time. Even people you meet who know very little about guns can usually tell you what a Thompson is when you show them. All the old subguns are cool in their own way. Thompsongunner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason I got the Thompson bug was the history and fascination of the use of the Tommy Gun during the 20's, 30's and early WWII. The use of the Thompson buy bad guys, union busters, mail and bank guards and early days of WWII had a fascination with me. After reading the history of General Thompson and the folks that developed the Thompson I was hooked. So the Thompsons that I revere are the Colts Then the 1928's.

 

This being said I{notice I said I} would not own a MIAI to me Its just another machinegun With the Thompson name on it. This coming from a person that stopped liking Fords when they did away with the Flathead motor.

 

Frank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think people are reading too much into my comments.

 

The original Thompson was an overbuilt gun that was somewhat improved when it was simplified. As opposed to "cheapened".

 

That's pretty much my whole message.

 

This is something that dawned on me by accident, I bought an M1A1 for then heck of it and after a few months of ownership it dawned on me that the M1A1 was a excellently engineered weapon and not a "stripper".

 

The only reason I mention it is because occasionally people will refer to the M1 types as "cheap", which is a gun shop bubba opinion that floats around and around, not an accurate assessment of the gun.

 

 

I can't agree with the idea that the M3 and sten were "just as good" as the Thompson. The Thompson was a deluxe weapon, on par with the 1911, Garand and M1 Carbine.

 

The sten is almost the opposite, where the Thompson is overbuilt, the sten is very crude and had a very so-so service record. The brits were known to sort through a pile of them looking for a good one.

 

Also, that double-stack single feed mag design was a real turd, a deeply flawed WWI design that they unwisely copied from zee Germans.

 

The british commandos did not like to use the sten because it would slam fire if you fell down while holding it, and it would clog with dirt. They used Thompsons instead.

Buzz-

Couldn't agree more. But I guess the correct term would be cost cutting(?). Which definitely does not have anything to do with being a poorly or underbuilt. They are built like a tank. I mean it weighs as much as the Garand.

 

Someday hopefully I'll own one of each Thompson.

 

Andrew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The M1 was completely overbuilt when it was developed. When the rest of the world was switching to stampings, tubing and welding, Savage was hanging onto costly machine billet steel. The goal of this design was to drive out cost as much as possible. There are lots of fancy terms for this we still use today. Most people are offended by low cost so we think of feel good terms like optimized engineered refined weight reducing best cost etc etc.

 

Just as good means they were accepted/adopted by military contract. They met all the requirements and were significantly less expensive. The military was looking for cost effective weapons that get the job done. Over 4 million Stens were made, over half a million M3s. Both were double stack, single feed and served into the 1960s and beyond. Even the beloved Uzi kept that turd design.

 

I believe the troops also hated the M16 when it came out and wanted to keep M14s. I would say The Armalite design has done ok for itself despite the initial reactions.

 

Dont get me wrong. I too like the M1, however there are other WWII sub guns that I would much rather carry all day long. It was a cost reduced version of the original design, however still far too expensive which lead to the program to replace it. The M2 switched to a tube design gun.

 

I always had the same feelings about the Thompson until we did the NRA display that detailed the development of the sub machine gun. Having the ability to view the entire evolution from 1919 to present day side by side, combined with my product development background, has given me a different appreciation for arms development.

 

Ron

Edited by ron_brock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no shortage of Thompsons for sale. There were a number for sale at the creek (more than any other MG type there) and a number coming up at auctions. Granted some are west hurley's, but I'm not going to discriminate since I started with one of those and it was a fine shooter, never a hiccup or broken part.

 

The epic fail of the Thompson was in keeping the square vs. going round. Tough to cut costs and production time when you are milling away 75% of your starting material vs. shearing off a tube section. The Germans fixed the stock, but gave up on the rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...