Battle of the Submachine Guns, Thompson vs...

[Colt Chopper]

I remeber having a discussion with a Veteran friend about the Thompson vs Grease Gun, he preffered the Thompson for the ruggedness, one jump out of a

 

tank, and the M3 hits the tank tracks and the tube is dented, it is useless.

 

The Thompson can take a lot more abuse in the field and still function.

[richard w.]

Goatees n' ballcaps. 'Murica!

 

Just kidding. I don't have a beef with them. They're only making movies for Joe Sixpack.

 

Show business!

[Speeddemon02]

Isn't the battle damaged thompson shown on this forum still functional? This would go along with what Chopper mentioned.

[buzz]

I cannot help but wonder why the Kriss was included in the video.

 

Is this a commercial for the Kriss?

 

The Thompson and M3 were US military arms, used extensively.

 

The kriss was adopted by what army?

[Canuck]

I had the same feeling.

More of a commercial for Kriss than anything else. Not to be taken too seriously.

No one at a show in a hundred years is ever going to say "wow, is that a real Kriss". On the other hand ......

[Karatebear]

There was clearly bias against the Thompson and in favor of the M3 in the beginning with it turning into a sales pitch for the KRISS towards the end. I am pretty sure everyone here is biased for the Thompson, myself included, though mines a 28a1. I personally would of liked to see a HK UMP 45 thrown in the mix.

Edited February 5, 2015 by Karatebear

[dalbert]

Mr. Vickers registered on this site within the last few days, and I just approved his membership. We'll see if maybe he decides to comment on this post after all. That may not be his intent, but I'm going to bring this topic back up to the top, just in case.

 

David Albert

dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

[mnshooter]

I have to agree on one point with Ken H. Everyone (who wants one) should have (be able to own) a full auto Kriss.

Even if it does look like a lunch box with a gun grafted on.

The one I shot was not all that superior in full auto control -to me.

Difficult to tell for sure, because the magazine was empty before it mattered much.

Edited September 16, 2016 by mnshooter

[TSMGguy]

The real Thompson experts were those who were armed with it during WWII, and who saw extensive combat with the weapon. They fired it in short bursts, from the hip. They practiced until they couldn't miss.

[buzz]

I find it very hard to believe the hip-firing legend. That seems like something for movies and TV shows because it's nifty looking.

 

Why wouldn't the Thompson be shoulder-fired like any other rifle?

 

I have never seen any evidence that the Thompson was designed to be shot that way or that it was commonly used that way in combat.

 

Have you ever compared the accuracy of hip-firing to shoulder-firing?

 

When are military weapons ever designed to be used by someone who is an expert in trick-shot shooting?

Edited September 16, 2016 by buzz

[MauserMatt]

As an owner of an M1 Thompson, I was vastly disappointed with the video Mr. Vickers put out. As was stated, there seemed to be a bias against it from the start.

 

I feel I do pretty well with the Thompson, and will compete with it in a local subgun match soon... But if they had just put someone in that video that knew a little more about how to operate the Thompson than these gentlemen did, there would have been a different "winner"......

 

Maybe I'm biased... But I don't think the Thompson is as uncomfortable and uncontrollable to shoot as the video suggests....

[ron_brock]

As an RSO this year at TATA, I helped several first time shooters and novice shooters as well as a few experienced guys.

 

I can say all found it easy to shoot and put rounds into a man sized target at all courses of fire. I consider that a pretty good sampling. I agree the Thompson is so little long to shoulder but that could be more of an issue with my non-GI stature and short arms than the gun.

 

I like sheet metal guns and plastic guns but if I were fighting for my life on the battlefield, I'd have a Thompson as my first choice.

 

Ron

[Got Uzi]

There is a video where they compare an M3 to the UMP45. It is interesting to see the results.

 

I prefer the slower rate of fire on my M3 and that it is lighter, not to mention much more simple internally. Weight, compactness, and simplicity I will say that I can reload my M3 faster than my '28 as I don't have to line up the T slot. I was RSO at the TCA shoot yesterday and we had a reload event and many new and some experienced shooters struggled with the reload as they had to stop and line up the slot.

 

Control on these firearms as we all know comes down to how much time one has behind them. Other than yesterday, I have not shot my Thompson hardly at all since April but I had no issues holding my own in the matches.

 

Being one who has one foot in this group and the other is the "tactical gun" community, I can say that most "modern shooters" aka "102 Chairborne Rangers" have no first hand experience and will quote line and verse of people when they see something so uber "tacti-cool" such as the Kriss. I own a '28 Thompson and an M3GG....there is a reason I don't have a Kriss (even in semi)

[MG08]

I always chuckle when I hear about the videos done by armchair commandos ( not that all are ) comparing this gun or that, and going out and shooting up cans, bottles, or whatever. As a long time reader of all these gun boards, we all know that most firearms work well ( or not) depending on the shooter, the ammo, or the particular magazine. Add to that a lack of objective criteria to evaluate the items against and all you have is a video of shooting stuff up. I have unique perspective on a lot of these since I own a lot of SMGs, shoot them, and have carried SMGs for use in actual situations in military and police type situations. I have tested SMGs, carbines, rifles, ammo, etc against real world targets, body armor, cars, buildings etc.

Bottom line is most of the time the criteria established to evaluate the firearm against will be a deciding factor in the outcome. Is weight an issue ? Thompson is heavy. Rate of fire ? The grease gun is slow, and you can tap off one shot easily, but when you need a burst, it seems to take forever to get 5-8 rds onto a target. ( or bad guy) . Are you really going to crawl through a mud hole obstacle course before having to shoot your gun ? or pour sand on it ? Long periods of fire ? M16s / M4s heat up fast in rapid fire. 45 vs 9mm. well, what can you say about that ? only guy I ever shot with a pistol was with a 9mm and it nearly severed his head. it worked. But 45 or 9mm does not penetrate hard targets like a TAP barrier round in 223 or 308.... Just because it uses Glock mags does not make it "cooler" . anyway I will stop my rant. Enjoy the video for what they are. It is sort of like Hollywood, just because they through a hand grenade in the window, a two story building does NOT blow up in a ball of flame that way. it is make believe to entertain.....

[MG08]

I find it very hard to believe the hip-firing legend. That seems like something for movies and TV shows because it's nifty looking.

 

Why wouldn't the Thompson be shoulder-fired like any other rifle?

 

I have never seen any evidence that the Thompson was designed to be shot that way or that it was commonly used that way in combat.

 

Have you ever compared the accuracy of hip-firing to shoulder-firing?

 

When are military weapons ever designed to be used by someone who is an expert in trick-shot shooting?

 

to a certain extent, you are correct, but there are a number of WWII training videos where the instructors are demonstrating hip firing techniques, and with some practice it is very easy to hit with a thompson from the hip. there are also a number of books, stories etc on line by gentlemen who used the Thompson in combat, and for close range quick encounters it seems there was a lot of hip shooting going on. Combat shooting is a combination of speed and accuracy. We used to train back in the old days (Navy/ Marines, special operations type stuff) shooting the M16 at ranges under 40 yds or so, by aiming the rifle with the top of the front sight and top of the rear sight ( not the peep) while aiming for the belly button area. this would put the rds center mass, and you could acquire and fire very quickly. I still train this way when I shoot. It is a good way to "beat the draw" on an adversary where you need to shoot fast AND accurately. - because we all know you can miss just as fast as you can pull the trigger, and only hits count.

 

there is certainly lots of evidence that the Thomson was fired from the hip, and I am sure others can point to the videos I am referring to . I particularly like the squat/ bunny hop thing that the instructor was doing in one video.

[Black River Militaria CII]

Stupid, irrelevant comparisons render stupid, irrelevant results. And whatever variation on that theme you care to add.......

[RoscoeTurner]

Stupid, irrelevant comparisons render stupid, irrelevant results. And whatever variation on that theme you care to add.......

 

Bob, there are some on this forum if you told them the sun rose in the east and set in the west they would argue with you that it wasn't so.

[buzz]

If you think about the Thompson very objectively and remove all emotion and nostaligia, what is it exactly?

 

It's a small, very heavy duty, select-fire rifle that shoots 45acp.

 

It takes stick mags and drum mags.

 

It has 3 large, easy-to-use controls: mag release, selector switch and safety.

 

It is accurate and reliable and was used extensively in the biggest war in human history.

 

None of the above statements can honestly be the subject of controversy and argument.

 

 

So people make these stupid videos, and content of the videos consists of three things:

 

1. Pretending to be an expert by making picky criticism about the weight or "ergonomics".

 

2. Shooting a few mags out of the gun and then looking at their target and then declaring the gun is hard to shoot.

 

3. Add in some gun shop BS legends they heard somewhere.

 

 

All three of those things amount to a joke.

 

1. The gun weighs 10lbs, not 100lbs. Same as a Garand. The controls on the gun are easy to operate. It's reliable and easy to shoot.

 

2. The gun was used by the millions of soldiers in global combat. That's a lot better of a test than some knucklehead firing a mag or two at the range.

 

3. Gun shop BS is easy to disprove. Read Wikipedia for 5 minutes before the show starts and THEN play the big expert.

 

 

#2 above is the thing that really annoys me.

 

When they make millions of something and then it enters widespread use, WHY DO YOU HAVE TO "TEST" IT?

 

The test was the actual use of it.

 

Do you have to test a Chevy 350 V-8 to see if it was a good engine design? Maybe GM sticking 100 million of them into cars was a good enough test? You think?

 

 

 

By far the most stupid Thompson video ever was when Penn and Teller "debunked" it by having someone do a mag dump from the hip.

 

Of course the guy missed all the targets and then Penn and Teller said, "See?? It's a bad gun!"

 

The guy could obviously have shouldered the gun, actually aimed it, shot a few bursts, and hit every target in 3 seconds flat but common sense is not that common.

 

You don't even have to burst fire the gun, it's select fire.

 

That video is poisonously stupid.

Edited September 19, 2016 by buzz

[buzz]

Maybe you can tell, this is one of my pet peeves.

 

 

Picky comments can be made about any object ever made by mankind.

 

You can make picky comments about the Saturn V rocket or the pancake flipper you use to make fried eggs.

 

But making picky comments doesn't magically turn you into an expert or make the comments relevant to anything.

[buzz]

 

I find it very hard to believe the hip-firing legend. That seems like something for movies and TV shows because it's nifty looking.

 

Why wouldn't the Thompson be shoulder-fired like any other rifle?

 

I have never seen any evidence that the Thompson was designed to be shot that way or that it was commonly used that way in combat.

 

Have you ever compared the accuracy of hip-firing to shoulder-firing?

 

When are military weapons ever designed to be used by someone who is an expert in trick-shot shooting?

 

to a certain extent, you are correct, but there are a number of WWII training videos where the instructors are demonstrating hip firing techniques, and with some practice it is very easy to hit with a thompson from the hip. there are also a number of books, stories etc on line by gentlemen who used the Thompson in combat, and for close range quick encounters it seems there was a lot of hip shooting going on. Combat shooting is a combination of speed and accuracy. We used to train back in the old days (Navy/ Marines, special operations type stuff) shooting the M16 at ranges under 40 yds or so, by aiming the rifle with the top of the front sight and top of the rear sight ( not the peep) while aiming for the belly button area. this would put the rds center mass, and you could acquire and fire very quickly. I still train this way when I shoot. It is a good way to "beat the draw" on an adversary where you need to shoot fast AND accurately. - because we all know you can miss just as fast as you can pull the trigger, and only hits count.

 

there is certainly lots of evidence that the Thomson was fired from the hip, and I am sure others can point to the videos I am referring to . I particularly like the squat/ bunny hop thing that the instructor was doing in one video.

 

 

The problem is that there is a persistent gun-shop-bubba legend that the "Thompson was designed to be shot from the hip".

 

The fact that it CAN be shot from the hip doesn't mean it was designed specifically for it.

 

The fact that the army taught point-shooting techniques for close quarters combat doesn't mean the gun was designed specifically for hip-shooting.

 

The army taught all kinds of point-shooting techniques for the 1911 but that doesn't mean it was designed to be held at the hip like Hollywood cowboy.

 

 

You hear people say this: "The Thompson wasn't that great because it was designed for 'spray and pray' shooting from the hip. So it was pretty useless."

 

It's a silly statement that is obviously not true. It obviously has a set of sights and a big heavy duty buttstock on it, and it works perfect for shooting like any other rifle.

 

Why not say the UZI or MP5 was designed to mag-dumping from the hip?

 

It's absurd.

 

 

Yes, I drank a lot of caffeine today.

Edited September 19, 2016 by buzz

[huggytree]

why does a heavy gun = a bad gun.....maybe these guys need to get in shape if its too heavy for them....heavy = easier to control from my limited FA experience..

 

my Amp10 on my Mac10/45 w/ 70 round drum is so heavy it doesnt move when shooting FA...i can almost write my name its so easy to control.....i would go as far as to say i prefer a bit of weight to my FA

 

id love to try their Kriss....looks like a blast to shoot

[johnsonlmg41]

It all boils down to a 16" +LOP, which makes it an ergonomic problem for most shooters to shoulder comfortably and thus hip firing became an option. Worse in WW2 since the average height/arm length was much shorter than today.

[buzz]

I don't think you can compare the length of pull on a Thompson to other guns because it has a separate pistol grip mounted well forward of the usual position.

 

What percent of soldiers are too short to fire a Thompson?

 

There are videos of women and teenagers shooting it.

 

Edited September 20, 2016 by buzz

[Tman]

The US Army had a whole doctrine around the 'marching fire' concept using the BAR. Firing from the hip while walking! Does that make it a bad gun or worthless in combat? I don't think so.

[Ron Mills]

R. Lee Ermy aka Gunny did marching fire w/the BAR on a Mail Call episode.

All I will add to this lively discussion is that when some party does a "review" of any item, be it a Thompson, Grease Gun, Ronco Salad Spinner, whatever; just do the research and get it right.

A wise old engineer once told me "One thing can be said for ignorance: It causes some interesting arguments."