Action Shot

[Hawkeye_Joe]

While not a "combat" shot, was made during jungle training, it's still a cool Tommygun pic:

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v11/Hawkeye/WWII%20pics/Thompsonshooting.jpg

[RoscoeTurner]

The barrel appears to not have fins.

[Hawkeye_Joe]

This was one of the few WWII pics I found while looking for smooth barrelled 1928A1's, that looked like it had one.

[RoscoeTurner]

I have always liked that photo for another reason, it shows the uniform my uncle told me that he wore on Siapan and Okinawa.

[TheGunny]

I have always liked that photo for another reason, it shows the uniform my uncle told me that he wore on Siapan and Okinawa.

 

Yea, thats the one piece cammo coverall that was soon to be replaced because they were found to be impractical. Imagine having dysentery and trying to get that thing off in a hurry!

 

 

Your uncle would most likely of had the 2 piece uniform by Okinawa.

Edited April 28, 2010 by TheGunny

[RoscoeTurner]

I have always liked that photo for another reason, it shows the uniform my uncle told me that he wore on Siapan and Okinawa.

 

Yea, thats the one piece cammo coverall that was soon to be replaced because they were found to be impractical. Imagine having dysentery and trying to get that thing off in a hurry!

 

 

Your uncle would most likely of had the 2 piece uniform by Okinawa.

 

 

Nope, he flat stated that it was the one piece suit. I asked him that specific question. He was in an I&R platoon in 165th Inf, 27th ID. He was there I wasn't, so I go with what he said.

 

One day collectors will tell my nephew that I did not carry a Browning Hi-Power in El Salvador in 1989 because they were not an issue weapon with the US Army but I was issued one. Not every thing is cut and dry when it comes to what soldiers can get there hands on and use.

 

 

[Roland, Headless Thompson Gunner]

I dunno guys, my first impression was that it was a finned barrel before I read the post. I thought the motion just distorted the view of the fins. How else do you account for the shadowing on the barrel? Why doesn't the rear two thirds of the barrel look similar to the first third? I'm sure our forensic expert GIJIVE could straighten this out.

 

[Hawkeye_Joe]

It might have helped, both us and the WWII GI, if we had really had real "Smokeless" powder like the Germans did.....

[gijive]

I dunno guys, my first impression was that it was a finned barrel before I read the post. I thought the motion just distorted the view of the fins. How else do you account for the shadowing on the barrel? Why doesn't the rear two thirds of the barrel look similar to the first third? I'm sure our forensic expert GIJIVE could straighten this out.

 

Bill,

 

It's really hard to tell from that picture. I have seen that picture many times over the year and couldn't give you a definitive answer. Although, the shadow effect on the first two-thirds of the barrel could be fins, as you point out, it also could be shadow from the angle of light on the curved barrel. The picture was obviously taken in available light with the slower black and white films of the period. This is what causes the slightly soft focus and of course the movement of the gun doesn't help. I think it is impossible to tell from that photo, but I might lean towards the smooth barrel by the way the light is reflected off the front section where it meets the shadowed area. The "smokeless" powder doesn't help either, as Hawkeye pointed out.

[reconbob]

I think we are seeing the shadow of the fins. The light (sun?) is above and

in front of the soldier - his face is lit, but the back of his helmet is shaded.

The rear of the receiver is shaded, and likewise the fins are casting a widening

shadow on the barrel as they get bigger...

 

My $0.02

 

Bob