The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > NFA Guns and Gear

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old August 31, 2006, 09:17 AM   #51
Johnny Guest
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: August 28, 1999
Location: North Texas
Posts: 4,125
Beautiful pieces, Guy

I've shot a fair number of full autos and have greatly enjoyed most of them. One I've missed out on is the M3. I sure would like the opportunity to shoot one some. Maybe I'd get over my intense yearing to own one. That and a Sten Gun. Go figure.

I wouldn't take for my '28 Thompson. I shoot it pretty regularly in local SMG matches, and when I do my part, it is excellent for what it is -- a first generation smg, solid, reliable, heavy, and fairly easy to shoot well. For all the nostalgia, history, and pride of ownership, though, I'd pick something else to carry -- probably an M4 -- with a view toward using it in combat.

Best
Johnny
__________________
MOLON LABE!
Amendment II ensures the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Blog: Expert Witness
Johnny Guest is offline  
Old August 31, 2006, 10:48 AM   #52
guy sajer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 7, 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 329
Thanks Johnny .

I've fired several Stens . They work , but I found it very hard to get excited enough to buy one
The slow rate of fire (450ish) makes the M3 very different to fire . After awhile you get the feel for it though .

Yes , if given a choice , the M16 platform seems the best choice . imo

__________________
Mitch

Please support Crimson Trace Grips , Mossberg and Beretta . They support our troops .
guy sajer is offline  
Old August 31, 2006, 04:39 PM   #53
Doug.38PR
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 18, 2005
Posts: 3,298
Guy,
you would go with a .223 over a .45 caliber.......that just doesn't seem right. That is my biggest problem with the M16/AR15 is it's caliber is so small
Doug.38PR is offline  
Old August 31, 2006, 04:47 PM   #54
guy sajer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 7, 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 329
Given the choice , yes . I prefer the flatter trajectory and energy of the 223 . Probably some type of soft point .
__________________
Mitch

Please support Crimson Trace Grips , Mossberg and Beretta . They support our troops .
guy sajer is offline  
Old August 31, 2006, 04:52 PM   #55
Doug.38PR
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 18, 2005
Posts: 3,298
but isn't a .45 hole better than a .223 hole? Even if it doesn't have the same power behind it.
Doug.38PR is offline  
Old August 31, 2006, 05:34 PM   #56
guy sajer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 7, 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 329
Others can most likely respond and hopefully will in much more detail , but basically the wound channel trauma caused by the 223 is much greater . Much more tissue damage .
__________________
Mitch

Please support Crimson Trace Grips , Mossberg and Beretta . They support our troops .
guy sajer is offline  
Old August 31, 2006, 08:56 PM   #57
Sarge
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2002
Location: MO
Posts: 5,206

__________________
May a person who is relocating out-of-State move firearms with other household goods? Yes.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/may-...ousehold-goods
Sarge is offline  
Old August 31, 2006, 09:08 PM   #58
M14fan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 26, 2006
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 775
In an urban environment, I would not feel undergunned with a Thompson. Don't own one. Have ALWAYS wanted one. Hmmmmmmmm, Think I will get to work on that.
__________________
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
--George Washington
M14fan is offline  
Old August 31, 2006, 11:12 PM   #59
444
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2000
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,968
I have never been fortunate enough to own a Thompson, but I have fired a number of them over the years. One of my best friends owns one that I shoot pretty often (monthly ?).
I think they are cool. Historically very interesting. But as a practical firearm they don't do anything for me at all. To me, they are clunky, heavy, the stock is way too long................. They just don't pull my chain. Out of all the machine guns have have shot over the years the Thompson would be one of my last choices as a combat weapon.

"but isn't a .45 hole better than a .223 hole?"
I am no terminal ballistics expert. And, I have never seen anyone shot with a Thompson or a carbine in .45 ACP. But I have seen a number of people shot with .45 handguns as well as M16s and AR15s. I have worked for 23 years as a paramedic in Las Vegas. My experience is that there is no comparison. When you are walking up to a scene, you can tell from a considerable distance whether somone was shot with a rifle or a handgun. Rifles make great big huge gapeing holes in people. Handguns make little holes usally without an exit wound. The people I have seen with .223s had horrible wounds. I actually saw a guy get shot in the head with an M16 while I was standing there watching. A .45 ACP in a handgun isn't in the same league, ballpark, or sport. The short barrel of the M4 does limit it's most effective range, but, at submachine gun distances it has a huge advantage over any pistol cartridge.

I am another person who believes that the submachine gun has very little, if any, practical use in today's world. As I said, I have shot a lot of machine guns. I own a Sterling (my only machine gun) that was built on from the Sten I had before that. I compete in our local machine gun matches. I have taken two, four day formal classes: one using an Uzi, one using an M16. I was even issued an M3 Greasegun when I was in the Ohio National Guard in the early 80s. Point is, I have a little experience with subguns. Not combat experience, but shooting experience. I am not a subgun hater, I own one and enjoy the crap out of it. But.... I think the M4 does everything a subgun can do and a whole lot more. I think the M4 is much more ergonomic. I think the M4 is much more adaptable to the mission. The accessories alone: night vision, suppressors, optics put it light years ahead of most subguns. The raw power of the rifle round as well as it's ability to defeat body armor put it in a whole different class than a subgun. And, it is in a package that is much easier to use and carry. IMO it is even just as easy to fire controlled burst accurately dispite the much greater power of the round.
__________________
You know the rest. In the books you have read
How the British Regulars fired and fled,
How the farmers gave them ball for ball,
From behind each fence and farmyard wall,
Chasing the redcoats down the lane,
Then crossing the fields to emerge again
Under the trees at the turn of the road,
And only pausing to fire and load.
444 is offline  
Old September 1, 2006, 10:37 AM   #60
Crosshair
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2004
Location: Grand Forks, ND
Posts: 5,331
Only problem with that photo invssgt is that an M4 has no chance in heck of reaching 3150 FPS muzzle velocity. The M4 only has about 50 yards at most of "fragmentation range" and even at the magic 2700 FPS mark, M855 has inconsistant fragmentation that can vary from lot to lot. So after about 50 yards you basicly have a 22 bullet that isn't gona fragment. More important, THAT IS A SOFT POINT BULLET IN THAT 5.56 PHOTO. Nobody in the military uses bullets of that type.

Here is the proper photo. Note that the M4 has no chance of reaching the listed MV and fragmentation will not be as severe at M4 velocities. Also note that a hit in the arm or leg is likely to be a .22 hole unless it hits bone. (Unless you are kinda fat like me. ) Sure an arm or leg is not the ideal place to hit someone, but if you can increase the chance of hitting an artery/nerve/something else, I'll take it. The 5.56 goes nearly 4 inches before doing anything impressive.
__________________
I don't carry a gun to go looking for trouble, I carry a gun in case trouble finds me.
Crosshair is offline  
Old September 1, 2006, 01:28 PM   #61
Sarge
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2002
Location: MO
Posts: 5,206
Quote:
Crosshair-

More important, THAT IS A SOFT POINT BULLET IN THAT 5.56 PHOTO. Nobody in the military uses bullets of that type.
Those pics were posted in response to Guy Sajer's post, as follows:
Quote:
Given the choice , yes . I prefer the flatter trajectory and energy of the 223 . Probably some type of soft point
They were posted for the participants of this thread to view, and draw their own conclusions; I figure they are smart enough to do that. Please note that I made no comment whatsoever about them. You have posted the FMJ illustration; thanks for adding that. Now we can all look at that too- and draw our own conclusions.
__________________
May a person who is relocating out-of-State move firearms with other household goods? Yes.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/may-...ousehold-goods
Sarge is offline  
Old September 1, 2006, 04:17 PM   #62
USP.40
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 9, 2005
Location: Commonwealth of Virginia
Posts: 141
Will a Thompson feed hollowpoints? If you loaded it up with Powerball that would give it a little more umph. But, given the choice M4 all the way.
__________________
Constitution of Virginia


Section 13. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...
USP.40 is offline  
Old September 1, 2006, 05:26 PM   #63
Ozzieman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 14, 2004
Location: Northern Indiana
Posts: 6,117
The answer is easy

But you first must shoot a Thompson then an MP5 and answer the question your self.
NO contest!
Ozzieman is offline  
Old September 1, 2006, 08:56 PM   #64
guy sajer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 7, 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 329
Quote:
Originally Posted by USP.40
Will a Thompson feed hollowpoints?
Yes , in the last 15 yrs I've fire several brands of hollow points , lead swc reloads and of course ball . It always works ... except when I tried some AMERC brand a few years ago :barf:
__________________
Mitch

Please support Crimson Trace Grips , Mossberg and Beretta . They support our troops .
guy sajer is offline  
Old September 6, 2006, 03:37 PM   #65
Thesenator
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 12, 2006
Posts: 125
Tommygun vs modern subgun? I own both a Thompson and Uzis and if I had to carry/use a subgun, I'd take the Uzi hands down, with Hirtenberger +P+ subgun ammo.

The ergonomics of the Thompson aren't that great, its long and the grips seem spaced a mile apart....and I'm 6' 2" 240 with a long reach and its heavy, particularly when loaded. I've had people on the range who couldn't extend their arms far enough to hold the gun up to shoot it. Its a classic gun and a real looker but I wouldn't want to lug it into combat when there are so many other subgun alternatives in caliber, weight, and ergonomics.
Thesenator is offline  
Old September 6, 2006, 10:40 PM   #66
guntotin_fool
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2004
Posts: 1,446
I have shot both a .45 MP5 and a thompson. I will tell you the MP5 is easier to shoot well and it handles much better.

The Thompson was an idea based on a concept that some would say started with the civil war. Trench warfare was a horrible thing. The generals did not learn a lot, but they did learn that although getting a toe hold in an opponents trench system was difficult, it was far easier than trying to hold on that section of trenches when the opponent could fit you from both sides and from the rear. The load on sunday and shoot all week Henry rifle was the initiator of some new thoughts, A full sized full auto weapon was unwieldy, and if it carried rifle sized ammunition it was so hard to fire accurately and so large as to be really impossible to use in assaults. The SMG of the first generation were really rifle shaped guns that fired pistol rounds, holding a simple switchable magazine that allowed for a useful amount of fire. Look at a Lancaster, a Bergman, a Reising, even the PPsh 41. wooden stocked, magazine positioned out in front, machined parts,

Then look at the second generation of SMGs, the MP40 the Sten and the M3, These were all weapons made more for manufacturing simplicty than fineness of gunsmithing. GM was making Stens for roughly nine dollars a gun by late 44. The M3 was not much more. stampings, reduction of features, (the M3's use of a cocking hole in the bolt.) All were endeavors in getting the most guns out the door the fastest. Most of WW2 combat was taking place in close ranges. Urban fighting in Europe, Jungle campaigns in the pacific, forest and mountain fighting in the balkans and massed attacks of soldiers against fixed positions with armed mounted infantry clinging to tanks and firing madly against infantry positions all were tactics that pushed the SMG to the forefront.

After the war, the role of SMGs started to fade as the move to air support and integrated combat operations tended to move the contact ranges back out. Interest was developed earlier in a DP gun, small enough to function as the SMG in the MUOT and yet capable of fighting as a battle rifle when the terrain allowed. The AK and the AR are both products of this thinking.

They have pursued the same objective via different routes.

I will not make any judgements on that discussion, but to say that the SMG is dead is also false. I have talked to two gentlemen who of late were in Afghanistan working there for our Uncle. Both chose to carry MP5's as their primary weapon. Both were not line troops, but rather specialists who were operating in the realm of nation building and were supported by others who had longer range weapons and rarely operated in contested areas without some sort of air power available. However in their role, the MP5 provided enough firepower to do the job and they preferred them to M4's in the rabbit warren type compounds they were often in. Both said the 9mm 124 grainers were much more effective against people than the M4 at inside the ropes ranges. They both related to me seeing several BG's get 4 or 5 5.56's in the chest and not go down, they never saw that with 4 or 5 nines. They did see several guys hit with both who took one round and were martyrs, but the claimed more seemed to take 5.56 hits and keep fighting for a while, while several hits from the 9 seemed to anchor them. Both said that in certain areas of OPs, 124 Rangers were allowed and they say that drastically reduced the operating window of the BG's.

The Thompson is just cool in its own right. We all like 66 GTO's or 67 roadrunners. Big strong and powerful, they are none the less, outdated.

No AC, bad suspensions, horrible build quality, cheesy interiors, all pale in the light of even a modern Honda or Toyota on road manners, comfort and utility. A 66 GTO with a tri power 389 is a fun beast to play with, but I would say most of us would really prefer to leave it as a toy and keep a Accord for a daily driver. (I would kill for a 68 RR with a $741 option 426 Hemi)
guntotin_fool is offline  
Old September 7, 2006, 01:17 AM   #67
Crosshair
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2004
Location: Grand Forks, ND
Posts: 5,331
Interesting post guntotin_fool. I suppose the 5.56 rounds where not fragmenting properly. How was penitration with the two rounds? (If you know.) Where the 5.56 rounds just making little holes and going through? Of course such secondhand knolege must be taken with a grain of salt. As a PDW, the MP5 is certianly more compact and less likely to get in the way of someone working while having the gun on a sling. (Meaning it is less likely to be set down and not with the person when needed.)
__________________
I don't carry a gun to go looking for trouble, I carry a gun in case trouble finds me.
Crosshair is offline  
Old September 7, 2006, 09:18 AM   #68
HKP7PSP
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 25, 2001
Location: MA
Posts: 169
I find the stock too long, it is awkward to shoot, heavy, etc. I have one because of its place in history, but honestly I hate shooting it and consider it one of the worst subguns around. The Greasegun is much better. The UZI is much better. The MP5, the Sterling, the Beretta, the Walther, etc -- all much better.
HKP7PSP is offline  
Old September 8, 2006, 08:24 PM   #69
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 19,237
Newer is better

Virtually everthing newer is better. Of course. It had better be.

Thompsons are cool. Big, heavy, made of real tool steel (and thick!). They are made like sporting guns. They were designed and made in the days before the military figured out that more guns were lost on the battlefield than wore out or broke. Before the requirements of mass production forced cheaper designs to the fore.

Guns made with stamped recievers work in combat just as well. Are cheaper to make, are lighter (usually), and can be made faster, so they serve the military better. No question. No argument.

But the question was, is the Thompson still a viable combat weapon. The answer must be yes. As light and handy and efficent as newer designs? No. But still functional.

Obsolete (meaning better designs are available), certainly. But don't imply that it is no longer effective. It still works as well as it ever did.

Yesterday vs. today. Today should be better, or somebody didn't learn anything. Doesn't mean yesterday doesn't work.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Old September 10, 2006, 09:34 PM   #70
guy sajer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 7, 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 329
44 Amp

Very well stated .
__________________
Mitch

Please support Crimson Trace Grips , Mossberg and Beretta . They support our troops .
guy sajer is offline  
Old September 11, 2006, 07:02 AM   #71
MeekAndMild
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2001
Posts: 4,988
Quote:
The ergonomics of the Thompson aren't that great
Add that to the list of reasons along with narrow wound track formation as compared to the 5.56mm.

But I still think manufacturing difficulties with endless machining steps would be the biggest factor to make the weapon unusable in any modern army. I saw a newspaper photo this week of Pakistani soldiers armed with SMGs...an AK variant. AK would be an SMG that could be made by the tens of thousands using minimal tooling.
__________________
In a few years when the dust finally clears and people start counting their change there is a pretty good chance that President Obama may become known as The Great Absquatulator. You heard it first here on TFL.
MeekAndMild is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.09798 seconds with 8 queries