Micheal Wittman Posted April 15, 2004 Share Posted April 15, 2004 Fired an authentic Thompson 45 smg, at full auto a couple of weeks ago at work. It's one heavy gun weight wise, steel and wood. We had a bunch of new weapons to shoot but all I wanted was to blast a clip from a piece of history !!! The only gun I ever need to fire now is the MG42, which is one expensive endevour, maybe one day when I win the lottery CheerZ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted April 15, 2004 Share Posted April 15, 2004 Originally posted by K_Tiger: Thats from the World of Guns Site (Russian) about the PPSch41: The main advantage of the PPSch-41 was bigger effective range (when compared to both Allies and Axis submachineguns of that era). It also was accurate enough and reliable. The main drawbacks were: heavy weight, lenght (too big for trench combat or for mobile operations) and the fact that the gun was sometimes prone (especially when weared enough) to unintended fire when dropped My oppinion about the MP40 in comparsion: Its not the designed überweapon, but it fits all needs and you can equip all branches without drawbacks with it (Fallschirmjaegers, Tankers, Supporting Units..ect.). PPSh too long? Have you ever held one? Heavy? Not with the stick magazine. Again, it is all relative. As for extended range, what are we talking about - 100 metres more? How often would the weapon really be used at ranges beyond 200 metres or so? I understand SMG units were a peculiarity of Russian organization but were they really utilizing that extra range in any really practical terms? Weren't SMG companies coupled with tank companies? As for unintended fire when dropped - the same was said of the Sten. Best solution - don't drop the gun. I suppose they were also prone to shooting your best friend when inadvertently aimed at his head and the trigger was inadvertently pulled. I kind of think much of the discussion is like comparing apples to apples. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted April 15, 2004 Share Posted April 15, 2004 Originally posted by gibsonm: No, as far as I know, we swapped the brilliant OWEN for a piece of junk called the F1. A standing joke was that the F1 couldn’t penetrate a wet greatcoat at 50m (assuming you hit it). One of the sites I mentioned further back on page 1 says that het Owen was founfd to be inadequate agaisnt quilted chinese soldiers in Korea - hits resulted in "clouds of stuffing" is hte exact phrase I think - but it was OK vs shirts in the Malayan jungle. But then part of that might be the ranges involved, with Korea being a little more open than Malaya hence engagements being at significant range for the 9mm round. By Vietnam the weapons were worn out, and the ammo was old - again one of those sites mentions ammo made in 1948 being used in the mid-60's, and soldiers were glad to have anything else. IIRC the F1 was a development of the Owen - an unsuccessful one tho. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted April 15, 2004 Share Posted April 15, 2004 Originally posted by Sergei: Suomi... Somua... There's a difference? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hurtzDonut Posted April 15, 2004 Share Posted April 15, 2004 Samoa....good cookie! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted April 15, 2004 Share Posted April 15, 2004 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Not that they had a lot of choice...I have to imagine the FN SLR was a bitch to use in the jungle, though didn't some Aussies switch to the M16, too? Did the Aussies "officially" switch to the Sterling at some point as Britain and Canada did? Thompsons and Grease Guns were also still used in Vietnam, for what that's worth, by the ARVN and some US special forces units. Michael, the Aussies have never used the Sterling SMG in an official capacity from my understanding with the possible exception of the navy which may have used them but then the navy is not my area of interest. Regards Jim R. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 15, 2004 Share Posted April 15, 2004 So, what's the feeling on the Bergman or the Beretta? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tank Ace Posted April 15, 2004 Author Share Posted April 15, 2004 What they should have done is make the "peppashea"(wat russians called it) 45 cal.high rate of fire, tremendous stopping power, reliable 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted April 15, 2004 Share Posted April 15, 2004 Originally posted by K_Tiger: Its maybe from interesst, that the follower of the PPSch41, the PPS43 looks more like a MP40...Does this have anything to say? PPS43 Yup. Mass producing stamped steel components is more cost effective. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke71 Posted April 15, 2004 Share Posted April 15, 2004 Originally posted by Micheal Wittman: Fired an authentic Thompson 45 smg, at full auto a couple of weeks ago at work. It's one heavy gun weight wise, steel and wood. We had a bunch of new weapons to shoot but all I wanted was to blast a clip from a piece of history !!! The only gun I ever need to fire now is the MG42, which is one expensive endevour, maybe one day when I win the lottery CheerZ! Cool! I have never used the MG42, but the Norwegian Armed Forces uses the MG3 and that's almost a copy of the MG42. I've fired several thousand shots with that, both on bipod and tripod. Once I fired a 200 rounds belt from the hip in one long 10 second burst. That was a *nice* experience! Duke71 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micheal Wittman Posted April 16, 2004 Share Posted April 16, 2004 Originally posted by Duke71: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Micheal Wittman: Fired an authentic Thompson 45 smg, at full auto a couple of weeks ago at work. It's one heavy gun weight wise, steel and wood. We had a bunch of new weapons to shoot but all I wanted was to blast a clip from a piece of history !!! The only gun I ever need to fire now is the MG42, which is one expensive endevour, maybe one day when I win the lottery CheerZ! Cool! I have never used the MG42, but the Norwegian Armed Forces uses the MG3 and that's almost a copy of the MG42. I've fired several thousand shots with that, both on bipod and tripod. Once I fired a 200 rounds belt from the hip in one long 10 second burst. That was a *nice* experience! Duke71 </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micheal Wittman Posted April 16, 2004 Share Posted April 16, 2004 Originally posted by Duke71: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Micheal Wittman: Fired an authentic Thompson 45 smg, at full auto a couple of weeks ago at work. It's one heavy gun weight wise, steel and wood. We had a bunch of new weapons to shoot but all I wanted was to blast a clip from a piece of history !!! The only gun I ever need to fire now is the MG42, which is one expensive endevour, maybe one day when I win the lottery CheerZ! Cool! I have never used the MG42, but the Norwegian Armed Forces uses the MG3 and that's almost a copy of the MG42. I've fired several thousand shots with that, both on bipod and tripod. Once I fired a 200 rounds belt from the hip in one long 10 second burst. That was a *nice* experience! Duke71 </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedy Posted April 16, 2004 Share Posted April 16, 2004 Gotta love that old demo film of the Owen being submerged in mud, taken out then letting rip without missing a beat. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke71 Posted April 16, 2004 Share Posted April 16, 2004 Originally posted by Micheal Wittman: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Duke71: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Micheal Wittman: Fired an authentic Thompson 45 smg, at full auto a couple of weeks ago at work. It's one heavy gun weight wise, steel and wood. We had a bunch of new weapons to shoot but all I wanted was to blast a clip from a piece of history !!! The only gun I ever need to fire now is the MG42, which is one expensive endevour, maybe one day when I win the lottery CheerZ! Cool! I have never used the MG42, but the Norwegian Armed Forces uses the MG3 and that's almost a copy of the MG42. I've fired several thousand shots with that, both on bipod and tripod. Once I fired a 200 rounds belt from the hip in one long 10 second burst. That was a *nice* experience! Duke71 </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted April 16, 2004 Share Posted April 16, 2004 Originally posted by Speedy: Gotta love that old demo film of the Owen being submerged in mud, taken out then letting rip without missing a beat. Wasn't that after being submerged in mud for 3 months or is that an old wives tale? Regards Jim R. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWB Posted April 16, 2004 Share Posted April 16, 2004 Originally posted by TANK ACE: What they should have done is make the "peppashea"(wat russians called it) 45 cal.high rate of fire, tremendous stopping power, reliable Yeah, great idea if you have production lines making .45 caliber pistol rounds. WWB 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted April 16, 2004 Share Posted April 16, 2004 Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Speedy: Gotta love that old demo film of the Owen being submerged in mud, taken out then letting rip without missing a beat. Wasn't that after being submerged in mud for 3 months or is that an old wives tale? Regards Jim R. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted April 17, 2004 Share Posted April 17, 2004 The fella who commented about the M3 greasegun's inaccuracy might consider that a lot of the army's little-used hardware probably gets little, if any, TLC from the armorers, incluing barrel changes. That applies to modern weapons too, of course. I have a video tape of a weapons demonstration at Camp Pendleton and the Marines firing the SAW are holding it steady but the tracers are going all over the place...the barrel is for sure burnt out on that one. I'd be highly reluctant to fire it anywhere near a squad mate since the "covering fire" just might end as up "friendly fire" (a misnomer, if ever!). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrpwase Posted April 17, 2004 Share Posted April 17, 2004 Does MP44 count, or is that an early assault rifle rather than an SMG? See, I do know something about guns. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie Posted April 17, 2004 Share Posted April 17, 2004 Albeit, being an Australian,I've got to back everything that's been said about the OWEN GUN. There's something to be said about a machine pistol that can be drenched in mud and then will still shoot as many IJA that can pop their heads up. Hell, it was made out of pressed parts, dirt cheap to make and as reliable as heck. You can cite the MP44 etc... but anything including this is an assault rifle... the M16 etc; whatever... and the MG3 well, excellent yes but give me a mini gun any day... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke71 Posted April 17, 2004 Share Posted April 17, 2004 The mini gun looks awesome and it has a great punch, but I would never had it if I had to use and move with it on a battlefield. It's great to suppress enemy troops from a fixed emplacement with it, I guess, but it looks way too cumbersome to be any good to carry and use in say a jungle or anyplace else where you don't have 500meters clear view in all directions. When it comes to reliability and modern weapons, all are good, and there are a lot of "true stories" about how good they are in adverse conditions. I've heard the same stories about the AG3 (standard Norwegian assault rifle, looks like the H&K G3) but I don't think it will perform well if it has been in a moor or the mud for some months or the like. All weapons have moving parts and if they are blocked, they remain blocked until you clean it. Duke71 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K_Tiger Posted April 17, 2004 Share Posted April 17, 2004 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by K_Tiger: Thats from the World of Guns Site (Russian) about the PPSch41: PPSh too long? Have you ever held one? Heavy? Not with the stick magazine. Again, it is all relative. As for extended range, what are we talking about - 100 metres more? How often would the weapon really be used at ranges beyond 200 metres or so? I understand SMG units were a peculiarity of Russian organization but were they really utilizing that extra range in any really practical terms? Weren't SMG companies coupled with tank companies? As for unintended fire when dropped - the same was said of the Sten. Best solution - don't drop the gun. I suppose they were also prone to shooting your best friend when inadvertently aimed at his head and the trigger was inadvertently pulled. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke71 Posted April 18, 2004 Share Posted April 18, 2004 Another important factor here is the weight of the weapon. It's rather easy to fire the MP5 on full auto using only one hand. But you have to be close to the target and not be afraid of "wasting" ammo. I guess this is not easy with a Thompson or an MP40, although Clint Eastwood has a memorable scene in the movie "Where Eagles dare" were he uses two Schmeissers inside the castle. :cool: Duke71 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted April 19, 2004 Share Posted April 19, 2004 Repeat after me...The MP40 is NOT the Schmeisser, the MP40 is NOT the Schmeisser etc, etc. It is a commonly held belief that the MP40 was a Hugo Schmeisser design but in fact he had nothing to do with it, or the earlier MP38. His design was in fact called the Bergmann for some strange reason and not the Schmeisser! :confused: Regards Jim R. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted April 19, 2004 Share Posted April 19, 2004 Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann: Repeat after me...The MP40 is NOT the Schmeisser, the MP40 is NOT the Schmeisser etc, etc. It is a commonly held belief that the MP40 was a Hugo Schmeisser design but in fact he had nothing to do with it, or the earlier MP38.But why would Herr Schmeisser even HAVE to do anything with that? It's just a nickname. A more proper name that is sometimes used would be Erma after the factory, but if people called MP40 as "Ferdinand Porsche", then MP40 would be better known as "Ferdinand Porsche". Even if Herr Porsche had nothing to do with it. It is an entirely different thing, of course, to imply that MP40 was designed by any of those two. But was that done by anyone in this thread? So, therefore: MP40 IS The Schmeisser. Even if there is no logic* in that. *(which is overrated, anyway) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.