was the m3 inspired by the sten or was it just made because of the shortage of resources
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”.
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?
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 -
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
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?
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 -
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 -
well at least that time was the ammo’s fault
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.
Was it cheap ammo
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.
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
very agreeable and a question to you, sounds like you are in the service or were
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
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)
The M1A1 did not have the slots to accomadate the drum magazines. It could only use the 20 or 30 round box magazines.
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.