View Full Version : M3 GM Grease Gun

June 10, 2012, 11:46 AM
Hello all, its been a while since i was on but i was wondering what is a fair price to pay for one of these old guns if i can find one?

June 10, 2012, 11:51 AM
You mean a real full auto M3 Grease Gun?

June 10, 2012, 12:57 PM
Id just like to have one. but i know they'd be expensive because they are full auto. Is there a semi auto version?

June 10, 2012, 01:12 PM
Valkyrie made a semi-auto version, trades 750 - 1200. For the class III version you'll probably out at least 8k, more likely over 10k.

June 10, 2012, 02:43 PM
I figured so. I wish some of them guns were more affordable. But with the ban on producing the new fully automatic weapons it's in likely. I'll have to look for a semi auto

James K
June 10, 2012, 03:20 PM
Haven't checked for a while, but for an original FA, you will need to think in the $12k and up range.


Old Smoker
June 10, 2012, 04:48 PM
When I was a range officer at Fort leonard Wood in the early seventies, I had to turn in all expended brass on a daily basis. I walked into a building, to turn in the brass and there in one corner, was a pile of grease guns 15 feet high x 30 feet in diameter. The armorer told me they were getting ready to destroy them...such a waste.

June 10, 2012, 06:05 PM
Hearing stuff like that just disappoints me. If they only knew better

James K
June 10, 2012, 09:09 PM
AFAIK all of the grease guns on the market today are M3's. Quite a few of those came back from England, Finland and other places and were sold as DEWATS in the 1950's and 1960's, then amnesty registered and opened up. Again AFAIK, no M3A1's were ever deactivated and sold on the civilian market.


June 10, 2012, 10:05 PM
Valkyrie Arms is not producing their M3 gun at this time, but may do so in the future.


Note that due to Federal laws and the BATF, the Valkyrie M3 is quite different than a full auto M3.
Unlike the stamped metal receiver M3 it has an upper and lower receiver design made of milled steel, not stamped.
They made a sliding stock version with a 16" barrel, which looked really weird, and a pistol version with a stock welded closed that looked more like a real M3.

June 11, 2012, 09:34 PM
Save your money, the Grease gun was junk. I worked on plenty of them and I am sure it was designed as a disposable gun. In the late 70's, if I coded one out, it cost (If memory serves me) 19 dollars. Look around for a semi-Thompson.

June 12, 2012, 07:15 AM

What Gunplummer said. JamOmatic's:eek:

James K
June 12, 2012, 05:36 PM
Hmmm. Must have been different guns than the ones I used, which were very reliable and I don't recall having any jams. I have read that the magazines of the double column single feed type were no good, but that seems more armchair gun design than real problems, as they were used with most SMGs of the era (the TSMG was an exception).

Most of my shooting was done with my Uncle's M3A1's, but I owned an M3 for a while and never had any problems with it, though the cocking handle reportedly gave problems and I could easily see how that could be.

I also owned an M1928 TSMG and shot it a fair amount, also with no problems or jams, with 20, 30 and 50 round mags. I never owned a 100 round drum (darn it) but had a chance to fire an M1921 with one and talk about heavy!! 100 rounds of .45 ACP seems to weigh more on the gun than it does in two boxes.


June 12, 2012, 06:38 PM
I know i probably will never own one due to the expense but it would be cool to have. I just love the old military guns as my name implies. But ive never been one for mint condition because I always liked military weapons to show battle scars. I have a few more feasible guns on my list to get such as a nagaunt, an M1Garand and a 1911. Along with some more non C&R guns such as an AR15.

B. Lahey
June 12, 2012, 10:05 PM
They are certainly cheaply made, but that's not the same as being junk.

In my very slim experience they have run fine, and this is the first time I've heard them broadly painted as unreliable.

Romeo 33 Delta
June 13, 2012, 05:58 PM
I had an M3A1 hanging next to my driver's hatch on my M113A1 back in '68. I never did have an opportunity to actually use it in combat, but when I did dump a couple mags through her, she ran just fine. The mags were a major pain to reload, even with the round depressor built into the wire stock ... and 30 rounds of .45ACP is HEAVY! I had a bag of mags ... must have been 8-10 and THAT was a heck of a load ... good for Mech units only ... hate to have to pack that load as a leg Infantry guy!:D

James K
June 13, 2012, 07:32 PM
Thompsons were not totally reliable, either. Closely fitted, they were subject to problems with dust and dirt. The M1 and M1A1 were (reportedly) better than the M1921 and M1928, but my personal experience with the former guns has been minimal, just a few mags. The British reportedly altered the M1928 to do away with the Blish lock*, but regardless of its effectiveness or lack thereof, when Savage tried to eliminate it, the bolts came back hard enough to break the end out of the receiver, and they had to beef the M1/M1A1 up.

The M3/M3A1 got around the dirt problem by using guide rods, a much better system later used in the AR-18/180, an underappreciated design.

*The myth has it that they just took out the lock and threw it away, nonsense repeated in dozens of books. But without the lock the actuator isn't connected to the bolt, so the gun can't be cocked. I once challenged a writer on that statement and he told me that he knew everything there was to know about the TSMG and whatinhell was an actuator?