M1A1 Thompson VS M3A1 Grease Gun

[RifleMan20]

The battle over which gun is better and which ones has better produce abillity, damage, accuracy, ammo usage, and anything you want to argue about, I have to go with the Thompson, one reason is that its stopping poer is amazing and its accuracy is better then the greece gun, this gun was used a lot in the gang business to so its not only a war weapon, now its your turn over this verdict.


(Title edited by Panzerknacker)

[Panzerknacker]

Greece?? hahahahaha, you give me a good laugh Rifleman :D

This is Greece :rolleyes:

http://www.lonelyplanet.com/mapimages/europe/greece/greece.gif



You mean M3 Grease gun. And the Thompson was superior in almost every aspect, the M3 only had a cheaper and lighter manufacture.

[overlord644]

i too would choose the thomson, it has a more powerful bullet as well as a much faster rate of fire, it did however cost 300$ to manufacture where the Greasegun cost 50$

[RifleMan20]

my bad....i just learned about greece in school ( 2 weeks ago) so i got confused

[Nickdfresh]

Greece?? hahahahaha, you give me a good laugh Rifleman :D

This is Greece :rolleyes:

http://www.lonelyplanet.com/mapimages/europe/greece/greece.gif



You mean M3 Grease gun. And the Thompson was superior in almost every aspect, the M3 only had a cheaper and lighter manufacture.


LMFAO! :D

I agree completely. The Thompson (or "Trench Broom" as it was called during development at the end of WWI) was meticulously produced and was costly. The Grease Gun came about as America's answer to the Sten Gun, that is, a cheap sub-machinegun produced from stamped sheet metal. I forget the statistics, but it cost a fraction of the price of a Thompson to produce and M-3 Grease Gun. But I'd take a Tommy gun any day!

I'm not expert, but a couple of interesting facts:

The M3 could be field re-calibrated to fire 9mm Parabellum ammo with a quick change of the barrel.

The Grease Gun was (unofficially) in service until fairly recently, as recent as the early 1990s anyway. I believe tankers and other equipment operators and pilots still had access because they were smaller than an M-16. But they been replaced by MP4s and M-4 carbines...

[RifleMan20]

yep the grease gun was just a hunk of metel that fires out bullets.....i think the grease gun overheats easily and burns the carriers hands.

[Splinter54]

I don't know, what you think, but especially those sorts of Guns are very instabile and inaccurate (i don't want to meantion, that the grease Gun's piston (? right?) was made out of wire and multiplies this effect!)

The only good things about that was, that it was cheap and fast to produce, small and light(!!).
In the efficience i would sort it like the Liberator Pistol.
But i voted for the Thompson, because there are worlds between the quality and the combat duty's they have to fullyfie.

But there was a special version with a welded silencer on it. If asking which of the guns would be better for covert operations, i would vote for the Grease Gun.

[Panzerknacker]

I dont know if you are refering to this splinter but the M3 is not gas operated but simple blowback

And the Thompson might be innacuratte but it carry a lot of firepower.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvVUBGyTjj0

[Splinter54]

I dont know if you are refering to this splinter but the M3 is not gas operated but simple blowback

No sorry, i let Google translate "Kolben" into english - from "Gewehrkolben" or "-schaft", but now i think it means stock in english - i am not sure. It's where you put your shoulder to, to stabilise the gun and to aim properly ... not sure if i expressed that right new :neutral:

[overlord644]

well the thomson may have been inaccurate but at 300 rpm its impossible not to hit the target

[Man of Stoat]

One. They both fire the same cartridge.
2. The M3 rate of fire was deliberately designed to be what the U.S. Army considered "optimal". This makes it controllable, unlike the Thomson.
3. The M3 is, I believe, more reliable.

[tankgeezer]

These are both good weapons, I have used them both, and though they are different in many ways, they both do the job.
The Thompson is the epitome of the sub-gun maker's craft, the units produced by Colt were amazing works of mechanical art. The military versions were not as pretty, and lacked one internal part that didnt really have to be there, and it was a respected weapon to all who knew it. (on both sides) It had a higher rate of fire, and larger magazine capacities, up to 100 rds. The Thompson was as accurate as any carbine of its time. The only drawbacks were cost, and manufacturing time.
The M-3, and later versions, were cheap, fast, and dirty, area coverage weapons, having 6 machined parts, the rest were stampings,and welded together. Cost per unit was around $9.00 at the time. Tolerances were just a dream, some barrels were loose enough to allow the slug to slide through, and fall out the muzzle.that wasnt an issue though, as it was intended for confined spaces, or repelling a close attack. (within about 200 ft.)
the M-3 was available in .45 a.c.p., or 9m.m., the change over requiring a different bolt, barrel, recoil springs, and magazine. I didnt care for the lower rate of fire, but with enough of them going ,it wasnt a real problem. I liked them both, and would enjoy using them again. - Raspenau -

[RifleMan20]

the m3 was made in 1944? around the ssame year that the sten was made..another weapon that is reasonable weapon and is a hunk of metel too

[jrw1268]

Overlord, you chose the Thompson because it has a more powerful bullet? Didn't they use the same ammo?

[tankgeezer]

Rates of fire for the two weapons were, Thompson M1-A1 600-700rpm.
M-3, M3-A1, 400-450 rpm.
Both weapons fired from an open bolt, and operated on blowback.

[overlord644]

Overlord, you chose the Thompson because it has a more powerful bullet? Didn't they use the same ammo?


you're right that's my mistake

[overlord644]

the m3 was made in 1944? around the ssame year that the sten was made..another weapon that is reasonable weapon and is a hunk of metel too

i believe the sten was in service as early as 1941

heres a good place for info on both guns

http://www.rt66.com/%7Ekorteng/SmallArms/thompson.htm
http://www.rt66.com/%7Ekorteng/SmallArms/grease.htm

[RifleMan20]

"The Sten, for example, which was of stamped and welded metal construction and finished with a paint-like coating, scored higher than the Thompson when such things as simplicity, accuracy, weight and reliability were measured."
That is intersresting....i found this in the second link o and sorry i didnt look at my answer

[Walther]

LMFAO! :D



I'm not expert, but a couple of interesting facts:

The M3 could be field re-calibrated to fire 9mm Parabellum ammo with a quick change of the barrel.



It is actually not that simple: The conversion kit consists of a new bolt (lighter due to the lower power of the 9mm Para round and adapted to the small diameter of the 9mm cartridge case base), two new main springs, a barrel and a magazine well adapter, which allows the use of British STEN magazines.

Jan

[Walther]

yep the grease gun was just a hunk of metel that fires out bullets.....i think the grease gun overheats easily and burns the carriers hands.

Depends where you hold it. The basic way was to use the pistol grip and the mag well, well away from the parts which get hot while firing. Also, you fire short controlled bursts (the cadence is quite low) and do not pump one magazine after the other through the gun.

Jan

[RifleMan20]

was the m3 inspired by the sten or was it just made because of the shortage of resources

[tankgeezer]

well, according to Wikipedia, the design was not inspired by anything more than low cost, and fast production. some design aspects of other weapons may have been incorporated, but just to make it easier to build. As we say here, "cheap, fast, and dirty".

[Nickdfresh]

I wonder if anyone has any experience or information as to how the 9mm version of the M-3 performed, as compared to say --a Sten?

[tankgeezer]

I've held, tho never fired a sten, but I have fired the M-3 in 9m.m., its still a slow firing weapon, and much the same in use as the .45 acp version.a bit clumsy,as compared to the feel of holding the sten. wish I could help you more. - Raspenau -

[oreminer]

teh sten is probably a good wepon because of its cheap to pruduce and easy to produce it says that it was better then other more expensive wepons but who knows only the soldiers who used both the wepons in the war

[RifleMan20]

if anyone has shot both the m3 and thompson can you tell me how the feel is of shooting and how it is diffenrent then the other gun please?

[tankgeezer]

I have, and I prefer the Thompson, its a bit heavier, longer, though far more robust than the M-3. The Tommy gun's higher rate of fire makes it a more formidable weapon, althought control wasnt a problem for me, some people might have trouble with it (due to the higher rate of fire) The M-3 tended to rock back and forth far more noticably than the Tommy, the large heavy bolt, and the lighter pressed steel "body" made it somewhat like firing a Chauchat, (long recoil,blowback) The M-3 also had a safety issue, if the port cover is open, and the weapon loaded, (the port cover had a tab that held the bolt in place) there was a good chance that it would go off if the user jumped off a truck, or some terrain feature that was over 3 ft. high. The heavy bolt would slide back enough to strip a round from the mag, and feed it to the chamber. (it has a fixed firing pin, so any time the bolt goes forward with a round, its going to fire.) the Tommy didnt have this trouble.
All in all, I consider the Thompson to be the easier, and smoother of the two to handle,even with almost double the rate of fire of the M-3. In the Gangster days of old Chicago, the Thompson, (known there as the Chicago typewriter)was the preferred weapon as it was so controllable, it never failed to put all the rounds where they were wanted. - Raspenau -

[overlord644]

obviously, now a days these weapons can on;y be fired on firing ranges and probably not for very long, but has anyone ever had either the thomson, grease gun or sten, jam?

[tankgeezer]

obviously, now a days these weapons can on;y be fired on firing ranges and probably not for very long, but has anyone ever had either the thomson, grease gun or sten, jam?

I wasnt firing it at the time, it was a sample belonging to a dealer friend. but it didnt jam, as such, but a round didnt fully burn, and the bullet only went a bit up tube. so it couldnt chamber the next round, and stopped. (bad ammo.)we had a M.A.C.-10 .45 that had the same problem, only it was on full auto, and packed 7 slugs into the BBL before stopping. the gun held together, but needed to be sent back to MAC for rebuilding, as the BBL had expanded, causing the lower receiver to do the same.
That annecdote aside, I have not seen a Thompson stop except when the ammo failed,(fail to fire, or short or long round) or was expended. - Raspenau -

[overlord644]

well at least that time was the ammo's fault

[tankgeezer]

That was some really lousy ammo, I dont know why he used it in a full auto capable weapon, after that, we knocked the remaining ammo down for components.

[RifleMan20]

Was it cheap ammo

[tankgeezer]

It was very old surplus military stuff Spanish, or South American, or Belgian contract ammo,not certain. it must have been way out of date. okay to use in pistols, or in semi auto mode, but a real bad idea for full auto. I remember that the label read Cartouchos De something, but thats all.

[Cavalry Gunner]

Carrying an M-3-A1 grease gun as a crew served weapon on M-60-A1 and M-551 Sheridan Tanks I had no problem with this weapon. The Thompson was also a good weapon both fire the 45 ACP but also are basicly useless over 50 yards as they are designed for working close in and to get you out of trouble in a pinch or inside of buildings. The thompson was designed for this very reason to fight in the trenches of WW1. If I were to choose one I'd choose the Grease gun as its easier to manuver with close in ,it is the only advantage worth mentioning compairing these two weapons.

Cavalry Gunner

[RifleMan20]

very agreeable and a question to you, sounds like you are in the service or were

[Cavalry Gunner]

Yes ten and a half years Vietnam,Isreal,Germany - Ranger with E-Co 75th Rangers in Vietnam attached to the 9th Inf Div Tan An. School trained Recon 11-D and later on M-60-A1's and M-551 Sheridans 11-E Armor Crewman.
My Avitar pic is me in my M-60-A1 at Graf in Germany. Ive Studied WWll history for 40 years. And the political history leading to it.

Cavalry Gunner
Wally

[RifleMan20]

well then i salute you for your bravery and courage on the battlefield...back on subject so i see that he grease gun is more portable but the thommpson packs a bigger punch

[Cavalry Gunner]

well then i salute you for your bravery and courage on the battlefield...back on subject so i see that he grease gun is more portable but the thommpson packs a bigger punch

They both use the 45 ACP round although the Thompson had a higher rate of fire the Punch is the same as they both fired the exact same round the Grease Gun was much shorter and with the wire stock collapsed it was very short they also used the same magazine although the Thompson had an avalible barrel magazine but the military didn't use this magazine.
Always match the weapon to the job.And Both are weapons to use close in.


Wally (Cavalry Gunner):D

[bwing55543]

They both use the 45 ACP round although the Thompson had a higher rate of fire the Punch is the same as they both fired the exact same round the Grease Gun was much shorter and with the wire stock collapsed it was very short they also used the same magazine although the Thompson had an avalible barrel magazine but the military didn't use this magazine.
Always match the weapon to the job.And Both are weapons to use close in.


Wally (Cavalry Gunner):D

The M1A1 did not have the slots to accomadate the drum magazines. It could only use the 20 or 30 round box magazines.

[Man of Stoat]

The drums were indeed issued early in the war, but they were expensive, bulky, and most of all, noisy on patrol.

Hence, they were dropped.

[Nickdfresh]

The drums were indeed issued early in the war, but they were expensive, bulky, and most of all, noisy on patrol.

Hence, they were dropped.

I thought later versions were modified so they could not accept the 50-round drum mag...

[Nickdfresh]

...The thompson was designed for this very reason to fight in the trenches of WW1. If I were to choose one I'd choose the Grease gun as its easier to manuver with close in ,it is the only advantage worth mentioning compairing these two weapons.

Cavalry Gunner


You might be the only one to choose the Grease Gun over the Thompson...

[bwing55543]

The drums were indeed issued early in the war, but they were expensive, bulky, and most of all, noisy on patrol.

Hence, they were dropped.

The M1928, which was used early on, could have the drums. The M1 and M1A1 could not. I've read that the drums were also dropped due to their tendencies to jam.

[RifleMan20]

i always wondered"what happend to the mafia drums" (as I call it) and that is a good point that there expensive and would jam

[bwing55543]

i always wondered"what happend to the mafia drums" (as I call it) and that is a good point that there expensive and would jam

Yeah. The M1928 Thompson was a really popular weapon for the Mafias back at that time. The ironic thing is that the Thompson was initially advertised as a weapon used to catch criminals, not to arm them.

[tankgeezer]

Auto Ordnace Corp. products were marketed to anyone who might have use for them. Ranchers, police Dept's, average Joe too.They could be found in local hardware, or general stores,and were sold over the counter nearly anyplace.
their use by criminals resulted in the Machinegun Act of 1934, which then required purchasers to meet qualifications, proving their identity, residency, and lack of criminal history. This was done by requiring endorsment from both local, and national law enforcement agencies. Included were 2 finger print cards, 2 mug shots, and ;lastly, a $200.00 transfer fee, (quite a sum in the 30's) this and the very long application form. This being duley executed, was sent off to Washington, where the F.B.I. would then run a background check on the buyer, and if all was well, a very pretty tax stamp was affixed to the form, and it was sent back to the purchaser, who could then take their weapon home. Federal permission is required to move the weapon across state lines for any reason, and cant be lent to any other person, or out of the control of the registered owner.
The advent of the 1968 Gun Control Act, place similar requirements on a variety of other firearms, (not full auto) Any breech loading firearm with a bore diameter exceeding .50 inches,Although many such weapons were re-tubed to fire the U.S. 50 BMG round.which makes them the same as any sporting rifle. any type of destructive device, mortars, artillary, and guns that are part of another machine, tank guns, ship's guns all had to go through the same red tape of paperwork. If these same weapons were deactivated by approved methods, (welding, machining,)they were then considered "unservicable" and no longer a weapon, and could be aquired far more easily. Muzzle loading cannon of any bore size are not covered by this law, whether old original cannon, or new made reproductions, so buy and sell as you wish.
The munitions for these weapons may also require registration, anything explosive, or incindiary as a primary function has to be so registered, and serial numbered. When it is expended, a form must be submitted showing its serial #, and other info about its being used. I love America,,, What a country...

[bwing55543]

Auto Ordnace Corp. products were marketed to anyone who might have use for them. Ranchers, police Dept's, average Joe too.They could be found in local hardware, or general stores,and were sold over the counter nearly anyplace.
their use by criminals resulted in the Machinegun Act of 1934, which then required purchasers to meet qualifications, proving their identity, residency, and lack of criminal history. This was done by requiring endorsment from both local, and national law enforcement agencies. Included were 2 finger print cards, 2 mug shots, and ;lastly, a $200.00 transfer fee, (quite a sum in the 30's) this and the very long application form. This being duley executed, was sent off to Washington, where the F.B.I. would then run a background check on the buyer, and if all was well, a very pretty tax stamp was affixed to the form, and it was sent back to the purchaser, who could then take their weapon home. Federal permission is required to move the weapon across state lines for any reason, and cant be lent to any other person, or out of the control of the registered owner.
The advent of the 1968 Gun Control Act, place similar requirements on a variety of other firearms, (not full auto) Any breech loading firearm with a bore diameter exceeding .50 inches,Although many such weapons were re-tubed to fire the U.S. 50 BMG round.which makes them the same as any sporting rifle. any type of destructive device, mortars, artillary, and guns that are part of another machine, tank guns, ship's guns all had to go through the same red tape of paperwork. If these same weapons were deactivated by approved methods, (welding, machining,)they were then considered "unservicable" and no longer a weapon, and could be aquired far more easily. Muzzle loading cannon of any bore size are not covered by this law, whether old original cannon, or new made reproductions, so buy and sell as you wish.
The munitions for these weapons may also require registration, anything explosive, or incindiary as a primary function has to be so registered, and serial numbered. When it is expended, a form must be submitted showing its serial #, and other info about its being used. I love America,,, What a country...


Heh, lol

I always thought the Gun Control Act was more recent than that. Quite a few major gun crimes were committed since then, such as John Lennon's assassination and the fact that Tim McVeigh was going to use a Glock pistol to detonate his bomb if it didn't do so itself.

Anyway, I know due to legalities, the Thompson has been reclassified as an assault rifle, thereby making it illegal for civillians to own one in most states. I know some law enforcement officials still use these guys though.

What I love about the Gun Control act is how gangs are still capable of obtaining weapons you'd normally expect for no one outside of the military to be using i.e. M16 rifles, MAC10 SMGs etc.

[tankgeezer]

I was speaking of the two acts in my text, (1934, and 1968) there have been other such acts, tho one was rolled back, or suspended. dont know which tho.
Thats the fault in every law intended to reduce crime. it assumes the criminal will play by "the rules". Criminals do not have rules,,, so the boats, planes, and other vehicles that bring in illegal goods, drugs, money, whatever, also now deliver weapons. Criminals do not obey laws, thats the essence of criminality. Only the legitimate consumer of these items is put at a loss.

[Man of Stoat]

Bwing,

The Thomson was never classified as an "assault rifle" under the 1994 act (which sunset in 2004), since it was a machine gun under the 1934 and 1968 acts. No fully automatic weapon had its status changed by the 1994 act, which only regulated cosmetic features on semiautomatic sporting rifles. They called it the "assault weapon" act to deliberately confuse and make people think that they were talking about selective fire weapons.

[bwing55543]

Bwing,

The Thomson was never classified as an "assault rifle" under the 1994 act (which sunset in 2004), since it was a machine gun under the 1934 and 1968 acts. No fully automatic weapon had its status changed by the 1994 act, which only regulated cosmetic features on semiautomatic sporting rifles. They called it the "assault weapon" act to deliberately confuse and make people think that they were talking about selective fire weapons.

I could've sworn it was classified as such because I remember reading on a website for WWII battle reenactment and it said the Thompson may be hard to come by in some states due to it being illegal to own one on some states.

[Man of Stoat]

Yes, it is illegal to own in some states because it is a machine gun under the 1934 and 1968 acts, therefore requiring registration. Some states fully prohibit machine guns (otherwise known as "class 3" weapons), whereas the rest do not.

In any case, a transferable Thomson (i.e. one which was registered in the system before 1988) is going to set you back a very large five figure sum.

There are civilian legal versions currently being produced which have a longer barrel and fire semiautomatic only from a closed bolt. Even these are not legal in all states (e.g. California) because they have both a detachable magazine and a pistol grip (both of which are deemed to be evil features which will cause you to rob banks, apparently)...

[bwing55543]

Yes, it is illegal to own in some states because it is a machine gun under the 1934 and 1968 acts, therefore requiring registration. Some states fully prohibit machine guns (otherwise known as "class 3" weapons), whereas the rest do not.

In any case, a transferable Thomson (i.e. one which was registered in the system before 1988) is going to set you back a very large five figure sum.

There are civilian legal versions currently being produced which have a longer barrel and fire semiautomatic only from a closed bolt. Even these are not legal in all states (e.g. California) because they have both a detachable magazine and a pistol grip (both of which are deemed to be evil features which will cause you to rob banks, apparently)...

How does a pistol grip seem illegal? So does that mean that theoratically one can legally own most old rifles on California? Such as the M1 Garand: No detachable magazine, no pistol grip. Same with the Kar98k and the M1903 Springfield.

[Man of Stoat]

Some idiot decided that pistol grips were evil, so prohibited them.

Yes, you can legally own most old rifles in California

[bwing55543]

Some idiot decided that pistol grips were evil, so prohibited them.

Yes, you can legally own most old rifles in California

That seems like the IDs in high schools. This is what they appear to expect:
Nutcase with machine guns comes into school. A security guard asks the nutcase for his ID. The nutcase laments, "Oh, geewhiz, I don't have my ID. I better go home and re-think my life". And the nutcase goes home and rethinks his life due to his lack of an ID.

[tankgeezer]

That seems like the IDs in high schools. This is what they appear to expect:
Nutcase with machine guns comes into school. A security guard asks the nutcase for his ID. The nutcase laments, "Oh, geewhiz, I don't have my ID. I better go home and re-think my life". And the nutcase goes home and rethinks his life due to his lack of an ID. I dont know if it surprizes anyone, but there are people here who think that way, that such measures will defeat loonies, and criminals, never seems to work, but that doesnt stop them from trying again,,, "well, maybe this time,,," And to try to convince the citizenry that further loss of freedom is okay, they use qute little catch phrases like, "If this helps save just one life,it will be worth it." but ,as always nothing is saved, no benefit is realized, but freedoms are curtailed yet again. At least until the voters say enough, and recall the scallawags.

[bwing55543]

I dont know if it surprizes anyone, but there are people here who think that way, that such measures will defeat loonies, and criminals, never seems to work, but that doesnt stop them from trying again,,, "well, maybe this time,,," And to try to convince the citizenry that further loss of freedom is okay, they use qute little catch phrases like, "If this helps save just one life,it will be worth it." but ,as always nothing is saved, no benefit is realized, but freedoms are curtailed yet again. At least until the voters say enough, and recall the scallawags.

My main problem is that ALL the major school shootings I can think of offhand were, in fact, by students. The IDs are a great way to identify strangers, but it's not gonna help when a student snaps and brings a weapon to school. Last year, my school relaxed the rules and let us just go with our IDs being somewhere on our person, but I think that they'll make us wear them around our necks again now that Virginia Tech has happened. Just recently, the Middle School in my town started making students wear IDs. It's just a matter of time before the Elementary Schools :confused: start making their kids wear IDs. Oh, five-year-old in Kindergarten. Yeah, I'll bet he's a real potential threat.

Anyway, back on the topic. My problem with the M3A1 is that with such a short barrel, I can't imagine it having much in the way of accuracy or effective range.

[tankgeezer]

Well, the M-3 wasnt designed to have alot of either quality.It was designed to be an area coverage weapon when used in the open, as well as a high volume close combat weapon. (trenches, bunkers, house clearing.)
It was supposed to be an expendable gun, so if damaged, it would be discarded for a new weapon. It was cheap, and easy to produce, costing about $10 U.S. in the 40's. Having few machined parts, mostly pressed steel, and weldments.
The military of my day considered it good for 75 ft. after which transition to a long range weapon was recommended. The M-3 was certainly good for more range, that was just the tactical doctrine. I personally felt it rocked too much, a problem with long recoil, blowback actions, and slow rates of fire. But it certainly did its job. The barrel issue with the M-3 series was mostly due to poor tolerances in broaching the rifling, and not from length. Some modern sub guns have very short barrels, of 5" to 7" and are quite compact due to the bolt enveloping the chamber end of the tube. A good example is the MAC-10 which in the 70's sold (civilian) for about $150.00+transfer fee.

[Sergeant Dorr]

The Tomson is overall the beter sub. but the poll was compare a sub-gun to a country.
ROTFLMFAO

[tankgeezer]

The Tomson is overall the beter sub. but the poll was compare a sub-gun to a country.
ROTFLMFAO
The Poll was between the thompson, M1-A1, and the M-3 series. Which we here in the Grand Republic, produced.

[RifleMan20]

As bwing and the other guys were talking about (school shootings) my school around the end of Aug to the beggning of Sep had a bomb warning (thank the lord it did not happen), when the newws got out the kids went crazy but it did not reach the point where the state news came in, these kids these days are going crazy, i just saw on the news that there was a shooting at a collage again but it only involved 2 injuries.
Back on subject, first off, yes i did put down the country greece, second, the thompson was an amazing weapon overall, used .45 acp, high rate of fire, but expensive, bulky, not the quietest weapon ever, the grease gun used both .45 and 9mm (with a small adjustment), light and cheap, but not to accurate, not so pretty, not so high rate of fire, (maybe) jams a lot, also the m3 is still in production for army usages and the thompson i have little or have not read what has happened to its excenstence (my guess the thompson is for civil or not even produced anymore) all this is great information from the stuff i collected of what you wrote for us to read but one more question was the weapon fonded by other countries then the U.S. (U.S. not so fonded though)

[tankgeezer]

As bwing and the other guys were talking about (school shootings) my school around the end of Aug to the beggning of Sep had a bomb warning (thank the lord it did not happen), when the newws got out the kids went crazy but it did not reach the point where the state news came in, these kids these days are going crazy, i just saw on the news that there was a shooting at a collage again but it only involved 2 injuries......back on subject, first off, yes i did put down the country greece, second, the thompson was a recoil operated gun and the GREASE was recoil too or did i get my self confused blowback might be more precise,firing from an open bolt.

[kallinikosdrama1992]

i think the thompson was better . i think it has a better rate of fire and also it wasn't so easily jammed as the crease . the last was mostly used by engeneering units

picture of a m1a1 thompson
http://www.normandy.it/images/M1A1-Thompson.jpg


m3a1 crease
http://www.waffenhq.de/infanterie/m3-02.jpg

years ago i used to confuse the crease gun with mp 40

[Moreheaddriller]

Come on you would have to be an idiot to think the grease gun is better

[Man of Stoat]

The US trials even rated the STEN higher than the Thompson...

[OLD RSM]

HI 1992
The thompson you post is not a M1A1 could be a 1928 or 1921 not a M1 check the bolt location.
Cheers

[Sickles]

there are songs named after it, there are movies named after it,,,
The Tommy Gun !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[.50cal.forever]

On the subject of the M1A1 Thompson vs. the M3 Grease Gun; I would have to go with the Thompson, because it fires faster (250-750 rounds faster), has a larger magazine capacity, and is more comfortable to shoot than the Grease Gun. On the down side, the Thompson is 2.8 pounds heaver then the Grease Gun, and as with all forms of machine guns, the Thompson goes through its ammunition very quickly. Of course, that could be an advantage if you want to simply spray bullets if the need arise.

The major problem with the Grease Gun is its inaccuracy, what with having a 3½ inch barrel. Also as with all sub-machine guns both the Grease Gun and the Thompson were proved to be unreliable in actual combat conditions (just as was the M50 Reising). Interestingly enough, in spite of all its flaws, the Grease Gun did had a very long service record, having even seen limited service in Desert Storm.

Still, between them, the Thompson is the more reliable of the two.

[tankgeezer]

3-1/2 " bbL ??? 7.9" (203m.m.) was the issued length.

[.50cal.forever]

Oh, it was a 7.9 inch barrel, thank you for correcting me tankgeezer. Sorry about the mistake.:oops:

[tankgeezer]

Oh, it was a 7.9 inch barrel, thank you for correcting me tankgeezer. Sorry about the mistake

Its a minor goof,, most modern subbies have shorter tubes,well, more tube inside than out anyway, its easy to mix them up. I do cetainly agree about the reising, not the most luminous of subguns,a pleasant surprise to find someone who knows about them. It was hard enough to keep one running in good clean conditions..:)

[Man of Stoat]

err… they both had 30 round magazines. Also, "accuracy" in terms of an open bolt submachine gun is a bit of a misnomer, so in terms of this there is very little to choose between them.

I am also led to believe that the M3 is actually the more reliable of the two designs.

[Nickdfresh]

err… they both had 30 round magazines. Also, "accuracy" in terms of an open bolt submachine gun is a bit of a misnomer, so in terms of this there is very little to choose between them.

I am also led to believe that the M3 is actually the more reliable of the two designs.

I dunno...

I was in the Army at the very tail end of the Grease Gun era. I never fired one nor even gentilly cradled it in my arms. But I was told by armor people that the thing was as inaccurate as they came with a severe drop at even (roughly) 25 yards and that it was a pretty sloppy and cheap design.

I believe the US Special Operations "D-Team" used it initially because of the close quarters stopping power of the .45ACP, but quickly dropped the gun in favor of the Uzi and the MP5 because of its wild shooting characteristics...

[.50cal.forever]

Its a minor goof,, most modern subbies have shorter tubes,well, more tube inside than out anyway, its easy to mix them up. I do cetainly agree about the reising, not the most luminous of subguns,a pleasant surprise to find someone who knows about them. It was hard enough to keep one running in good clean conditions..:)

Yes the Reising was very difficult gun to keep up with, because of the complexicty of its locked-breech design. Didn't Lieutenant Colonel Merritt Edson order all Reisings be dumped into a river?

Also wasn't there some kind of problem with the Reising's magazins?

[tankgeezer]

I had to fight with one to get it through 1 mag, never liked it, and it wasnt popular with the private sector either. The going rate minus the transfer fee was about 50-60 USD. At the time, the Mac-10 was all the rage, and cost about 100-150 USD W/O the transfer fee.
The M-3's were never all that well made, and several pieces had bbls that allowed the slug to drop through unimpeded.So, that being the case, actually aiming the thing was a waste to time, it was a firehose, and nothing more.

[the_librarian]

We carried the grease gun in Desert Storm as well as the 16, and after going to the range with the m3, gosh...I hated the thing.

[tankgeezer]

We carried the grease gun in Desert Storm as well as the 16, and after going to the range with the m3, gosh...I hated the thing.
In this day and age the M-3 would be at best a utilitarian firearm that will do until something better comes along. There are far better weapons available today that are not hampered by the design limitations of the M-3. Although they will cost more.
The M-3 series was a cheap to mass produce weapon, intended to be disposable, and provide a means of suppressing the enemy at closer ranges, and be a suitable close quarters weapon.. (house clearing, and trench operations, as well as the tunnels in the R.V.N.
The low cost made it a good weapon for equipping resistance, and guerrilla fighters in quantity, so at the time, it was better than nothing.

[HAWKEYE]

The Phillipine Special Ops Forces have upgraded and kept the Greasegun as their mainstay weapon of chioce. Here is one in action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAOKhLi8xj4&feature=related

The Greasegun was and is a good weapon for it's intended purpose, close combat and as a vehicular weapon. The Thompson is a work of art, even the later M1/M1A1 versions are beautiful in their own right. The early Colt 1921 Tommys shot about 900/1000 RPM, the M1928-1928A1 Tommys about 850/900 RPM and the M1/M1A1's abut 750/800. The Greaser was about 350/400 RPM and were very controllable and fairly accurate (Spencer Wurst, WWII 82nd A/B 505th, said he shot down three running Germans at 100 yrds with his) and very hard to jam up with dirt and mud, they were extensively tested against the MP40 and the Thompson and won hand's down in reliability. The Reising is a great weapon if you live in a perfect world, combat is not a perfect world. I like mine but I'm not crawling in mud in the Solomons. I have a 1928A1, an M1 Thompson an MP40 and a Reising. I'd take the Thompson any day....heavy?? yes, but it does the job so well and looks good doing it...firing a 50 rd drum is almost better than sex.......;-)

You forgot to mention the GC act of 1986 that forbid the import, manufacture and registration of any new MG into the data base. This is what really sucked...the $10.00 Grease gun is now worth $18,000.00, the Colt Thompson $34,000.00, the $2000.00 M1 Thompson $18/20,000.00, that 1991 $2000.00 BAR is now worth over $26,000.00!!!

This was one of the most underhanded pieces of legislation ever to be passed by Congress, after being voted down it was brought back up at a last minute meeting and voted in with only a few Reps there ...can you say back stabbed???

[GliderInfantry]

The grease gun was cheaper than the thompson and could be use by glider and airbore troops, lighter than thompson and shorter

[HAWKEYE]

The Thompson was well used by both glider and airborne troops through out the war. The lighter weight and cheapness of the Greasegun were the reasons given for it's manufacture, but the Thompson was still usually preferred by the troops. The single stacked magazine led to jamming problems and it was also harder to load, you did not need a loading tool to load the Thompson's double stacked mag. The reason it lasted in service so long was because it was easier to store and handle in vehicles.

[triggerfinger]

Personally i'd use the thompson but they both do the same thing, KILL. I'd rather have one than none.

[GliderInfantry]

The grease gun was used by Steve McQueen in the 1962 movie Hell is for heroes it showed him taking it apart and taping the mags end to end I wonder if they really did it or is that just for hollywood ?

[HAWKEYE]

I didn't see him take it apart but I did see him flip open the dust cover/safety several times. He seemed to have a lot of problems with it firing the blanks, you can see him re-cock it several times during firing scenes. I've seen a combat photo of a Thompson with two mags taped together so I suppose that somebody with a Greasegun did the same thing.

The Dirty Dozen used a lot of Greaseguns in it, but they were not normal ones, they would fire even with the dust cover/safety closed and they didn't jam on the empties that were not ejected. I think they were blank fire only that were gas fired or something, there were never any brass ejecting from them.

[GliderInfantry]

how many rounds did the box clips hold , did the GIs carry extra ones or boxs of bullets and just reloaded the clips them self ?

[HAWKEYE]

The magazines held 30 rounds. The GI's usually carried extra mags in a pouch, like the one Tom Hanks carried in Saving Private Ryan. They had the option of reloading the mags themselves but it was difficult without a loading tool because of the type of mag, single stacked.

They were and are called magazines, clips are what were used in the M1 Garand rifle.

[WaffenSS]

if id been in ww2 i would of gone with the Thompson

[christophe1992]

The battle over which gun is better and which ones has better produce abillity, damage, accuracy, ammo usage, and anything you want to argue about, I have to go with the Thompson, one reason is that its stopping poer is amazing and its accuracy is better then the greece gun, this gun was used a lot in the gang business to so its not only a war weapon, now its your turn over this verdict.


(Title edited by Panzerknacker)

actualy the m3 greasegun shoots the same ammo the 45.acp or the 9 mm

at short ranges the tompson would win however the m3 is more acurate.
the tompson can swith between singe and auto so thats a advantage of the tompson.
i pick the tompson

[RifleMan20]

How is the M3 more accurate?

[christophe1992]

How is the M3 more accurate?

wellnot much but it is more controlable then the tompson.
if you have the carabin version of the tompson then its more acccurate then the greasegun.

the tompson has an effective range of about 50 meters and the bullet travels to 150 meters.

the greasegun is effective to 100 meter and the bullet flies also 150 meters.
germans hatet the sound of the tompson because they knew if they run in to a soldier having one they would not survive. the mp 40 for example needs about 2-3 shots to effectifly kill a man, and it fires a slower rpm. the disadvantage of the mp40 is the large flash, its so large you cant see on what your aiming.
a tompson only needs 1 round and it knock the german over. it also has a large rpm so it is much more effective.
the greasegun is the same as the mp40 exxept for the lower rpm and more powerfull bullet.(same as tompson)
but i go for the tompson i just love that gun my favorite. i hat it that im only 16 i want a real one now im stuck with the airsoft version

[Man of Stoat]

What on earth are you talking about? The above bears very little relationship to reality...

[christophe1992]

What on earth are you talking about? The above bears very little relationship to reality...

how do you mean?

[Man of Stoat]

how do you mean?

I mean that you are talking nonsense, making factually incorrect statements.

[christophe1992]

I mean that you are talking nonsense, making factually incorrect statements.

iv many books and seen many things of the war.
i know people who shot witth those things.
what do you supose is wrong tell me

[Man of Stoat]

wellnot much but it is more controlable then the tompson.
if you have the carabin version of the tompson then its more acccurate then the greasegun.

there is no "carbine" version, all the Thompsons in service were of the same length. They are also better made than the M3, have better barrels, better sighting, and a lighter breech block leading to less movement of the weapon up on releasing the sear.

the tompson has an effective range of about 50 meters and the bullet travels to 150 meters.

the greasegun is effective to 100 meter and the bullet flies also 150 meters.

no, they are both effective to about the same distance (how far depends on how you want to define it -- 100 m is certainly optimistic), if anything the Thompson has the edge because it is more accurate. The bullet flies several thousand metres in both cases, slightly further from the Thompson because of its longer barrel leading to a slightly higher muzzle velocity

germans hatet the sound of the tompson because they knew if they run in to a soldier having one they would not survive.

riiiiiiiight...

the mp 40 for example needs about 2-3 shots to effectifly kill a man, and it fires a slower rpm. the disadvantage of the mp40 is the large flash, its so large you cant see on what your aiming.

ever heard a shot placement? Also, I cannot say that I have ever heard of muzzle flash from a pistol calibre submachine gun being anything other than insignificant. I can't say that I've ever even seen a muzzle flash with such a cartridge/barrel length combination.

a tompson only needs 1 round and it knock the german over. it also has a large rpm so it is much more effective.
the greasegun is the same as the mp40 exxept for the lower rpm and more powerfull bullet.(same as tompson)


again, shot placement. High rpm is actually undesirable since it reduces controlability. the M3 has what the Americans considered, through various tests, to be the optimum rpm for control firing.




Het moet zeker schoolvakantietijd in België zijn…

[christophe1992]

Het moet zeker schoolvakantietijd in België zijn…

jah wa doede ander in julie of augustus:p
ge hebt wl gelijk met die flash maar ik heb veel over die wapens gelezen en gehoort heb thuis boeke vol erover dus.
trouwes die schoten ik heb het niet over schot in het hoofd eh borstkas de tompson slaagt u omver omda die meer kracht heeft de mp40 minder vandaag 2-3 kogels.
ik geef u volkome gelijk over die hoge kogels per minuuut da da veel terugslag geeft maar de tompson weegd redelijk zwaar voor een smg dus die compenseert da met gewicht.
de oudere modellen ook met de cutscompensator.
maar de mp40 heeft last dat de flits iets te hoog komt en voor u vizier zit .

[RifleMan20]

Jah???

[flamethrowerguy]

Het moet zeker schoolvakantietijd in België zijn…

Rustig aan, jongens! lol

[Major Walter Schmidt]

Can someone translate that into English?

[flamethrowerguy]

Can someone translate that into English?

It's dutch, Major. Let the wranglers translate their scuffle by themselves. I just asked them to cool down...

[christophe1992]

It's dutch, Major. Let the wranglers translate their scuffle by themselves. I just asked them to cool down...

haha im not angry :p just saying what i know but nobody knows everything about guns so i leave it for what it is.
:D

[the_librarian]

Please forgive any duplication, just some stuff I found:

http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/grease.htm

http://www.olive-drab.com/od_other_firearms_smg_m3.php3

http://www.kmike.com/Grease/fm-23-41.pdf (field manual)

[Nickdfresh]

Bump!

[HAWKEYE]

Bought one......

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v11/Hawkeye/SOV/Medea20002.jpg