The M3A1 'Grease gun' was a rude, crude, and effective submachine gun

M3a1 .45acp "grease guns" & the "Swedish K" 9x19mm SMGs...

Rude & crude were how I heard most US Army veterans describe the M3A1 .45acp SMGs.
My US Army recruiter, a tanker, told me they POSs that never worked properly in his units. He served in Europe(Germany) in the 1970s & early 1980s.
Author & SF/spec ops veteran John Plaster wrote in his non fiction SOG books that the troops in SE Asia who served in the MAC-V-SOG never liked the "grease guns" or the 9x19mm Swedish K SMGs.
Plaster wrote these sub guns were nearly worthless & most SOG teams wanted AK-47s, CAR-15s or the standard M-16a1 5.56mm.
The US Army & CIA/DIA/etc let them buy & use almost any firearm they wanted for these covert & special missions.

ClydeFrog
 
"by closing the dust cover with the bolt retracted, a projection entered the depression for the finger, thereby giving a safety feature to keep the bolt from moving forward unless the dustcover was open"

NOPE! On both counts.

The tab on the inside of the cover entered to finger hole in the bolt only if the bolt was forward. It was intended to prevent the bolt from moving to the rear (not forward) with the cover closed. This was considered necessary in case someone had the M3A1 slung over their shoulder, barrel up, with a loaded magazine inserted, then jumpped from the bed of a truck to the ground (apparently exactly that did happen with an M3 at least once) although there are other ways to bang the gun in such a way that the bolt could move to the rear. If the bolt moves far enough to the rear to catch on the trigger mechanism, no problem, it stays back. If the bolt moves to the rear only an inch or so, no problem. If the bolt moves far enough back to pick up a round from the magazine but not far enough back to engage the trigger then you get one very loud OOOPS!

As for the tab on the cover stopping the bolt from coming forward, it wouldn't stop the bolt unless someone or something was holding the cover closed. The rear edge of the tab on the cover was slanted so that the bolt would push the cover open on its way forward.
 
Tankers I knew hated em. They could barley qualify with em and felt it would probably have more of an effect if the enemy were hit in the head by a thrown one.

That's what a tanker told me "I can't hit nothin with it, they're so dang heavy it'd probably work better if I just threw it - I'd knock the enemy out if I hit em in the head."

I think they were phasing them out right at that time. Didn't tankers get issued new weapons along with the M1 Abrams? We were switching from the M60s right about that time. I think we had M60A3s, before I left I was seeing the Abrams.

Still y'know - I have a TEC-9M and it's fun to shoot. I'd take a grease gun even a semi-auto version.
 
having owned both a STEN MK II and a M3A1 greasegun....I would take a STEN anyday over a M3. I would have felt shortsheeted being issued a M3 as a infantryman's weapon.....its indeed worth the $13.00 dollars they payed for each one, but not a penny more lol.
 
My National Guard unit still had some M3 greaseguns in the mid to late 1990s, don't remember what year they finally got turned in. They were assigned to our recovery vehicle operators, part of the system of the recovery vehicle.

I got to handle them, but never fire them. The soldiers assigned those weapons did get to fire them once, but sadly I didn't get a chance to shoot them that time.
 
I know one person who had considerable experience with a grease gun, and he was quite fond of it. He primarily liked how compact it was and the fact that when called on to clear houses in Europe, he said it was a LOT easier to maneuver in cramped stairwells and hallways that are found in many older European homes.
 
Hi, n4aof,

Partially wrong on the M3, totally wrong on the M3A1. The dust cover of both the M3 and the M3A1 served as the safety. If closed with the gun cocked, it blocked the bolt from going forward and moved the bolt back off the sear. The M3A1 was improved by having the tab on the cover enter the cocking hole in the bolt when the bolt was closed, thus it prevented the bolt from moving due to inertia so it was safe in that regard as well.

The safety was positive; releasing the bolt with the cover closed could not and did not move the cover out of the way. If that happened, the gun was defective.

Incidentally, the M3/M3A1 played another role in gun lore. It served as the inspiration for Bill Ruger to make the frame of his original .22 auto pistol the way the Grease Gun was made, from two stamped pieces of steel welded together. And that was the start of a firearms empire.

Jim
 
This is the end stage development of the M3A1 . It started life as a SpitFire made in Phx Az in the 1960's . The SpiteFire ran at about 800 rounds per minute. It was a real ammo waster . After replacing the internals with those of the M3A1 it runs at the more reasonable speed of about 300/350 rpm. At that rate it is able to produce single shots with only trigger control . I also replaced the M3A1's trunnion with the UZI type that made it much easier to replace barrels .
SpitFireasproduced.jpg

As produced
SpitFireasmodified.jpg

As modified
2006_0110ImageSF5.jpg

Field Stripped
2006_0110ImageSF7.jpg

Detail Stripped
 
8.5 lbs?!!

I had no idea those things were that heavy! That's only about a pound lighter than an M14. Wow.

Jason
 
8.5 lbs?!!

I had no idea those things were that heavy! That's only about a pound lighter than an M14. Wow.
Click to expand...

It may seem heavy, but its stll lots lighter than a Tommygun! By a couple of pounds!:eek:
 
It may seem heavy, but its stll lots lighter than a Tommygun! By a couple of pounds!
Click to expand...

Yeah, I suppose so, but the Thompson looks heavy. I just never thought the grease gun looked that heavy I guess. Just looks like thin stamped steel, I'd have figured maybe 5 lbs empty. Learn something new everyday. :o

Jason
 
The suppressor was big & heavy enough to beat someone to death with it.
I once had the end cap come off the can while firing and the gun sprayed washers to the target line.

It was a simple and effective weapon whose compact size also made it easy to rig for parachute operations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top