It definitely sounds to me like you should go for the WWII gun, either the MP40 or the Thompson.

I've never heard of any durability problems with either the MP40 or the Thompson.  I doubt you'd ever wear out either or suffer any serious breakage.

The magazine situation looks bad for the MP40.  The prices are pretty nasty.  And supposedly a lot of the mags are bad, you have to try several.  Might want to look into that.

You'll see a lot of comparisons done between the MP40 and the Thompson, but they're mostly just youtube fluff.   They won't help you decide.

Even as a gun enthusiast, I only recently learned what an MP40 is. Pretty sure I knew what a Tommy gun was by the time I was 5 years old. There's something to be said for that.

Also, there's something that makes me extremely uncomfortable owning guns used by 'the enemy' - one of the reasons I'll never own an AK-47. For those two reasons, among many others, I would take the Tommy gun every single time over the MP40 if it came down between those two. When I think of iconic guns, the Tommy gun is probably #1 on that list. The MP40 doesn't chart. Maybe that matters to you, maybe not. But everybody knows what a Tommy gun is.

I feel like your attacking my post, although maybe not ONLY mine.  Either way, the information I gave is what I wanted to give, which is my opinion on a few guns.  When I asked 2 years ago, I was given the same thing; a bunch of guys opinions on a gun forum for which gun is "better".  The majority told me a Mac.  When someone like collegeboy, with a proven collection and review on many of his FA guns says he highly enjoys a gun......IMO it would be wise listen to him.  

What it comes down to is budget.  In your budget there will be a few guns and go with one of them.  The mp40 is up there in cost, while I would love to have an mp40 I wouldn't even consider one as a first or only MG.  A Thompson....hell yeah!  Grease gun.....nope.  M2 carbine....nope(ammo reasons).

I'll add, I have a local friend that prefers a lage equipped Mac over his uzi(he has many FA's).
What is important is taking the word of guys with a large collection, but aside from having a large collection, they have to actually shoot the guns also.
Their word is much different than someone that has one gun.  Of course they will say that the one they bought is the best.

Look into a s&w mk760.....has some pretty good history in Vietnam.

I did not intend to attack anyone's post, I made a general comment that included me as well.

Not to make an argument out of it, but I have to disagree with the idea that "taking the word" of other people is useful.  

If someone has a good or bad opinion on a gun, they should be able to add a few reasons.

Suppose you talked to three experienced guys and one said he likes Thompsons best and the other says he likes M16s best and the third guy says his favorite is the MP5.  All three are making a good recommendation.  So how does that help you?

I knew what an MP40 was before I was 8, but I've been a gun nut since about 4-5.

The Thompson is more practical if only because you can find parts for them. With that said, get what your heart wants, not what you rationalize.

There are a crap ton of very cool MGs that I would not own for practical reasons.  Who wants to fire a $500 belt of M2 ammo?

You're buying something because it's cool and badass.  On the other hand, it's a piece of machinery and there are certain practical considerations like cost and parts availability.

Some guys will pay $60k+ for a pristine Colt Thompson, but I don't want one at all.  I'd rather have a nice minty WWII arsenal rebuild for $25k.

Are you going to shoot the Colt and maybe get a squib round and maybe ruin the barrel?  You'd lose $15,000 or more in collector value if you did.

If you blow the barrel clean off an arsenal rebuilt M1A1, you'd just buy a NOS barrel for $200 and be back in business.


The nice thing about all this is you can buy a gun and keep it for a while and then if you change your mind, you can sell it and lose nothing.

The gun you own now is an inflation hedge to use to effectively deflate the cost of the gun you're going to buy.

In other words, if you bought an M16 in 2000 and paid $5,000 for it, you could sell it now and it would cover the cost of a Thompson.

So you'd effectively be out of pocket $5000 for the Thompson.

Or if you paid $6000 for two M11s, you could sell them and buy an UZI for the out of pocket cost of $6000 or so.

Etc

So go ahead and jump into the MG market, the sooner the better.

This is spot on.

So now it's a WWII Thonpson vs C&R MP40?

Both great guns, but if you can only have one, I'd have to say go with the proper American choice.  Thompson all the way. ;)

That's something I would expect a machine gun "pusher" to say.
I really like it!

I would vote for the Thompson simply because I want an MP40 and that's it.

I have pictures of my grand father with one and also an MG42 but he was in the HUngarian army.

This. I have multipule MG's as an FFL/SOT. But I believe my first personal transferable machine gun will be a Ruger AC556. Just something about it, maybe the looks,  that draws me to it.
Attached File

I decided to get a full auto just because, and bought on price point.  I sold a few elk rifles (I was up to 7 I think and I am a bowhunter) and bought a M11A1 NIB for $3K.  With the Lage goodies it is very fun.  I only shot the 380 upper once just to see it run.  12 seconds and $70 later I installed the Lage upper and never looked back.

The M11A1 is still a little cheaper than the M10 or 11 and can be found NIB.

I second the M11A1.  It's my most precious.
Have the LAGE drum upper and also the super small page upper...

Haha, roger that! I'm gonna try them out at a MG shoot in the summer and then go hunting for a MG from there! Probably going to be the Thompson

You're going to get a WWII Thompson.

Probably an M1A1 type.

That's my prediction.  

This is a pretty good video.  I disagree with the guy's statement that it is the lowest rung of the Thompson family.

If you took a Garand, and put a finned barrel on it and a removable stock and compensator, and you complicated the operating mechanism, it wouldn't be a better gun, it would be inferior.  

Making a product simpler and stronger makes it better, not lower down on the ladder.

When you shoot a M1A1, at no time do you say, "Gee, I wish this gun had fancy and complicated ladder sight on it, because even though I'm already hitting everything I aim at, I want to look through a more fancy sight."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D53opaeollQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D53opaeollQ

That's true about the Thompson rear sight. All of them, regardless if it's the fixed "L" sight or adjustable Lyman, sit so close to your eye that they basically "disappear" when sighing the SMG. I would imagine that a Thompson would be just as accurate *without* a rear sight, as they are with their too-close rear sight.

The Tommy Gun is a quirky beast. An extremely well-made, historically-significant quirky beast, at that.

Appreciate your thoughts on the M1A1! And ya, I've probably watched that video a dozen times now lol. I keep going back and forth between Hickok45, TheFireArmBlog, and Machine Gun Mike for their MG videos lol.

I do pretty well with the Thompson rear sights.  

The notch on the ladder is pretty useless though.  You see a lot of old guns with tiny notches.   maybe they figured it was more accurate

Late to the party but I'll put in my $0.02.  I started firearm collecting very late (40) with an AR.  Not long after starting I went shooting with a buddy with a Colt M16.  After that I knew I had to have one.  After collecting/building nine ARs I sold most of them and with some big hours at work, I decided it was time.  I actually bought my buddy's spare Colt M16 RR that he was going to sell to raise some cash.  If I were going into harm's way, that is what I would want.  As collector I want to shoot.  So I got several different uppers some of which were different calibers.  My family got into subgun matches.  I went crazy trying to convert my RR to 9mm.  I tried about every drop in 9mm magwell conversion, but never got it to run well.  My brother went the HK route.  It seemed the only problems he had was those he created.

After that I bought a Savage built M1A1 REWATT, LL, DIAS, and Fleming HK sear married to a Vollmer converted 94.  Because of the MGI modular lower I bought the LL, because I couldn't find a DIAS.  Once the LL transferred, of course I found a DIAS.  The DIAS in a Colt 9mm lower with full auto control did run.  So at one time I had all three LL, DIAS, and Colt M16 RR.  I sold the LL and the Colt RR and rolled the money into the HK sear gun.  I have yet to get the Colt 9mm to be as smooth as the roller locked.  But the DIAS in the MGI lower allows my .45 with either Grease Gun mags or modified Thompson mags, 7.62X39 using AK mags, 10mm using Glock mags with the Kriss mag extensions, and the usual AR calibers.

I bought the M16 first because I want to shoot.  My rule is four 30 rd mags or a Beta C, push two pins, and change the upper.  Especially for that first gun, I wanted to shoot it.  So with already having ARs, I had a bunch of uppers when it transferred.  With a WW II gun, or any "one trick pony" that the barrel can't be changed, run a few mags and then let it sit and cool off.  When I bought the Thompson, I had that experience.  I had a new gun and wanted to shoot it.  But I knew that pounding mag after mag would abuse it.

I ended up selling the Thompson after owning it for 10 years.  It got so I would only shoot it once or twice a year.  I bought it for $12,000 and put $1,500 in it and sold it for $16,000.  Some of the money went to a M10 with an Uzi magwell conversion.  Part of the deal for the M10 got me a place in line for the S.A.B.R.E. 5.56X45 upper for the M10 that used AR mags and drums.  Last year I bought a M11/NINE.  So I have four machineguns, a DIAS, HK sear, M10 and M11/NINE.  I have 25 host guns for the HK sear in five calibers, a selection host guns and uppers for the DIAS including a Valkyrie Armaments beltfed conversions in SAW style configuration or 20" water cooled with KNS spade grips in a total of seven calibers.  

I think it won't be long and the MAC style RR will be that versatile.  There is not only the Lage slow fire uppers and TASK conversion, but now there is the CF(W) made from tungsten alloy.  So with the CF(W) bolt in a standard upper (the CF(W) bolt is far only available in the M11/NINE but others are slated for development) can run 575 to 700 RPM depending on spring pressure.  Also Lage is currently developing an upper based on the AR mechanism.

Absolutely, buy what it is you want.  But especially with it being your first, a machinegun you can shoot all you want (with enough host guns/uppers/barrels) is very important to me.  It would have been hell that first time out to run four mags and let it cool.  YMMV.

Scott

Finally... a month away from the Oklahoma Full Auto shoot! Any of you guys going??

At the moment it's a M1A1 Thompson at the top of the list with a potential 1919A4 to pair with it if funds allow.
If it's a HK sear, I'm going to have to sell one of my precision rifles.
If it's a MG42, I'm going to have to sell two of them lol.

I know M16 is probably the most "sensible" choice, but I've been having a blast with my Fostech Echo and modified bolt carrier that allows for a lighter and shorter pull/reset.
Mac11/9mm and UZI are still on the table.
Definitely looking to try a STEN, BAR, and MP40 so I'm hoping I'll come across them.

I've been in the same boat for about a year now as I've been saving up for my first MG.

I have my eye on one of Ruben's FNCs with a registered sear in it, but after reading this thread I'm starting to wonder again.

I love beltfeds, but right now don't have the money for an M60 (which is my favorite beltfed that I've shot).  The 1919 starts to look really tempting though.

I also start thinking I should stick to a subgun, and buy an Uzi or a even save money and get a Mac with a Lage upper on it.

There are so many different options out there that I keep going back and forth.  Then at times I start thinking I should spend the money on something else, like a new kitchen, etc .  I do look at an MG as an investment, and have never felt bad (or even thought twice) about buying $15-20K worth of stock or mutual funds, and I can't enjoy them like I can an MG.

I ran into a similar issue last year when I was finally able to buy my first MG. I really really wanted a MP40, but I was looking at cheaper, more "practical" options such as a MAC 10, MK760, Reising, M2 Carbine, etc. While all of those would be cool and cheaper than a MP40, they weren't what I truly wanted. So I held off and kept searching. All the MPs I was finding were either sold or in the $14k+ range, which was a bit too much for me. Then finally I found my MP40 for $12k from a dealer in California. I'm still waiting on the F4 to come through (filed in October), but I've shot it a few times and I'm super happy that I got what I wanted. I knew if I bought something cheaper, yeah I'd be happy and have an MG, but I'd still always want a MP40. If there's something out there that you want, be patient and spend the extra time to save up and find a good deal and be happy. That's been a hard lesson for me to learn and I still struggle with it

M16 for the win.
So many caliber/upper choices.

I think MG buyers nowadays are more and more often of the "gun collector" mindset, where the coolness factor counts more than usefulness.

I did a thread once in the General forum asking what MG everyone would own if they could, the replies were 90% cool type guns like the Mg42 or Thompson.

Well if it matters, most everyone I have talked to that is into machine guns will tell you the Thompson is an overrated ungainly beast to shoot.   I think the people that are really into them are into them because of the historical aspect which is okay.  MP40s are the opposite, everyone tells me how great they are to shoot.

The longer you wait, the more out of reach they become.  I have a Colt M16 and a Texas/Cobra M10, and I have $7500 in the pair.  I could have bought a Vector UZI when they were $2500, NIB.  I waited and waited, then overnight they doubled.  Now, it's out of my (willing) price range unless I sell something.

The 16 is it for me hands down, it's a rifle, sub gun, and a 22 bullet hose.  The MAC is fun, but rarely comes out of the safe.

I think their answers might be different if they actually had pay with their own money rather than just dream about what they want.

If someone asked if you could own any sports car what would it be, I would say a Ferrari. But if said you have to pay for it and you have to drive it every day i would probably say a Mustang, its way cheaper, has a back seat for kids, a trunk for groceries, its way less to insure, maintain, etc...

Same applies to MGs. I think coolness is a big factor, its why we are willing to spend 10-20x the actual value of the firearm. But at the same time when youre looking at spending say $20k+ on a firearm you should at least be aware of and take into consideration other factors besides whats the coolest MG. There are a few MGs that really check all of the boxes for desirable MG features, IMO they are Macs, M16s and HKs (Uzis?). They have historic value, yet are still modern. They are all very cool guns, yet are not a one trick pony. They are affordable-ish to buy and affordable to shoot.

At the end of the day as long as you are buying what you want, not what someone else is telling you to buy you will be happy with your purchase.

I bought a second M10/9 a few weeks ago from my SOT buddy.

Anyone who says the Thompson is a beast to shoot is a liar and he never shot one.

It's just gun shop bubba talk.

There's nothing to "overrate" about the Thompson.

The Thompson is a small, extremely reliable, heavy-duty rifle with a 10 inch barrel that shoots 45 acp.

It's crafted from solid steel billet like old school industrial art.

Picture a gun that weighs the same as a Garand and that shoots 45acp.  

If you can't shoot a Thompson like an expert in the first 10 minutes, you can't shoot.  

A hunting weight 30-06 has a Free Recoil Energy of about 19 ft lbs

A Thompson has a Free Recoil Energy of about 1.5 ft lbs

Seriously, try one sometime.

I agree. The Thompson is very easy to shoot.

As a Thompson owner I would say it is my least favorite MG to shoot.

It lacks the finesse and comfort of the MP40, the modern features and luxury of an MP5, and the lovely intangible factors of other 9mm tube guns.
The weight is ludicrous, the aggressively downward slanting comb is outright uncomfortable, the handling is awkward, and the cyclic rate is too high in my opinion. Pre-M1s are also needlessly complex with their blish-lock systems.

Can I shoot it well? Yes, absolutely. But it certainly doesn't get to the range very often.

I would say I fall somewhere in the middle in regards to the Thompson.

I appreciate what it is and how technologically advanced it was for its era approximately 100 years ago.

I don't personally think it is a beast to shoot my any means and the recoil is actually pretty soft given the weight of the firearm and the cyclic rate.  I personally find a stock M11/9 with wire stock and front strap arrangement more challenging to shoot than the Thompson.

That said as others have noted the Thompson is no champion when it comes to ergonomics, especially when compared to modern offerings.  The drop of the comb isn't the most comfortable, the sight arrangement is the best,  and the forearm at least in the horizontal military config is way to thin and heats up quickly.  (I have also had more than one person burn fin marks into their hands/fingers because they want to "wrap" their hand around the forearm/barrel costa-style. Before I let anybody shoot my Thompson I explain to them how open bolt works and point out...see those fins...they will burn the fuck out of you if you try and "drive" this gun like you do with your semi AR15)

Compared to a modern setup M16 or even a HK roller locked gun the Thompson  definately shows it age in my opinion.

That said there are a lot of reasons to own a Thompson beyond its basic ergonomic shooting enjoyment.  History, reputation, old-world fine craftsmanship, easy to maintain, parts availability, one of the most iconic machineguns in existence, etc.

Ultimately transferable machineguns are toys for 99% of the population, so buy what makes you happy.

For me if I could only keep one machinegun it would be an HK sear or an M16.

I have four boys. I would love to be able to leave them each a machinegun. It is possible I will inherit enough from my parents to actually make that happen.

At present I own a Laged-up M10/45 as my only MG. It is huge fun and very versatile. I'm planning to get a MAX-31 9mm upper for it too when those are available.

So, I have three more I have to acquire to make my goal happen. Of course I also want to enjoy the guns myself while I'm alive. My plan at present is for the following:

1- M16
2- RR Uzi
3- C&R Sten

I'll let them fight about who gets the M16. I'd like a C&R Thompson M1 also, but I'd rather spend that money on a M16.

You are expressing a personal preference as if it's fact.   A post like this is like saying that vanilla ice cream is the best ice cream.  

An MP40 has "finesse and comfort"?  Pressing your cheek to a metal bar is finesse and comfort?

"Lovely intangible factors" of 9mm tube guns?  Sheet metal is lovely?

How come the Garand weighs about the same as a Thompson, but nobody complains about the Garand pulling their arms out of the sockets?  Two whole pounds more than an MP40.


Anyone who is reading this, I strongly urge you to try a Thompson sometime.  It shoulders and points very naturally, the sights work perfect.

Find out for yourself.  I think it's one of the easiest to shoot rifles that I ever shot.

It's just a very small rifle with two selector switches on the left side and a mag release.  There's not much to find fault with unless you're sidetracked by "lovely intangible factors".

Here's a pro tip:  If a gun has no barrel shroud, don't get all commando and wrap your hand around the barrel.  Also, don't stick your tongue into an electrical outlet.


It's obvious to me that most people who write into forums like this have never shot a Thompson or even held one.

Same deal with a lot of real well known guns.  It's pretty obvious that people are repeating bubba talk.


That having been said, my uncle is a policeman and he knows all about guns, and when he was in Nam with the Seals, the MAC10 jammed a lot because of it's cast aluminum construction.

ETA:  The above sentence is a mockery of all the weird random stuff that Gun Shop Bubbas say about guns.  Don't bother correcting it, it's supposed to be absurd.

Bubba talk like the "MAC 10" jammed a lot because it is made of cast aluminum?  M10s are steel. They are also nearly as modular as AR type rifles these days. Just about no one runs them in stock 1970s configuration.

I'm going to hope that last bit was intentional irony.

I'm sure that was tongue in cheek...

I added a disclaimer to my post.  It's just a joke.

I owned a MAC10 and I have no uncle who dispenses bogus bubba factoids.

One time I was reading a gun forum like this and a guy actually claimed that he was a Seal in Nam and after a disastrous mission (behind enemy lines!) all of his Seal team threw their MAC10s into the ocean.  Because the bolt was made from cast lead and they were only intended for one use.  Guess where they threw the M10s?  Over the side of the submarine that picked them up.

That was the most bubba BS ever packed into one story.

Also, did you ever notice how people will tell you that their cousin or uncle "knows all about guns" and he told them some idiotic crapola?  Like that the commies could shoot 223 out of their AKs, so they could "use our ammo supplies against us."  Gee whiz, tell your uncle thanks for sharing that sweet gun knowledge with the world.

Um, submarines were historically commonly used to deliver and retrieve people. Not sure if you actually think that's a BS idea.

Yep, especially at gun shows and in certain gun shops. And there is absolutely no reasoning with or educating them.

I was thinking of buying a FNC earlier this year and talked to a local gunsmith who used to be well known for working on them. He actually had a few in his shop he was working on and told me at least one of them should be for sale when it is done. He then talked me out of buying one and saving for a m16 lower instead. It came down to parts being very hard to find although he did say they really don't break parts often. He also wasn't a fan of the green mountain replacement barrels. He said if it was going to be a shooter saving the extra like 5 grand or so and putting it into a olympic m16 lower would be better. I actually wanted the fnc more than a m16 as I didn't think I would be doing caliber conversions really and just love the look of it. At the end of the day though he was right, the m16 just is a far better option. I didn't want to go with an oly though. I was hoping to find a sendra bushmaster on form 3 at a fair price but ended up with a colt a2 instead. It is currently sitting at his shop, the form 4 was just mailed off.

It is my second MG. I have a texas m10 right now that was rebuilt by practical solutions and converted to standard parts. I bought it because lage had their uppers for it. Honestly I love the gun and enjoy shooting 45acp but if I did it again I think I would have looked very hard at the 9mm m11's instead. Lage just has more for them and others have worked on more with them so far. Really the m11 just seems to get the development first. It seems to have more options for 22 that work better too.

For MG's it depends on what you want to do with it. If we are talking about shooters with options: The UZI gives you a few options for caliber but not that much as far as modernizing it. Right now the M10/M11's seem to be very good options has you have stuff to make them more modern. Right now lage is working on a 5.56 upper for the m11 that will take ar barrels and mags. He did say if it is possible he will do one for the m10. Next one up for options is going to be a hk sear. Hosts can be kinda pricey but with the clones you have more options. Downside is that you don't really have a good 22lr option although they have been made. Still 9mm, 40, 10, 5.56, 308 and now with newer clones 300 blackout. You also have belt fed options for 5.56 and 308 although those hosts are not cheap. The quality of the clones has come up so you can have some nice setups. Next would be a m16. Multiple pistol caliber conversions, 22, 5.56, a bunch of bigger calibers, and belt fed in 9mm and 5.56. The caliber conversions are going to be the cheapest and have the most options. Last would be a drop in auto sear for an ar-15. I give this a slight edge because you could put it in lowers that are setup for other magazine types. The ar lowers setup to take ak-47 mags? It will work. Those that will take tommy gun drum mags? Same thing. Need a fatter lower to run 45 grease gun mags? Not a problem.

If you are planning on shooting the gun no matter what you are considering I would see about replacement parts. This is where the above options will really shine. Some other machine guns might have more issues like the FNC. Some parts are made for them in the US but not as many. Some other guns might have NOS parts available but not much currently being made. Depending on price of parts this might not be a big deal, you just might want to source a bunch of parts now while you can still get them.

I just thought it was funny that the guy's story was a completely dramatic Hollywood plot right down to his deltasealberetFBIcommando squad dramatically throwing their MAC10s over the side of the submarine.

He failed to mention how his best buddy died in his arms while cursing both communism and Gordon B. Ingram.  And those paper pushers in the CIA that sent them on that impossible mission!

He was just a professional doing his job.... but this time it's personal.

Not to grind the point to death, but over the years I have known a lot of MG owners and I had the chance to extensively try out most of the common MGs.

Most of them have good points and bad points, just like any other machinery.  

There are a few practical considerations, like spare part availability.  And ammo cost.  

And there is some useful information to be picked up in these threads.

But there is no real logical way to figure out what MG to buy.

Picky comments and personal preferences are not helpful in any way.

Some guy will post up that he hates the grip safety on the UZI and so he sold his.  So what?  Stuff like that is useless.


People talk about changing uppers and caliber changes a lot, but I don't think most people really care much about those things.

Certainly the pricing of MGs in the marketplace doesn't reflect any big obsession with changing calibers.

Interesting that you say that cyborg.

I'm currently trying to sell my m10/9 to make up the rest of the funds to purchase a local colt m16a1.  I've been doing plenty of thinking about it recently....

I mainly shoot the mac in monthly subgun matches, and do quite well with it.  The m16 will require a conversion to make it shoot 9mm, and aside from a possible shrike upper for it, the whole point of being the most versatile machine gun sort of loses something....
Now that I'm thinking about it, I have a bunch of ar lowers, and all I shoot them in is 556, so to me versatility doesn't mean much in the ar platform.  I will shoot it primarily in 556 for fun, and 9mm for fun/matches.  In the scheme of things, that isnt very versatile, so to me that is not a selling point.

Ive also considered keeping the m10 and picking up an m11/9 so have the best of what lage produces, but it's hard to say no to a colt m16a1.  The ergonomics/trigger/closed bolt are major reasons the m16 beats the mac series.

The main point I'm trying to make is that versatility is not all it's cracked up to be IMO when it comes to buying a MG.

Oh and for anyone interested, I'm choosing to keep a sten mkii over the m10/9 FWIW.

No, I was expressing personal opinion as opinion, one that I have formed based on my personal experiences with an object that I own. If you find the gun in question to be more enjoyable then by all means preach on. I simply was throwing in my $0.02 for posterity.

As per the mp40, I like the slow cyclic rate and near zero recoil that results from the wonderfully pleasant impulse. Guns like the S&W 76s, stens, and grease guns have a strange yet enjoyable utilitarian feel to them that I find to be a bit charming (your mileage may vary). But I also agree that everyone should shoot a Thompson before they pony up the cash!

Most people don’t present their opinions as a subjective matter of personal taste.

They make a flat comment like “The Garand KICKS LIKE A MULE.”  

A statement like that is not presenting a personal preference, that’s telling people an elemental fact.

The personal preference version would be like this: “I shot a Garand and I found the recoil to be a lot stiffer than I was expecting.  I can’t shoot it as well as my AR15.”   THAT is a statement of personal preference.


The most silly thing about these internet squabbles over the merits of various weapons is that people seem to think that a soldier’s life depends on tiny nuances of how his equipment works.

Like if the k-98 was a slightly better rifle than the Springfield 03, then that means the 03 is junk, and soldiers armed with the k-98 would sweep the field clean of soldiers armed with the 03 in a total crushing victory.

Because operating the safety lever on the k-98 is SO much easier that it amounts to a matter of life and death.

You see this kind of thing on TV shows a lot, where a gun guru will say one gun "outclassed " another, while ignoring the operational history of the guns.


Col. John George was a 2nd LT on Guadalcanal, he said of the Thompson, “It was the perfect weapon for close-defense—carrying one provided perhaps the best life insurance a man could have.”

If only those WWII soldiers had the internet back then, they wouldn’t have been so easily impressed.  Someone could have clued them in with some picky remark about the mag release lever or the location of the bolt handle.

The British Commandos insisted on carrying the Thompson instead of the STEN.  They stubbornly ignored all the intangible joys of shooting the sten!  That elegant intangible beauty of a gun.


I recommend 100% that every shooter rent a Thompson before buying one, or just for the heck of it.

I only mention versatility because these kind of threads always tout it highly.


Someone posted up a thread on the general forum and asked what everyone's "dream" MG to own would be, there wasn't much focus on versatility.

People mostly listed guns that are possessing a lot of awesomeness and historical importance.

Awesomeness seemed to be the governing criteria, similar to the way that "regular" gun collectors place value on guns.   Like the artillery Luger is more awesome than a regular Luger, so the price is way higher.  


Versatility is a great thing and it could be the deciding factor for an individual, but I just have not noticed it coming into play much with the average guy's decision making process.

A big dealer told me the "instant sellers" are the UZI, Thompson, M16 and MP5.  The only erector set in the mix there is the M16, the other three are pretty much limited as to mods.

I've been an UZI fan for years and I've never heard anyone say they bought an UZI so they could shoot 45acp out of it, that seems more like an added bonus as opposed to a key feature.

Speaking of which, the UZI is sort of difficult to mod.  It's hard to even mount a scope on it.  A red dot mounted to the back of the top cover works great but it's hardly mod-friendly.

You guys are certainly entitled to your opinion, but the opinions expressed above doesn't seem as though the market values have followed those pinions.  When I first was interested in buying a machinegun (around 2000) as I recall a premium WW II subgun like a Thompson or MP40 was low teens, a Colt M16A1 was pushing ten, an off brand conversion was high single digits, a DIAS was six to seven and a LL was around five.  An HK sear was just over ten.

Now those same WW II guns are upper teens to lower 20s.  That Colt is now mid to upper twenties.  Those off brand M16s are upper teens.  And that DIAS is pushing $30.  That HK sear is $30+ and the LL is $15.  

So why are the DIAS and HK sear in the $30,000 range and the basic WW II stuff is $7,000-$12,000 less, if it is not the versatility the DIAS and HK sear driving those market values?  How many machineguns can shoot rifle and pistol calibers?  Not many.  And those that can have risen more in value than a "one trick pony" type of machinegun.

My first machinegun was a Colt M16.  Why, because I wanted to shoot.  Dump a Beta C, push two pins, change the upper, and dump another Beta C.  With the "one trick ponies" like a FNC, AC556, Thompson, or MP40, or anything else with a fixed barrel.  Keep shooting and you could ruin the barrel.  With a 16, change the upper.  With the HK change the host.  The fun doesn't have to stop to wait for it to cool.

"Back in the day" a typical collector might have four, five, six or more machineguns.  When an entry level gun is $6,000 instead of a couple of hundred.  I would think an average price for a transferable is at least in the teens, not many have the means to own a half dozen machineguns.  As Tony says, YMMV.

Scott

It's not necessarily the versatility but likely the fact that today's generation grew up idolizing black guns over the WW2 stuff. To them, the WW2 stuff is as antiquated as Krags are to me.

It the versitility, industructability of the sears.. the dias is also great because anyone buying an m16 already has a few hosts already...The HK sear hosts is just an expensive game, no way around it.

As far as those 3 ruger KAC556k they sold for 10.5-11k machine gun price guide puts them at like 15k which i dont think is very accurate . although since i did buy one of the 3 listed at once ,I'd like to think i made 4.5k that day.
Interetingly one of them hard a cracked receiver that was welded and it didnt effect the price.
I held out for the last one, that wasnt cracked/repaired.


To the OP i wouldnt be waiting to buy or watching prices too much.. IMO those hk sear will be shooting up in value in reaction to the increased cost of dias

Grab an m10/m11 or an uzi if you cant afford anything more expensive.

A FNC sear gun or a ruger AC556/KAC556K  would be a really poor choice if you wan to shoot them much.