Battle of the Submachine Guns, Thompson vs...

[jim c 351]

I'm trying to visualize a unit coming under fire and all the guys with M1's hit the dirt and return fire from the shoulder and the Thompson trooper stands erect and fires his TSMG from the hip. What would the life expectancy be (in fractions of a second) for the Thompson shooter?

Then there's the guy who runs his gun dry before he gets the burst on target. What would he say to his opponent?

Shooting any gun without aiming runs the risk of missing, not a good thing in combat.

Believe what you want, but its aimed fire for me.

Jim C

Edited September 20, 2016 by jim c 351

[johnsonlmg41]

Buzz note in the vid. it took poor Ash nearly 11 seconds to position the Thompson before she could comfortably line up the sight picture. The sten is just right there and she drops her head just a tad and she's on target almost immediately as the gun shoulders almost instantly. Aiming is optional for MG's, they are primarily suppressive fire to allow guys who aim with rifles to hit their target, or for spray and pray firefights. When you look at the stats of rounds fired per casualty in Vietnam, it's pretty obvious aiming was generally too time consuming and difficult given the geography.

So next time you guys go to the range tell me about all the guns you saw with the 16" LOP.......yeah none except your Thompson, oh yes and the sterling, but that's the result of a geometry issue . Rarely does any stocked firearm ever exceed 15". Why would you suppose virtually every other firearm ever designed is that way?

 

Check your safes and tell me about all the other guns you own that have over 14.5 LOP. I apologize in advance if your list is too long to type. LOL

[buzz]

This woman Ash obviously is new to handling guns, look how awkward she is.

 

The idea being promoted here is that the Thompson was designed for hip-shooting, which is supposedly proved by the long stock.

 

So I posted a video of a woman shooting it from the shoulder. Which she can obviously do, however awkwardly. And there are videos of teenagers shooting it on youtube.

 

And a ton of pictures and videos of other people like FBI agents and soldiers shooting it from the shoulder.

 

So I'm going to have to disagree with that whole notion, sorry.

 

 

People talk about "marching fire" - that was supposed to be a WWI tactic, for when the mass of soldiers walked slowly forward towards the enemy. One shot per step, not full auto.

 

It was supposed to be for suppression, to keep the enemies' heads down. Can someone cite me an example where it was actually used in combat? And can someone cite me any original information that indicates that it dictated the design of the Thompson?

 

 

Lee Ermy saying something 3rd hand is the same as any other guy saying something 3rd hand. Find the original data from 1918 or whenever and then make your case.

 

 

And here's the kicker - The army training video shows the Thompson being shot 100% from the shoulder. And there is no mention at all of the hip-shooting at all.

 

It would be kind of weird for a gun to be designed for hip-shooting and the army fails to even mention it in their training film, don't you think?

 

 

Here's one where they compare several WWII mgs, and all are fired from the shoulder.

 

 

I guess nobody was in the mood for hip shooting that day?

 

 

Someone needs to come up with some original data showing that the Thompson was "designed to be shot from the hip", before I'll believe it.

 

Because it goes against common sense. Obviously, lifting the gun to your shoulder and aiming it, even just pointing it, would be 100 times easier and more accurate than hip-shooting it.

Edited September 21, 2016 by buzz

[DougStump]

It was supposed to be for suppression, to keep the enemies' heads down. Can someone cite me an example where it was actually used in combat?

The British tried it at the Battle of the Somme. Didn't work out so well.

[TSMGguy]

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.

 

 

Read Donald Burgett's book, "Currahee". It'll dispel any doubts about the hip-shooting "legend".

[anticus]

It's interesting to note that the US Army course of fire to qualify with the Thompson mainly calls for aimed semi-auto fire from the shoulder.

[anticus]

From another thread:

 

http://www.machinegunboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=16455&hl=qualification&do=findComment&comment=137388

[huggytree]

wasnt it originally designed w/o a butt stock?

 

doesnt that prove the point?

 

i believe in this photo he was showing how to use the 18 shot shot shell mag for duck hunting (take note of his use of proper gun safety by putting his finger on the trigger)

 

 

Edited September 21, 2016 by huggytree

[Bridgeport28A1]

CFR 50 20.21 Machineguns and waterfowl hunting...never heard one or saw one being used in the field.

[shadycon]

The Thompson, like all military weapons were designed to kill people. In my opinion how you use it depends on the situation. If you have time to aim and be selective, all is good. If you have a large number of the enemy coming at you at close range' would you aim at each one or spray the bunch as a whole? Would you have time to shoulder the weapon or just point and shoot? Hip shooting may not be what it was designed for but it does work with a little practice. I started hip shooting many years ago, M1 carbine vs. beer cans at about 50 to 75 yds. Watch them bounce! Today with my tired ole eyes I do better hip shooting [ 50 yds.] SA tommy or M1 than iron sites. For hunting I have to use a scope or No groceries. So In My Opinion it's what ever makes you happy. Hip shooting is fun and it make happy. By the way I don't got to public ranges as I have my own 100 yd range!

[shadycon]

The Thompson, like all military weapons were designed to kill people. In my opinion how you use it depends on the situation. If you have time to aim and be selective, all is good. If you have a large number of the enemy coming at you at close range' would you aim at each one or spray the bunch as a whole? Would you have time to shoulder the weapon or just point and shoot? Hip shooting may not be what it was designed for but it does work with a little practice. I started hip shooting many years ago, M1 carbine vs. beer cans at about 50 to 75 yds. Watch them bounce! Today with my tired ole eyes I do better hip shooting [ 50 yds.] SA tommy or M1 than iron sites. For hunting I have to use a scope or No groceries. So In My Opinion it's what ever makes you happy. Hip shooting is fun and it make happy. By the way I don't got to public ranges as I have my own 100 yd range!

[mnshooter]

CFR 50 20.21 Machineguns and waterfowl hunting...never heard one or saw one being used in the field.

 

It works ok, but you need to use a tracer every 4th shot.

[buzz]

You guys are missing my point.

 

Obviously, the Thompson CAN be fired from the hip and at times WAS fired from the hip.

 

And there are people out there who are awesome at firing from the hip.

 

 

At some point in the past, all the gun shop counter bubbas started saying, "That there Thompson weren't no good because it was designed to be be fired from the hip and you would just spray and pray."

 

Penn and Teller even did a video trying to "prove" this nonsense.

 

It's just a nifty thing for bubbas to repeat back and forth, the same as saying the M1 Carbine wouldn't penetrate the Chinese winter uniforms in Korea.

 

 

I said earlier that I wanted original data before I'd accept the spray-and-pray BS, but the data is already available.

 

All you have to do is examine the gun itself.

 

 

The Thompson was sold originally with a beautifully made SHOULDER STOCK and an expensive and precise LADDER SIGHT.

 

That proves without a single possible doubt that the gun was intended to be fired from the shoulder.

 

A gun designed to be hip-fired and spray-and-prayed would not have a finely crafted shoulder stock and an expensive 600 yard peep sight on it. Period.

 

 

On the other hand,

 

The original buttstock also has a quick-detach button that made the buttstock instantly removable.

 

That's proof that the gun was ALSO intended to be hip fired when desired, like in very close quarters fighting.

 

 

So there you have it: the gun was designed to be precisely aimed when needed, and sprayed when needed.

 

As proved by the construction of the gun itself.

 

 

One question remains: how much hip-shooting was done and how much shoulder-shooting was done?

 

The fact that the M1 model has a fixed buttstock would indicate that the gun was used more as a shoulder weapon.

 

They were looking to save cost on the M1 version, so if the gun was hip-fired all the time, why not just omit the buttstock instead of permanently attaching it?

 

 

As a side note, reflect on the fact that just about every SMG you can think of can be held at the hip and fired, and a lot of them have a removable or collapsible shoulder stock.

 

But for some reason no gun shop bubbas insist that they were designed to be hip-fired.

 

Nobody ever says, "Them there MP18s, lanchesters, stens, M3 grease guns, MP40s, MP5s, UZIs, swedish Ks, and walter MPs are all bad guns because they were designed for spray-and-pray."

 

Only the Thompson gets this noble accolade.

[buzz]

Here's the penn and teller video "proving" the Thompson was useless:

 

 

 

Their "proof" ignores the fact that the gun has a shoulder stock, can be easily shouldered and aimed just like any other rifle, can be fired in bursts, and even has a selector switch.

 

This video is one of most phony and stupid gun videos on the internet and that is really saying something.

 

Maybe in 100 years this BS will evolve to the point that the bubbas are saying the Thompson was designed to be fired from kneecap level. Or using your feet. It was designed for foot-firing.

[ron_brock]

Buzz,

 

Looking at the evolution of the gun, I believe the "original intent" was more of a dual purpose gun, however well aimed shots would be difficult just holding the gun in your hands and a close stance was likely often used to help control the gun. That said, your "gun shop bubbas" probably cannot tell you when the gun was originally designed.

 

Let's examine why.

The various early generation of Annihilator had no buttstock. The gun was being designed to be an effective weapon to help with the current style of warfare, trench warfare. Trench warfare consisted of several modes of battle. Shooting from your trench to the other, running across no man's land, preventing your trench from being taken over, attacking other side's trench, etc etc. All rifles had an elevated site, similar to the Lyman. Peep sites were not en vogue, and craftsmanship was still the norm. The 1919 models show an evolution from no buttstock to detachable buttstock to the eventual design that became the 1921A. This was based on feedback from trials (foreign and domestic). Keep in mind AO had no US military contract they were trying to sell guns to whomever would buy. So the gun was originally designed without a buttstock. Later mass production models (1921A onwards) had buttstocks, other variations included rifle rounds, longer barrels, bipods, etc. AO wanted to sell guns in any shape or form that would work.

 

Ron

 

Edit:

I just watched the video for the first time and now feel dumber. Mr. Davis obviously has never shot full auto save for that one time in the academy. He nearly fell over in the snip-it of him shooting soda bottles. I am glad to have learned that the rifle that is now popular as the AR15 was originally designed as a single fire weapon. Glad to see he's such a weapons specialist that he could not even hit all the paint cans with the AR in a "one shot, one kill" manner. I'm going downstairs to burn my Collector Grade books and will get all of my knowledge from the internet from now on. Off to book mark Wikipedia.

Edited September 23, 2016 by ron_brock

[shadycon]

If the internet "Crashed" and could not recover, What would the general public do for information?

[RB5082]

The fellow who sold me my M1A1 said one technique for firing from the hip was to lay it on the side. I dunno - just passing on what he said.

Edited September 23, 2016 by RB5082

[shadycon]

That would be awkward. I just hold it by my side, point and shoot. 2nd or 3rd shot and I can still hit a propane tank @ 50 yds.

He's been watching to much TV/movies, for some reason they like to turn pistols sideways!

Note ; Last auto saved: 11:23:09 AM lower left corner

Edited September 23, 2016 by shadycon

[bug]

If the internet "Crashed" and could not recover, What would the general public do for information?

 

I wouldn't worry about it. Before that ever happens we'll see signs, like double posts for no reason and stuff like that...

[MG08]

The fellow who sold me my M1A1 said one technique for firing from the hip was to lay it on the side. I dunno - just passing on what he said.

Personally I dont think it applies to the Thompson, but it is a valid technique for the AK-47. We were doing some training with an Israeli special unit , and one of the techniques for rapid movement and shooting involved firing the AK ( real originals with slant breaks not the newfangled ones) on it's side - and it actually did make the rifle more controllable on longer full auto bursts. There was also some froggy jump stuff, and a lot of point shooting. Good stuff, and we got the shoot a lot. Ahhh - the good old days.... Wish I was in that kind of physical condition now.... Old age sucks.

 

http://photos.imageevent.com/blinde/workpictures/websize/Brian%20With%20M60%202.jpg

[bug]

MG08, was the AK fired ejection port up or down? Just curious.

 

Bob D

[ron_brock]

 

If the internet "Crashed" and could not recover, What would the general public do for information?

 

I wouldn't worry about it. Before that ever happens we'll see signs, like double posts for no reason and stuff like that...

That's funny. I think shady got something a little shady on his computer.

 

Ron

[shadycon]

I guess I'll be seeing double before long! Oh well, back to the shade tree for another cold beer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[shadycon]

I guess I'll be seeing double before long! Oh well, back to the shade tree for another cold beer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

See what I mean!

Edited September 23, 2016 by shadycon

[Ron Mills]

Straying off topic with humor, now that's more like it!

 

Road Ron