[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Best Sub-Machinegun of WW2? (Page 1 of 5)
Posted: 6/20/2010 3:44:17 PM EDT
|
What was the best sub machine gun in WW2, or which one would you have wanted to carry into combat during WW2 if given the choice? Thompson M3 (Grease Gun) Sten PPSh-41 (Papa-shaw) PPS-43 MP40 (Schmeizer) |
|
Quoted: PPSh-41 cheap and easy to build, reliable as hell, 900+ rounds pre minute goodness correct on all accounts. a fantastic SMG, I'd say it's probably my choice. Though MP-40s were a revolutionary design with the folding stock, pistol grip, and ease of production. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
PPSh-41 cheap and easy to build, reliable as hell, 900+ rounds pre minute goodness correct on all accounts. a fantastic SMG, I'd say it's probably my choice. Though MP-40s were a revolutionary design with the folding stock, pistol grip, and ease of production. You notice that as the war continued, everyone began to clone the MP-40 (compact, light, and with a folding or collapsing stock). Look at the M3, the PPsH-43, and eventually the Sterling (though it was post war) |
|
The Mp-40 was probably the best engineered weapon of the group, the PPSH had the most firepower, the Thompson was the 'classiest' and fired the big .45ACP. The sights on the Tommy Gun arent as rudimentary as the Grease Gun, Mp40, or PPSH. PPSH held more ammo.
Mp40 / PPSH probably tied for reliability PPSH held more rounds, more potent caliber I'd pick the PPSH, then the Mp40, then the Thompson, then go down the list from there. The Sten and Grease gun are pieces of shit compared to the first three |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Thompson. No contest. Beautiful guns. Even the wartime production Thompsons were way ahead of their peers. How so? Fit, finish, and function. As everything else got extra stamped, welded, and ugly; the Thompson only showed a few cut corners and extra toolmarks. Still purdy. Hard to pull off during wartime. |
|
Quoted: BTW: Hugo Schmeisser had nothing to do with the design of the MP-40.    But for whatever reason it became popular vocabulary for Allied soldiers. Schmeisser was involved in the production of the stick mags and the name was stamped on the body above the floor plate. When GI's picked up the captured weapons, it was the closest they could get to a nickname. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Define "Best". Inexpensive and reliable? = STEN or Grease Gun or PPSH Technological and well made? Thompson Sexy? = MP-40 Not sure I agree that the Thompson was the most technological SMG... I think MP-40 would deserve that title.... Most forward-looking while remaining incredibly cheap to produce, for sure. But he Sten wins on shitty cheapness that still works. |
|
Lanchester for the win !!!
Comparing the Thompson and the Grease Gun...I've fired both the 1928 and the M1A1, as well as an M3A1. M3A1 was really slow firing but suprisingly controllable. Weird stock drop on the Thompsons, not as controllable as I would have expected. Gun rocks quite a bit. The '28 had the Lyman sight, hands-down the best sight on any gun, but probably a little too advanced for something firing a sub-sonic pistol round. Noticed on the Grease Gun, when firing Winchester White-Box ammo, you could see the plain lead base of the fired rounds as they arced downrange when shooting at night with the big range spotlights. only other 45 sub gun I have fired was the H & K, and I wasn't crazy about the stock weld or the forward grip on the mag well. Other then weight and ergonomics, I don't think modern sub guns have much of an advantage over the older designs. I know the Thompson had alternating-feed lips on the magazine, but don't remember about the others. I do remember loading Sten mags and HATING them. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
PPSh-41 cheap and easy to build, reliable as hell, 900+ rounds pre minute goodness correct on all accounts. a fantastic SMG, I'd say it's probably my choice. Though MP-40s were a revolutionary design with the folding stock, pistol grip, and ease of production. You notice that as the war continued, everyone began to clone the MP-40 (compact, light, and with a folding or collapsing stock). Look at the M3, the PPsH-43, and eventually the Sterling (though it was post war) I have a hard time describing the MP40 as "compact" or "light". |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Thompson. No contest. Beautiful guns. Even the wartime production Thompsons were way ahead of their peers. How so? Fit, finish, and function. As everything else got extra stamped, welded, and ugly; the Thompson only showed a few cut corners and extra toolmarks. Still purdy. Hard to pull off during wartime. How is that ahead of their peers? Those are actually detractors from the design. For war time production you want to cut corners. Cheap, fast to produce, and reliable. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Thompson. No contest. Beautiful guns. Even the wartime production Thompsons were way ahead of their peers. How so? Fit, finish, and function. As everything else got extra stamped, welded, and ugly; the Thompson only showed a few cut corners and extra toolmarks. Still purdy. Hard to pull off during wartime. How is that ahead of their peers? Those are actually detractors from the design. For war time production you want to cut corners. Cheap, fast to produce, and reliable. Yeah, that's why the US went to the grease gun. They could produce a M3 ALOT faster than a Thompsons and it was alot cheaper. The Thompson was something like 250 bucks to produce. Today that isn't much, but back then that was REALLY expensive. The military needed SMGs FAST and cheap. Another big bonus with the M3 is that it can be quickly converted to shoot 9mm, so troops could use battlefield pickup ammo. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
PPSh-41 cheap and easy to build, reliable as hell, 900+ rounds pre minute goodness correct on all accounts. a fantastic SMG, I'd say it's probably my choice. Though MP-40s were a revolutionary design with the folding stock, pistol grip, and ease of production. You notice that as the war continued, everyone began to clone the MP-40 (compact, light, and with a folding or collapsing stock). Look at the M3, the PPsH-43, and eventually the Sterling (though it was post war) I have a hard time describing the MP40 as "compact" or "light". Folding stock + inside a vehicle = mo betta 9lbs < 11lbs |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Thompson. No contest. Beautiful guns. Even the wartime production Thompsons were way ahead of their peers. How so? Fit, finish, and function. As everything else got extra stamped, welded, and ugly; the Thompson only showed a few cut corners and extra toolmarks. Still purdy. Hard to pull off during wartime. How is that ahead of their peers? Those are actually detractors from the design. For war time production you want to cut corners. Cheap, fast to produce, and reliable. Yeah, that's why the US went to the grease gun. They could produce a M3 ALOT faster than a Thompsons and it was alot cheaper. The Thompson was something like 250 bucks to produce. Today that isn't much, but back then that was REALLY expensive. The military needed SMGs FAST and cheap. Another big bonus with the M3 is that it can be quickly converted to shoot 9mm, so troops could use battlefield pickup ammo. The Sten was stupid easy to build, and cheap. They cost something like 3 dollars each, and they had school children manufacturing them to help the war effort. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: BTW: Hugo Schmeisser had nothing to do with the design of the MP-40. But for whatever reason it became popular vocabulary for Allied soldiers. Schmeisser was involved in the production of the stick mags and the name was stamped on the body above the floor plate. When GI's picked up the captured weapons, it was the closest they could get to a nickname. huh, didn't know that, thanks. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Thompson. No contest. Beautiful guns. Even the wartime production Thompsons were way ahead of their peers. How so? Fit, finish, and function. As everything else got extra stamped, welded, and ugly; the Thompson only showed a few cut corners and extra toolmarks. Still purdy. Hard to pull off during wartime. How is that ahead of their peers? Those are actually detractors from the design. For war time production you want to cut corners. Cheap, fast to produce, and reliable. We won, didn't we? Quality over quantity. You fight a war with Xnation making reliable waterpipe subguns vs. Thompsons out of Vnation. Morale and confidence in weapon systems is as important as reliability. The Lancaster and Sterling are children of the lack of confidence in the Sten. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Thompson. No contest. Beautiful guns. Even the wartime production Thompsons were way ahead of their peers. How so? Fit, finish, and function. As everything else got extra stamped, welded, and ugly; the Thompson only showed a few cut corners and extra toolmarks. Still purdy. Hard to pull off during wartime. How is that ahead of their peers? Those are actually detractors from the design. For war time production you want to cut corners. Cheap, fast to produce, and reliable. Yeah, that's why the US went to the grease gun. They could produce a M3 ALOT faster than a Thompsons and it was alot cheaper. The Thompson was something like 250 bucks to produce. Today that isn't much, but back then that was REALLY expensive. The military needed SMGs FAST and cheap. Another big bonus with the M3 is that it can be quickly converted to shoot 9mm, so troops could use battlefield pickup ammo. And it was hated. |