UBB.threads Forums General Militaria Historic and Period Firearms Forum Best or worst Submachinegun

What do you think is the best or worst submachinegun ?

I'd go with the UZI 9mm - compact and robust. A little heavy,but totally reliabliable

I would have to vote for the original Powder Springs version of the MAC-10 in either 9mm or .45acp. Not purdy, but compact, efficient and stone cold reliable; especially with the Scionics supressor.
If I were voting with my heart and could have only one, it would be the Thompson model 1921 or 1928.

How about that bunch of low cost highly effective WWII SMGs: The Soviet PPSh-41 and the Brit STEN gun ?

Then for finely manufactured ones the is the "Chicago Piano" - the "Chopper" - The Thompson. A favorite of the novels and movies, I found it to be heavy and very hard to fire on target. They still had a few in the US Army in the mid 1960s and I got to blow several mags through one.

For worst SMG, how about the Reising M-50 ? Hated by all US services

Dave

Tough to decide on this one. way to many designs over the years.
for reliability ,simple construction, weight, AND accessories(grips / stocks,ect.) better choice = sten ,but only the mk 2,with the changeable barrel.
jeff

In the WWII era, I would definately vote for the PPSh-41. I have had the good fortune to either own or fire most of the major automatic weapons of WWII and was really impressed with the Rusky piece - not only with the reliability, but also the high velocity Tokarev/Mauser cartridge. Also high on my personal list would be, suprisingly, the Beretta 38/42.

On the beast pistol thread it was voted that the 1911 45cal is the best in Knock down power so my vote is the M3 "grease gun" also 45 cal. which replaced the Thompson towards the end of the war. 500rpm and 90% hitting accuracy.

I'll still go with the Thompson.

Dave

Sorry Dave, the weight of the Thompson is a game killer from my perspective. Good for mobsters that could rest it on an open car window. But not something you can bring to bare quickly. Plus they eliminated the drum on the WWII production.

Jim

Jim,

Weight of he M3 was 8.15 lbs empty vs 10.6 lbs for the Thompson. I fired a Thompson in the army as it was still in some inventories in 1965. Heavy? Only 1 lb more than my M14 empty. Loaded, the M14 weighed more.

The thing that impressed me, besides the strength and experience it took to fire it, was the accuracy on single shot fire. The M3 was long gone so I never got a chance to compare.

Dave

One of the reasons the Grease Gun never became very popular is because of the crudeness of the weapon. I know, I know, the Sten Gun and the PPSh-41 were both crude AND popular, but perhaps we just went too far with the "Greaser". The weapon's crudeness was mentioned several times in field tests and other evaulations. It was determined that a soldier's confidence in his weapon was also an important factor to consider. (how would you feel if you were told to throw away your Thompson and replace it with an M3?) The overall appearance of a garage mechanic utensil with a "coat hanger" stock did little to inspire confidence. They added insult to injury when they came out with the M3A1 and eliminated the rocker arm cocking device and simply put a hole in the side of the bolt for the soldier to stick his finger into to cock the weapon. (not sure how that went when the bolt was hot OR when the user was wearing gloves or mittens.
I had the opportunity to fire a friend's M3 several years ago. It was reliable and went throught a couple hundred rounds with nary a hitch. Even as much as I love all military weapons, I could only feel luke-warm about the Grease Gun. Just my simple and mostly uneducated opinion.
BTW, I was born in the Anderson, Indiana area where Grease Guns (and Liberator pistols) were made by Guide Lamp, then a division of Delco Remy. Most of my relatives worked there during WWII and legend has it that there are many "lunch box" M3's in attics around the area.

The one thing that "Grease Gun" had going for it was that the stock could be retracted and the gun could be used by tankers or others where getting a larger weapon in and out of a hatch or small door was difficult.

The M3 was an ideal sub machine gun to mass produce at little cost and less materials during the war. So yes in that respect, The M3 can not compare to the Thompson, but it was light and as Dave said easy in and easy out. Take down was quick. Most horribly take a look at the cheap knock offs these days on Chinese made Norinco AK-47s. You can get them for 1K and all it is ,,, is folded over sheet metal with an unfinished wood stock....JUNK!! 10 rd max in a clip in Jersey. Need a pistol permit to buy a BB gun here!

I worked with a marine ,4 tours in viet nam , he said they all loved to use the m3.
one went missing while he was in transit home.....
he also loved the m-14 And hated the m-16. he also played with some thompsons too.
the story came out ,when I brought my "dummy" into work .
to all those vets, monkey meat & rat on a stick; good eats.
jeff

Cant blame him for hating the M16,,just a pop gun IMO while the Viet Cong had the better stuff,, The M16 lacked the knock down power.. but the round in it was deadly. Once it entered the person it hit it wiggled around, tearing up muscle and organs along the way before it came to a stop. Light weight to carry, and some what long. I prefer the AR15 slightly shorter same theory.

I own A sp-1 ar-15. mine was made before the government decided to be serious about taking it as a major weapon.
A local guy collects the shorties ,all government types. once in awhile he takes a few examples to the local gun show . none for sale , just "this is what I buy".
jeff

As Dave says, the Thompson is heavy. I have fired several in police work myself. Of course that .45 round is going to take them OUT! If I had to choose just one SMG, I would take the PPSh-41. Why? LOTS of firepower with it's 71 rd drum! Simple and effective weapon! I have a dummy made in Japan. Full wood stock, just like the real deal! See: http://www.ppsh41.com/(See "Hudson PPSh model replica" for mine. I have the 71 rd drum myself!)

Lloyd I think you are showing your age as it has been a long time since police forces have used the Thompsons. Just joking!

Actually, It's surprising how many of the smaller departments still have a Thompson in their inventory. In spite of the "Thompson run" of the 1970's when a few Class III dealers were trading AR-15 rifles to unsuspecting Police Departments for their old and obsolete Thompsons, some departments resisted modernization and kept the "old" stuff. I am aware of several small towns in my area that still own Thompson sub guns - including my home town that still has their 1921 Commercial w/o Cutts compensator and residing in an FBI Hard Case. It was purchased from Colt in March of 1922. Thought you all might find this interesting.

That is interesting because mostly i saw period photos from the 1940s and 50s with state troopers holding Thompsons and after that when the Vietnam war started I assumed the M-16 was the newest advance since it was lighter and the tommy gun was not needed. Im always learning something. Thanks for the insight! Regards Larry

Larry, I started on a small NJ dept in 1964 and we fired a Thompson on the range with our FBI weapons instructor. The dept had 2 Reisings that hung on a rack, never saw them used though. In 1976 or so, on the San Bernardino Sheriff's Dept, (CA), I worked the range for a few months and we had several Thompsons that I fired. I believe they have sold them all off though and gone to whatever? I have been medically retired since 1993 with 19 yrs on the Dept.

Cook county (chicago, Ill.)still has all of theirs , plus more they pulled off the streets. they have one of the largest inventories ,in their basement = mini museum.
jeff

the most pleasant one I shot was the schmeisser mp 28 - not a fast rate of fire but accurate relyable beautifully manufactured and easy to hold like a gardenhose