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)
Greece?? hahahahaha, you give me a good laugh Rifleman 
This is Greece :rolleyes:
You mean M3 Grease gun. And the Thompson was superior in almost every aspect, the M3 only had a cheaper and lighter manufacture.
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$
my bad…i just learned about greece in school ( 2 weeks ago) so i got confused
LMFAO!
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 But they been replaced by MP4s and M-4 carbines…
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.
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.
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.
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:
well the thomson may have been inaccurate but at 300 rpm its impossible not to hit the target
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.
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 -
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
Overlord, you chose the Thompson because it has a more powerful bullet? Didn’t they use the same ammo?
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.
you’re right that’s my mistake
i believe the sten was in service as early as 1941
heres a good place for info on both guns
http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/thompson.htm
http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/grease.htm
“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
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
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