Grease Gun (M3) vs. Tommy Gun.. which would you choose?

K

Krefcenz

Joined
May 24, 2002
Messages
763
I saw an interesting show on cable with R. Lee Ermey (best known as the boot camp Sargent in Full Metal Jacket) that presented a comparison of the M-3 "Grease Gun" and the Thompson submachine gun (Tommy gun). My #s may not be exactly right. But from memory, Ermey said the Tommy gun had a higher firing rate, but was heavier (10 lbs vs. 3) and more expensive to make. Range was about the same. He gave the impression that the M-3 was more reliable, but didn't exactly say that (e.g. M-3 made from stamped steel, simple design, not prone to jam). If you were a WWII infantrymen, which gun would you rather have and why?

Kref

M-3

images


Tommy Gun

images
 
tommygun with the round drum magazine cuz its a classic :D

Kenny

PS. and a trenchcoat :)
 
That's easy. The Thompson is a marvel of precision machining, a beautiful thing to look upon -- and it doesn't work. No matter how you tweak it, it will never work reliably because the design is fundamentally flawed. The M3 is cheaply made of ugly bent sheet metal and it doesn't even look like a real gun, just some kind of vaguely gun-shaped tool like a grease gun or something -- and it works. Always. So, if you want something beautiful to hang on the wall get a Thompson, but if you want something that can shoot bullets out one end get an M3.
orig.jpg
 
Ackkkkkkkkk! I just realized I found this thread in Community Center. Guns are Gadgets & Gear! Moving ...
orig.jpg
 
Tommy gun.... granted, it's heavier, but cranking a wierd lever or sticking my finger in the bolt to cock it turns me against the M3. With the tommy gun, the reload can be done without taking your right hand off the grip.
 
Cougar Allen said:
That's easy. The Thompson is a marvel of precision machining, a beautiful thing to look upon -- and it doesn't work. No matter how you tweak it, it will never work reliably because the design is fundamentally flawed. The M3 is cheaply made of ugly bent sheet metal and it doesn't even look like a real gun, just some kind of vaguely gun-shaped tool like a grease gun or something -- and it works. Always. So, if you want something beautiful to hang on the wall get a Thompson, but if you want something that can shoot bullets out one end get an M3.
orig.jpg
Click to expand...

Hey, Coug...not to be argumentative, but is it possible that the one you handled may have been damaged?

The sole time I've gotten to handle a Thompson, it worked like liquid sex. We'd gone out into the country with one of my friends who has his class III, and he brought out an assortment of toys to a patch of fifty acres in Central Texas. He briefed those of us who had not been out with him before as to his straightforward rules and the basics of each of his toys (he had brought the Thompson, an M-3, a Stoner, a MAC-10 and an MG-42--SWEET!! He brought others, but those were the ones I got to play with). We then commenced to blast heck out of probably 5000-6000 rounds out of each of those monsters. At the end of the day, the only casualty was the MG-42, which (owing to some horse's a$$ dropping it on the gravelly road) got a nice crack in the ORIGINAL wood buttstock.

Sure, we had a few jams. A few misfires. But they happened uniformly, across all the guns. The Thompson seemed no more prone to it than anything else. I guess I should mention, just out of the possibility, that this was one of the earlier models, with the vertical foregrip and the charging knob up top. Oh, and I should also note the nigh-impossibility of shooting a Thompson like that without screaming, "You dirty RAT!!" at least once't!!

All in all, if I could afford one, I'd have one. Probably have the M-3, too...out of pity. I wouldn't want ANY gun (especially not one with a history like EITHER of these) to get lonely!!! :D One final note, though...if I was a dogface, I'd probably find that Thompson a LOT more comforting to hold in a cold foxhole in Italy, for a couple of reasons. First, it weighs about ten pounds, and if it jams, you have a damn fine club. Second, when you fire the M-3 full auto, you can almost COUNT between the bullets. The Thompson we had gave a nice ripping sound. Psychologically, you just KNEW that whatever was at the getting end of that was TOAST...

Just my $.02 (adjusted for inflation).
 
The M3 would be my choice and yes I got to fire both. In a situation a long way from home I would like the slower rate of fire and I would rather carry an extra three pounds of ammo rather than three pounds of gun.
 
I have only fired the M3, once, very briefly. Being a medic who "supported" all the different ranges in training, they would always ask, "Hey Doc, you wanna shoot this?")

Butt-Ugly, but very functional and easy to shoot, dismount, clean, etc.
The centerline-recoil and heavy bolt made for almost no "climb", and the low rate of fire was very controllable.

Our department had a number of Thompsons in the armory, but I never got to fire one, they were pretty much passe' in terms of police ordinance even by 1968.

Oddly, our "tactical squad" (pre-SWAT) was equipped with a remarkably unusual weapon, the Winchester M94. Looked really weird, seeing these guys in flak jackets toting lever-actions. Knowing St. Louis County at the time, they probably were donated.
 
Tommy gun, no question. Grease gun may have been cheap, but it was inaccurate too, at least the ones I used in Korea were and I was less than impressed with them.

Plus the Thompson is sooo sexy.
 
ugly smugly M3 for CQB indoor city fighting with lot's of grenades and M1 nearby{ used both M3 and Tommy and M14 in same Stage}
 
akabu said:
ugly smugly M3 for CQB indoor city fighting with lot's of grenades and M1 nearby{ used both M3 and Tommy and M14 in same Stage}
Click to expand...
Korea? (grrr stupid post too short BS)
 
K Williams said:
Isn't that the Russian sub-machine gun of WW2?
Click to expand...
One of them, yes. It's a PPSch-41. Fires the 7.62x25mm TT Tokarev (a rather potent round, although light). 71 round drums. The main advantage (other than the capacity) is that it had about double to quadruple the effective range of the 9mm or .45mm submachine guns of the other main submachine guns (M1928, M3, MP38/40). Almost, but not quite an assault rifle.
 
F-22 , Domincan Republic 1965 Marine MEU. the Corps still had inventory of weapons that worked :D
 
Thompson. It's a classic piece of American art. BTW, I read this book 'Dead Center" a Marine Scout/Sniper's Vietnam memoirs. Theres this part telling about their first patrol with Force Recon, and how they needed a sidearm to carry because the Winchester sniper rifles were bolt action and too slow for a firefight. Snipers back then werent allowed a pistol, so they went to the armory and came back with the Tommy Guns. The Thompson weighed alot but from what the snipers said, it got the job done.
 
The drum mags were the parts that made the Thompson unreliable ,that's why they were not used in WWII. They made a 50 round drum but also a 100 round drum !! talk about heavy.
 
Cougar Allen said:
That's easy. The Thompson is a marvel of precision machining, a beautiful thing to look upon -- and it doesn't work. No matter how you tweak it, it will never work reliably because the design is fundamentally flawed. The M3 is cheaply made of ugly bent sheet metal and it doesn't even look like a real gun, just some kind of vaguely gun-shaped tool like a grease gun or something -- and it works. Always. So, if you want something beautiful to hang on the wall get a Thompson, but if you want something that can shoot bullets out one end get an M3.
orig.jpg
Click to expand...


Oh I don`t think so! The M3 had a notorious reputation for jamming due to the type of magazines used which were single column, similar to the type used by the British Sten (Stench) gun. The main reason the M3 replaced the Thompson was due to cost per unit to manufacture. True, there were reliability concerns with the Thompson but most of those problems were associated with the "Blish" (spelling) mechanism, which was removed from the early military issue models to improve reliability.


Curiosity yields evolution...satiety yields extinction
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top