blowback might be more precise,firing from an open bolt.
i think the thompson was better . i think it has a better rate of fire and also it wasn’t so easily jammed as the crease . the last was mostly used by engeneering units
picture of a m1a1 thompson
m3a1 crease
years ago i used to confuse the crease gun with mp 40
Come on you would have to be an idiot to think the grease gun is better
The US trials even rated the STEN higher than the Thompson…
HI 1992
The thompson you post is not a M1A1 could be a 1928 or 1921 not a M1 check the bolt location.
Cheers
there are songs named after it, there are movies named after it,
The Tommy Gun !!!
On the subject of the M1A1 Thompson vs. the M3 Grease Gun; I would have to go with the Thompson, because it fires faster (250-750 rounds faster), has a larger magazine capacity, and is more comfortable to shoot than the Grease Gun. On the down side, the Thompson is 2.8 pounds heaver then the Grease Gun, and as with all forms of machine guns, the Thompson goes through its ammunition very quickly. Of course, that could be an advantage if you want to simply spray bullets if the need arise.
The major problem with the Grease Gun is its inaccuracy, what with having a 3½ inch barrel. Also as with all sub-machine guns both the Grease Gun and the Thompson were proved to be unreliable in actual combat conditions (just as was the M50 Reising). Interestingly enough, in spite of all its flaws, the Grease Gun did had a very long service record, having even seen limited service in Desert Storm.
Still, between them, the Thompson is the more reliable of the two.
3-1/2 " bbL ??? 7.9" (203m.m.) was the issued length.
Oh, it was a 7.9 inch barrel, thank you for correcting me tankgeezer. Sorry about the mistake.:oops:
Its a minor goof, most modern subbies have shorter tubes,well, more tube inside than out anyway, its easy to mix them up. I do cetainly agree about the reising, not the most luminous of subguns,a pleasant surprise to find someone who knows about them. It was hard enough to keep one running in good clean conditions…
err… they both had 30 round magazines. Also, “accuracy” in terms of an open bolt submachine gun is a bit of a misnomer, so in terms of this there is very little to choose between them.
I am also led to believe that the M3 is actually the more reliable of the two designs.
I dunno…
I was in the Army at the very tail end of the Grease Gun era. I never fired one nor even gentilly cradled it in my arms. But I was told by armor people that the thing was as inaccurate as they came with a severe drop at even (roughly) 25 yards and that it was a pretty sloppy and cheap design.
I believe the US Special Operations “D-Team” used it initially because of the close quarters stopping power of the .45ACP, but quickly dropped the gun in favor of the Uzi and the MP5 because of its wild shooting characteristics…
Yes the Reising was very difficult gun to keep up with, because of the complexicty of its locked-breech design. Didn’t Lieutenant Colonel Merritt Edson order all Reisings be dumped into a river?
Also wasn’t there some kind of problem with the Reising’s magazins?
I had to fight with one to get it through 1 mag, never liked it, and it wasnt popular with the private sector either. The going rate minus the transfer fee was about 50-60 USD. At the time, the Mac-10 was all the rage, and cost about 100-150 USD W/O the transfer fee.
The M-3’s were never all that well made, and several pieces had bbls that allowed the slug to drop through unimpeded.So, that being the case, actually aiming the thing was a waste to time, it was a firehose, and nothing more.
We carried the grease gun in Desert Storm as well as the 16, and after going to the range with the m3, gosh…I hated the thing.
In this day and age the M-3 would be at best a utilitarian firearm that will do until something better comes along. There are far better weapons available today that are not hampered by the design limitations of the M-3. Although they will cost more.
The M-3 series was a cheap to mass produce weapon, intended to be disposable, and provide a means of suppressing the enemy at closer ranges, and be a suitable close quarters weapon… (house clearing, and trench operations, as well as the tunnels in the R.V.N.
The low cost made it a good weapon for equipping resistance, and guerrilla fighters in quantity, so at the time, it was better than nothing.
The Phillipine Special Ops Forces have upgraded and kept the Greasegun as their mainstay weapon of chioce. Here is one in action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAOKhLi8xj4&feature=related
The Greasegun was and is a good weapon for it’s intended purpose, close combat and as a vehicular weapon. The Thompson is a work of art, even the later M1/M1A1 versions are beautiful in their own right. The early Colt 1921 Tommys shot about 900/1000 RPM, the M1928-1928A1 Tommys about 850/900 RPM and the M1/M1A1’s abut 750/800. The Greaser was about 350/400 RPM and were very controllable and fairly accurate (Spencer Wurst, WWII 82nd A/B 505th, said he shot down three running Germans at 100 yrds with his) and very hard to jam up with dirt and mud, they were extensively tested against the MP40 and the Thompson and won hand’s down in reliability. The Reising is a great weapon if you live in a perfect world, combat is not a perfect world. I like mine but I’m not crawling in mud in the Solomons. I have a 1928A1, an M1 Thompson an MP40 and a Reising. I’d take the Thompson any day…heavy?? yes, but it does the job so well and looks good doing it…firing a 50 rd drum is almost better than sex…
You forgot to mention the GC act of 1986 that forbid the import, manufacture and registration of any new MG into the data base. This is what really sucked…the $10.00 Grease gun is now worth $18,000.00, the Colt Thompson $34,000.00, the $2000.00 M1 Thompson $18/20,000.00, that 1991 $2000.00 BAR is now worth over $26,000.00!!!
This was one of the most underhanded pieces of legislation ever to be passed by Congress, after being voted down it was brought back up at a last minute meeting and voted in with only a few Reps there …can you say back stabbed???
The grease gun was cheaper than the thompson and could be use by glider and airbore troops, lighter than thompson and shorter
The Thompson was well used by both glider and airborne troops through out the war. The lighter weight and cheapness of the Greasegun were the reasons given for it’s manufacture, but the Thompson was still usually preferred by the troops. The single stacked magazine led to jamming problems and it was also harder to load, you did not need a loading tool to load the Thompson’s double stacked mag. The reason it lasted in service so long was because it was easier to store and handle in vehicles.
Personally i’d use the thompson but they both do the same thing, KILL. I’d rather have one than none.