Would a Thompson be a good combat submachine gun for today?
- Thread starter Doug.38PR
- Start date
When I was in Balad after talking to ground pounders during our break for meals, I heard of an instance where an US soldier in Iraq wanted to use an AK47/74 and was told yes but still had to keep his M4/ammo available just in case his AK breaks. I was told the soldiers would pick up once dropped AKs expend all the ammo and then into the trophy room or burn pile it went. Our command tent had a few trophy AKs on the wall, but the EOD guys had everything from helwan 9mm, Walther MP and HKMP5 to FAL and Iraqi version of the Dragunov. We had an officer from the unit we relieved, he smuggled a crate full of live munitions, AKs, RPKs, RPGs and a variety of other stuff into the US. That just tells you that not all officers have gray matter in the cranium. Needless to say he must be making little rocks out of big rocks in Leavenworth Kansas. josh
This hasn't been brought up, but, using non-standard weapons, in a combat zone, can be fatal. Quick story.
OCS graduate came to Nam with a 44. Magnum. In combat, he pulled and fired his 44. The different sound of the 44 attracted VC attention, that proved fatal.
I've often wondered if the same has occured in our current conflicts, and, if that, in itself, doesn't make some of these questions moot? I can understand if the weapon is chambered in a common caliber, like .223, 308, 9mm, or, a long range weapon, where the location will not be so easy to assess.
Perhaps a modified Thompson, to shoot 9mm?
Also, does different cylcing rates attract attention?
Why lug a Thompson, when a Cobray Mac10 weighs half the weight, is one of the easiest guns in the world to dissasemble and clean, and, with ball ammo, are incredibly reliable, not to mention near water proof?
S
OCS graduate came to Nam with a 44. Magnum. In combat, he pulled and fired his 44. The different sound of the 44 attracted VC attention, that proved fatal.
I've often wondered if the same has occured in our current conflicts, and, if that, in itself, doesn't make some of these questions moot? I can understand if the weapon is chambered in a common caliber, like .223, 308, 9mm, or, a long range weapon, where the location will not be so easy to assess.
Perhaps a modified Thompson, to shoot 9mm?
Also, does different cylcing rates attract attention?
Why lug a Thompson, when a Cobray Mac10 weighs half the weight, is one of the easiest guns in the world to dissasemble and clean, and, with ball ammo, are incredibly reliable, not to mention near water proof?
S
Esquire M Busterbury
Moderator
Even though it's one of those federal crimes that would undoubtably lead him to a dark cold cell for longer than it's worth, wouldn't he most likely get probation or somesuch just for being a combat veteran? (especially if it was a first offense?)
I can't say I blame him too bad...it'd be pretty hard to pass up on all those toys..
Get good while the gettin's good...
The M4 is FAR from being an ideal SMG type platform. It works and does the job, but it is not the ideal platform. Sure you can bolt on lots of neato accesories, but you can do that with any weapon if the appropriate mounts are designed. The only advantage the M4 has is that it can use the stuff that was already around for the M-16/AR-15. The M4 has exesive muzzle blast that kicks up dust, and harms the operators hearing. It's no better at long range than a SMG because of the shorter sight radius and reduced lethality of 5.56 at extended range out of a short barrel. It shoots a little flatter yes, but it is basicly a 22LR once it gets there. Add a scope with a drop comp to either and you will be good out to 200 yards. I hate this M4/M-16/AR-15 worship. YES it will work in the CQC area, but it is not ideal and not the best item for the job.
In the military, you are part of a team, not alone on some SHTF island. Have a few guys with MP5s for room clearing. Give them AP ammo if you are messing yourself worrying about the BGs having body armor. (Most, if not all the armor they have isn't rated to stop pistol ammo anyway.) Have some other people have M-16s to take care of intermediate threats. (Some guy taking pot shots at you from 150 yards away.) Give the DM of the group a scoped M-14 for those rare times you need a longer shot.
Sorry to bust the bubble, but from what I have heard, the real "glory weapon" in current CQC in the Middle East is the gernade. Some people carry less ammo so they can carry more gernades. Why use you M4 with all those neato gadgets and expose yourself to enemy fire when you can chuck a gernade around the corner and take cover. The "Mirror on a stick" is a usefull thing to have as well.
It's like different size hammers. Somtimes you need a little hammer that is easy to manuver, quick, and light. Sometimes you need the big 8 lb sledge. You CAN make a hammer that will do many things. But sometimes it gets to the point where it is simply easier to have different hammers and take the right one to the job.
In the military, you are part of a team, not alone on some SHTF island. Have a few guys with MP5s for room clearing. Give them AP ammo if you are messing yourself worrying about the BGs having body armor. (Most, if not all the armor they have isn't rated to stop pistol ammo anyway.) Have some other people have M-16s to take care of intermediate threats. (Some guy taking pot shots at you from 150 yards away.) Give the DM of the group a scoped M-14 for those rare times you need a longer shot.
Sorry to bust the bubble, but from what I have heard, the real "glory weapon" in current CQC in the Middle East is the gernade. Some people carry less ammo so they can carry more gernades. Why use you M4 with all those neato gadgets and expose yourself to enemy fire when you can chuck a gernade around the corner and take cover. The "Mirror on a stick" is a usefull thing to have as well.
It's like different size hammers. Somtimes you need a little hammer that is easy to manuver, quick, and light. Sometimes you need the big 8 lb sledge. You CAN make a hammer that will do many things. But sometimes it gets to the point where it is simply easier to have different hammers and take the right one to the job.
Crosshair: I will respectfully disagree w/ recommendation for using MP5s as team issue CQB longguns when rifle caliber carbines are available (at least in a military context).
The MP5 has two sterling qualities as an SMG:
1) It offers better than average SMG accuracy due to its firing from a closed bolt and possessing decent sights (as opposed to open bolt and BB rifle sights of most SMGs).
2) The suppressed (SD) version is extremely quiet, making it effective for certain functions such as sentry removal or IADs from inside a vehicle.
Other than that, it suffers from the same major drawback as most SMGs...it's launching a pistol round (with only a slight gain in velocity over a handgun).
In my experience, the M4A1 is a far superior weapon at all ranges from 0-300 meters.
Nothing against the MP5 series. It's a great SMG design and I have used most variants extensively. It's just that the whole pistol caliber concept doesn't hold up when your enemy is hosing you with rifles, machineguns, and RPGs.
The MP5 has two sterling qualities as an SMG:
1) It offers better than average SMG accuracy due to its firing from a closed bolt and possessing decent sights (as opposed to open bolt and BB rifle sights of most SMGs).
2) The suppressed (SD) version is extremely quiet, making it effective for certain functions such as sentry removal or IADs from inside a vehicle.
Other than that, it suffers from the same major drawback as most SMGs...it's launching a pistol round (with only a slight gain in velocity over a handgun).
In my experience, the M4A1 is a far superior weapon at all ranges from 0-300 meters.
Nothing against the MP5 series. It's a great SMG design and I have used most variants extensively. It's just that the whole pistol caliber concept doesn't hold up when your enemy is hosing you with rifles, machineguns, and RPGs.
Guy,
I got to burp off a few mags with one of those at a Dept. shoot last summer. 25 or so years ago I got to run a 1921 with drums...we shot the '21 to 150 yards, and if you set the sights for the range and held up your end, you could get hits on a B27.
I have had the good fortune to get to run a lot of SMG's from the 1920's to present. Being a PoPo firearms trainer has very few perks, but this has been one of them
I have yet to fire a MAC or a grease gun, though- not likely to show up in the copshop armory. While the old Tommy gun is heavy by current standards, but they are reliable and pretty accurate. I'd take one to a fight in a heartbeat. I liked the Uzi real well too- perhaps my favorite. HK's are allright, but no more accurate than an Uzi. I know they are all the rage in LE, but they never really turned my crank.
The most natural pointer for me was the Colt SMG9. I could throw an empty paint bucket over my shoulder 10-15 yards, turn when I heard it hit the ground, and grease it with burst from the Colt- with the gun tucked under my arm. I'm not a big AR guy, but this little gun really impressed me.
Nice pic-thanks for posting it.
I got to burp off a few mags with one of those at a Dept. shoot last summer. 25 or so years ago I got to run a 1921 with drums...we shot the '21 to 150 yards, and if you set the sights for the range and held up your end, you could get hits on a B27.
I have had the good fortune to get to run a lot of SMG's from the 1920's to present. Being a PoPo firearms trainer has very few perks, but this has been one of them
I have yet to fire a MAC or a grease gun, though- not likely to show up in the copshop armory. While the old Tommy gun is heavy by current standards, but they are reliable and pretty accurate. I'd take one to a fight in a heartbeat. I liked the Uzi real well too- perhaps my favorite. HK's are allright, but no more accurate than an Uzi. I know they are all the rage in LE, but they never really turned my crank.The most natural pointer for me was the Colt SMG9. I could throw an empty paint bucket over my shoulder 10-15 yards, turn when I heard it hit the ground, and grease it with burst from the Colt- with the gun tucked under my arm. I'm not a big AR guy, but this little gun really impressed me.
Nice pic-thanks for posting it.
Hi Sarge
You cops have all the fun
I sold a 21 Colt last year that came in with a collection I bought for our store . They are the coolest smg by far considering the history and all . The records showed that it had been sold to a large mid-Ohio PD in the 20's . Wish I could've justified keeping it , but they're just to darn expensive . I've owned my 1942 Savage M1 since about 1990 . As you mention , it has proven to be reliable and accurate enough for it's intended mission . Gallon jugs at 50 yds are an easy target with single shots . Magazines are cheap too
So far , I've found it to be easier to manipulate than the M3 GG below . But , I've only had the M3 for a year . It's starting to grow on me though
You cops have all the fun
I sold a 21 Colt last year that came in with a collection I bought for our store . They are the coolest smg by far considering the history and all . The records showed that it had been sold to a large mid-Ohio PD in the 20's . Wish I could've justified keeping it , but they're just to darn expensive . I've owned my 1942 Savage M1 since about 1990 . As you mention , it has proven to be reliable and accurate enough for it's intended mission . Gallon jugs at 50 yds are an easy target with single shots . Magazines are cheap too
So far , I've found it to be easier to manipulate than the M3 GG below . But , I've only had the M3 for a year . It's starting to grow on me though
Johnny Guest
Moderator in Memoriam
Beautiful pieces, Guy
I've shot a fair number of full autos and have greatly enjoyed most of them. One I've missed out on is the M3. I sure would like the opportunity to shoot one some. Maybe I'd get over my intense yearing to own one. That and a Sten Gun.
Go figure.
I wouldn't take for my '28 Thompson. I shoot it pretty regularly in local SMG matches, and when I do my part, it is excellent for what it is -- a first generation smg, solid, reliable, heavy, and fairly easy to shoot well. For all the nostalgia, history, and pride of ownership, though, I'd pick something else to carry -- probably an M4 -- with a view toward using it in combat.
Best
Johnny
I've shot a fair number of full autos and have greatly enjoyed most of them. One I've missed out on is the M3. I sure would like the opportunity to shoot one some. Maybe I'd get over my intense yearing to own one. That and a Sten Gun.
Go figure.I wouldn't take for my '28 Thompson. I shoot it pretty regularly in local SMG matches, and when I do my part, it is excellent for what it is -- a first generation smg, solid, reliable, heavy, and fairly easy to shoot well. For all the nostalgia, history, and pride of ownership, though, I'd pick something else to carry -- probably an M4 -- with a view toward using it in combat.
Best
Johnny
Thanks Johnny .
I've fired several Stens . They work , but I found it very hard to get excited enough to buy one
The slow rate of fire (450ish) makes the M3 very different to fire . After awhile you get the feel for it though .
Yes , if given a choice , the M16 platform seems the best choice .
imo
I've fired several Stens . They work , but I found it very hard to get excited enough to buy one
The slow rate of fire (450ish) makes the M3 very different to fire . After awhile you get the feel for it though .
Yes , if given a choice , the M16 platform seems the best choice .
imo
I have never been fortunate enough to own a Thompson, but I have fired a number of them over the years. One of my best friends owns one that I shoot pretty often (monthly ?).
I think they are cool. Historically very interesting. But as a practical firearm they don't do anything for me at all. To me, they are clunky, heavy, the stock is way too long................. They just don't pull my chain. Out of all the machine guns have have shot over the years the Thompson would be one of my last choices as a combat weapon.
"but isn't a .45 hole better than a .223 hole?"
I am no terminal ballistics expert. And, I have never seen anyone shot with a Thompson or a carbine in .45 ACP. But I have seen a number of people shot with .45 handguns as well as M16s and AR15s. I have worked for 23 years as a paramedic in Las Vegas. My experience is that there is no comparison. When you are walking up to a scene, you can tell from a considerable distance whether somone was shot with a rifle or a handgun. Rifles make great big huge gapeing holes in people. Handguns make little holes usally without an exit wound. The people I have seen with .223s had horrible wounds. I actually saw a guy get shot in the head with an M16 while I was standing there watching. A .45 ACP in a handgun isn't in the same league, ballpark, or sport. The short barrel of the M4 does limit it's most effective range, but, at submachine gun distances it has a huge advantage over any pistol cartridge.
I am another person who believes that the submachine gun has very little, if any, practical use in today's world. As I said, I have shot a lot of machine guns. I own a Sterling (my only machine gun) that was built on from the Sten I had before that. I compete in our local machine gun matches. I have taken two, four day formal classes: one using an Uzi, one using an M16. I was even issued an M3 Greasegun when I was in the Ohio National Guard in the early 80s. Point is, I have a little experience with subguns. Not combat experience, but shooting experience. I am not a subgun hater, I own one and enjoy the crap out of it. But.... I think the M4 does everything a subgun can do and a whole lot more. I think the M4 is much more ergonomic. I think the M4 is much more adaptable to the mission. The accessories alone: night vision, suppressors, optics put it light years ahead of most subguns. The raw power of the rifle round as well as it's ability to defeat body armor put it in a whole different class than a subgun. And, it is in a package that is much easier to use and carry. IMO it is even just as easy to fire controlled burst accurately dispite the much greater power of the round.
I think they are cool. Historically very interesting. But as a practical firearm they don't do anything for me at all. To me, they are clunky, heavy, the stock is way too long................. They just don't pull my chain. Out of all the machine guns have have shot over the years the Thompson would be one of my last choices as a combat weapon.
"but isn't a .45 hole better than a .223 hole?"
I am no terminal ballistics expert. And, I have never seen anyone shot with a Thompson or a carbine in .45 ACP. But I have seen a number of people shot with .45 handguns as well as M16s and AR15s. I have worked for 23 years as a paramedic in Las Vegas. My experience is that there is no comparison. When you are walking up to a scene, you can tell from a considerable distance whether somone was shot with a rifle or a handgun. Rifles make great big huge gapeing holes in people. Handguns make little holes usally without an exit wound. The people I have seen with .223s had horrible wounds. I actually saw a guy get shot in the head with an M16 while I was standing there watching. A .45 ACP in a handgun isn't in the same league, ballpark, or sport. The short barrel of the M4 does limit it's most effective range, but, at submachine gun distances it has a huge advantage over any pistol cartridge.
I am another person who believes that the submachine gun has very little, if any, practical use in today's world. As I said, I have shot a lot of machine guns. I own a Sterling (my only machine gun) that was built on from the Sten I had before that. I compete in our local machine gun matches. I have taken two, four day formal classes: one using an Uzi, one using an M16. I was even issued an M3 Greasegun when I was in the Ohio National Guard in the early 80s. Point is, I have a little experience with subguns. Not combat experience, but shooting experience. I am not a subgun hater, I own one and enjoy the crap out of it. But.... I think the M4 does everything a subgun can do and a whole lot more. I think the M4 is much more ergonomic. I think the M4 is much more adaptable to the mission. The accessories alone: night vision, suppressors, optics put it light years ahead of most subguns. The raw power of the rifle round as well as it's ability to defeat body armor put it in a whole different class than a subgun. And, it is in a package that is much easier to use and carry. IMO it is even just as easy to fire controlled burst accurately dispite the much greater power of the round.
Only problem with that photo invssgt is that an M4 has no chance in heck of reaching 3150 FPS muzzle velocity. The M4 only has about 50 yards at most of "fragmentation range" and even at the magic 2700 FPS mark, M855 has inconsistant fragmentation that can vary from lot to lot. So after about 50 yards you basicly have a 22 bullet that isn't gona fragment. More important, THAT IS A SOFT POINT BULLET IN THAT 5.56 PHOTO. Nobody in the military uses bullets of that type.
Here is the proper photo. Note that the M4 has no chance of reaching the listed MV and fragmentation will not be as severe at M4 velocities. Also note that a hit in the arm or leg is likely to be a .22 hole unless it hits bone. (Unless you are kinda fat like me.
) Sure an arm or leg is not the ideal place to hit someone, but if you can increase the chance of hitting an artery/nerve/something else, I'll take it. The 5.56 goes nearly 4 inches before doing anything impressive.
Here is the proper photo. Note that the M4 has no chance of reaching the listed MV and fragmentation will not be as severe at M4 velocities. Also note that a hit in the arm or leg is likely to be a .22 hole unless it hits bone. (Unless you are kinda fat like me.
) Sure an arm or leg is not the ideal place to hit someone, but if you can increase the chance of hitting an artery/nerve/something else, I'll take it. The 5.56 goes nearly 4 inches before doing anything impressive.