I thought later versions were modified so they could not accept the 50-round drum mag…
You might be the only one to choose the Grease Gun over the Thompson…
The M1928, which was used early on, could have the drums. The M1 and M1A1 could not. I’ve read that the drums were also dropped due to their tendencies to jam.
i always wondered"what happend to the mafia drums" (as I call it) and that is a good point that there expensive and would jam
Yeah. The M1928 Thompson was a really popular weapon for the Mafias back at that time. The ironic thing is that the Thompson was initially advertised as a weapon used to catch criminals, not to arm them.
Auto Ordnace Corp. products were marketed to anyone who might have use for them. Ranchers, police Dept’s, average Joe too.They could be found in local hardware, or general stores,and were sold over the counter nearly anyplace.
their use by criminals resulted in the Machinegun Act of 1934, which then required purchasers to meet qualifications, proving their identity, residency, and lack of criminal history. This was done by requiring endorsment from both local, and national law enforcement agencies. Included were 2 finger print cards, 2 mug shots, and ;lastly, a $200.00 transfer fee, (quite a sum in the 30’s) this and the very long application form. This being duley executed, was sent off to Washington, where the F.B.I. would then run a background check on the buyer, and if all was well, a very pretty tax stamp was affixed to the form, and it was sent back to the purchaser, who could then take their weapon home. Federal permission is required to move the weapon across state lines for any reason, and cant be lent to any other person, or out of the control of the registered owner.
The advent of the 1968 Gun Control Act, place similar requirements on a variety of other firearms, (not full auto) Any breech loading firearm with a bore diameter exceeding .50 inches,Although many such weapons were re-tubed to fire the U.S. 50 BMG round.which makes them the same as any sporting rifle. any type of destructive device, mortars, artillary, and guns that are part of another machine, tank guns, ship’s guns all had to go through the same red tape of paperwork. If these same weapons were deactivated by approved methods, (welding, machining,)they were then considered “unservicable” and no longer a weapon, and could be aquired far more easily. Muzzle loading cannon of any bore size are not covered by this law, whether old original cannon, or new made reproductions, so buy and sell as you wish.
The munitions for these weapons may also require registration, anything explosive, or incindiary as a primary function has to be so registered, and serial numbered. When it is expended, a form must be submitted showing its serial #, and other info about its being used. I love America, What a country…
Heh, lol
I always thought the Gun Control Act was more recent than that. Quite a few major gun crimes were committed since then, such as John Lennon’s assassination and the fact that Tim McVeigh was going to use a Glock pistol to detonate his bomb if it didn’t do so itself.
Anyway, I know due to legalities, the Thompson has been reclassified as an assault rifle, thereby making it illegal for civillians to own one in most states. I know some law enforcement officials still use these guys though.
What I love about the Gun Control act is how gangs are still capable of obtaining weapons you’d normally expect for no one outside of the military to be using i.e. M16 rifles, MAC10 SMGs etc.
I was speaking of the two acts in my text, (1934, and 1968) there have been other such acts, tho one was rolled back, or suspended. dont know which tho.
Thats the fault in every law intended to reduce crime. it assumes the criminal will play by “the rules”. Criminals do not have rules, so the boats, planes, and other vehicles that bring in illegal goods, drugs, money, whatever, also now deliver weapons. Criminals do not obey laws, thats the essence of criminality. Only the legitimate consumer of these items is put at a loss.
Bwing,
The Thomson was never classified as an “assault rifle” under the 1994 act (which sunset in 2004), since it was a machine gun under the 1934 and 1968 acts. No fully automatic weapon had its status changed by the 1994 act, which only regulated cosmetic features on semiautomatic sporting rifles. They called it the “assault weapon” act to deliberately confuse and make people think that they were talking about selective fire weapons.
I could’ve sworn it was classified as such because I remember reading on a website for WWII battle reenactment and it said the Thompson may be hard to come by in some states due to it being illegal to own one on some states.
Yes, it is illegal to own in some states because it is a machine gun under the 1934 and 1968 acts, therefore requiring registration. Some states fully prohibit machine guns (otherwise known as “class 3” weapons), whereas the rest do not.
In any case, a transferable Thomson (i.e. one which was registered in the system before 1988) is going to set you back a very large five figure sum.
There are civilian legal versions currently being produced which have a longer barrel and fire semiautomatic only from a closed bolt. Even these are not legal in all states (e.g. California) because they have both a detachable magazine and a pistol grip (both of which are deemed to be evil features which will cause you to rob banks, apparently)…
How does a pistol grip seem illegal? So does that mean that theoratically one can legally own most old rifles on California? Such as the M1 Garand: No detachable magazine, no pistol grip. Same with the Kar98k and the M1903 Springfield.
Some idiot decided that pistol grips were evil, so prohibited them.
Yes, you can legally own most old rifles in California
That seems like the IDs in high schools. This is what they appear to expect:
Nutcase with machine guns comes into school. A security guard asks the nutcase for his ID. The nutcase laments, “Oh, geewhiz, I don’t have my ID. I better go home and re-think my life”. And the nutcase goes home and rethinks his life due to his lack of an ID.
I dont know if it surprizes anyone, but there are people here who think that way, that such measures will defeat loonies, and criminals, never seems to work, but that doesnt stop them from trying again, “well, maybe this time,” And to try to convince the citizenry that further loss of freedom is okay, they use qute little catch phrases like, “If this helps save just one life,it will be worth it.” but ,as always nothing is saved, no benefit is realized, but freedoms are curtailed yet again. At least until the voters say enough, and recall the scallawags.
My main problem is that ALL the major school shootings I can think of offhand were, in fact, by students. The IDs are a great way to identify strangers, but it’s not gonna help when a student snaps and brings a weapon to school. Last year, my school relaxed the rules and let us just go with our IDs being somewhere on our person, but I think that they’ll make us wear them around our necks again now that Virginia Tech has happened. Just recently, the Middle School in my town started making students wear IDs. It’s just a matter of time before the Elementary Schools 
start making their kids wear IDs. Oh, five-year-old in Kindergarten. Yeah, I’ll bet he’s a real potential threat.
Anyway, back on the topic. My problem with the M3A1 is that with such a short barrel, I can’t imagine it having much in the way of accuracy or effective range.
Well, the M-3 wasnt designed to have alot of either quality.It was designed to be an area coverage weapon when used in the open, as well as a high volume close combat weapon. (trenches, bunkers, house clearing.)
It was supposed to be an expendable gun, so if damaged, it would be discarded for a new weapon. It was cheap, and easy to produce, costing about $10 U.S. in the 40’s. Having few machined parts, mostly pressed steel, and weldments.
The military of my day considered it good for 75 ft. after which transition to a long range weapon was recommended. The M-3 was certainly good for more range, that was just the tactical doctrine. I personally felt it rocked too much, a problem with long recoil, blowback actions, and slow rates of fire. But it certainly did its job. The barrel issue with the M-3 series was mostly due to poor tolerances in broaching the rifling, and not from length. Some modern sub guns have very short barrels, of 5" to 7" and are quite compact due to the bolt enveloping the chamber end of the tube. A good example is the MAC-10 which in the 70’s sold (civilian) for about $150.00+transfer fee.
The Tomson is overall the beter sub. but the poll was compare a sub-gun to a country.
ROTFLMFAO
The Poll was between the thompson, M1-A1, and the M-3 series. Which we here in the Grand Republic, produced.
As bwing and the other guys were talking about (school shootings) my school around the end of Aug to the beggning of Sep had a bomb warning (thank the lord it did not happen), when the newws got out the kids went crazy but it did not reach the point where the state news came in, these kids these days are going crazy, i just saw on the news that there was a shooting at a collage again but it only involved 2 injuries.
Back on subject, first off, yes i did put down the country greece, second, the thompson was an amazing weapon overall, used .45 acp, high rate of fire, but expensive, bulky, not the quietest weapon ever, the grease gun used both .45 and 9mm (with a small adjustment), light and cheap, but not to accurate, not so pretty, not so high rate of fire, (maybe) jams a lot, also the m3 is still in production for army usages and the thompson i have little or have not read what has happened to its excenstence (my guess the thompson is for civil or not even produced anymore) all this is great information from the stuff i collected of what you wrote for us to read but one more question was the weapon fonded by other countries then the U.S. (U.S. not so fonded though)