Say what!? M3 Grease gun > Thompson effective range?

[MikeyD]

You reminded me of the immense trouble we had in CM:Afghanistan title tracking down the muzzle velocity of the Russian airborne RPG-16 anti-tank weapon. Every reference we located was a verbatum copy of a suspicious Wikipedia entry. Wiki pegged the MV the same as the RPG-7. But one weapon is a rocket grenade launcher while the other is a true recoilless rifle. Our bacon was saved by a Russian speaker who finally tracked down a Russian language primary source. Wikipedia's (and everyone else's) MV was off almost a half.

[Mastiff]

You reminded me of the immense trouble we had in CM:Afghanistan title tracking down the muzzle velocity of the Russian airborne RPG-16 anti-tank weapon. Every reference we located was a verbatum copy of a suspicious Wikipedia entry. Wiki pegged the MV the same as the RPG-7. But one weapon is a rocket grenade launcher while the other is a true recoilless rifle. Our bacon was saved by a Russian speaker who finally tracked down a Russian language primary source. Wikipedia's (and everyone else's) MV was off almost a half.

Moral of this story, dont't trust WIKI leaks. I mean wikipedia.

[Fetchez la Vache]

As you alluded to MickeyD, Wikipedia is "corrupting" online searches. For various things I often find that multiple websites contain phrasing with the exact same wording as used in Wikipedia. Wikipedia becomes the de-facto 'truth' by shear weight of repetitions. :-/

"Yes, we're all individuals!"

[Peter Cairns]

"Yes, we're all individuals!"

Well said No 5.....

Peter (No 17)

[LemoN]

"Yes, we're all individuals!"

Quoted for truth.

Ohhh, the irony.

[Lee]

Submachine guns are ideal inside 50 yards (where lots of combat takes place), but certainly still effective out to 100 yards or so. I'd give the edge to the Thompson in power per shot (that big .45 ACP round packs a punch, which is also great in the Colt 1911 pistol ), and an edge to the MP40 in controllability/accuracy and capacity. Both are deadly effective.

[JasonC]

The 45 ACP is the slowest pistol round in the bunch. It is a big heavy round that goes slow; its stopping power comes from making a larger hole, but that comes as a cost in range and accuracy at range.

The muzzle velocity of the 45 is 270 meters per second from a pistol and 280 from the Thompson or M3.

For comparison, the 9mm x 19 gets 350 from a pistol, 365 from the Sten, and 380 from the MP40.

The Russian 7.62x25 Tokarev gets 415 from the pistol and 500 from the PPsH - approaching carbine levels and almost twice that of the 45 ACP.

For comparison, in the carbine ammo range, the M1 Carbine has 600 meters per second and the MP44 has 685 meters per second.

Full rifle ammo like the German 7.92x57 or 150 grain 30-06 (M1) get 820 and 890 meters per second.

A good rule of thumb is that beyond half a second flight time an ordinary user with iron sights is going to miss. (A full second with 4x scope and a trained user properly adjusting his sights for the range, etc, is possible, but the average infantryman is not going to pull it off). A quarter of a second of flight time is an easy shot in terms of the amount of bullet drop involved - basically flat.

This means I wouldn't want to stand 140 meters away from a running Tommy gun, but 70 meters is more like its accurate range. And for the 9mm, those distances are about 50% farther. Yes, the 9mm legitimately outranges the 45 ACP.

And the PPsH puts both to shame; it was the best SMG round of the war - and on a better, more accurate platform, too (longer barrel, full stock, etc).

[Dadekster88]

PPSh-1941G

Caliber 7.62mm

Length 33.10in

Weight 8lbs.

Barrel 10.5in long, 4 grooves, right hand twist

Feed System 71 round detachable drum or 35 round detachable box

System of Operation- Blowback, selective fire

Rate of Fire (Cyclic) 900rpm

Manufacturer- Sate Arsenals

From The Encyclopedia of Infantry Weapons of WWII

[Sergei]

Utter nonsense. The best SMG of WW2 was first produced in 1931, not 1941. When you absolutely, positively got to kill every *********** in the bunker - accept no substitutes. :cool:

[gunnergoz]

Utter nonsense. The best SMG of WW2 was first produced in 1931, not 1941. When you absolutely, positively got to kill every *********** in the bunker - accept no substitutes. :cool:

So when's the wedding for you and Miss Suomi?

[Michael Ivan]

The major contributor to incapacitation and or death is the size and exansion of the wound channel. With ball ammuntion the .45 has the edge out to at least 50 yards, after that the 9mm equals and then exceeds the .45. At most any range a head shot, heart or liver shot or major artery destruction was game over for pretty much any caliber. I also don't want to be standing down range at even several hundred yards of someone blazing away with any of the handguns used.

Even so the ball ammuntion of the militaries had much less stopping power than hollow point bullets. Three cheers for humanitarin war?

[Peter Cairns]

one in six....

Picked that up from a SIPRI report years back.

Forget the differences between ammo, and gun type.

For pretty much any modern fire arm one shot in six will kill instantly or might as well and half the others will down the target.

Thats what so many people use AK's... because they are as good at killing as everything else but are dirt cheap.

Most of the rest is bull**** put out by people trying to sell the stuff.

Peter.

[Michael Ivan]

Aye, Peter. Location, location, location. There are no "empty" spots in the human body where a bullet will do no damage. I still laugh at the movies and TV shows that show the hero shot but ok because he was only shot it the shoulder or the leg. However there are places there a bullet it lethal wether it is a 9mm, .45 or .22 for that matter.

[JasonC]

Militarily, "lethal" is pretty much irrelevant. You often take more enemy personnel out of action by wounding a man than you would by killing him, anyway.

[Michael Emrys]

When thinking of the Thompson think of the end of the movie Bonnie & Clyde.

Is that what they used in the movie? It's been over 40 years since I saw it and my recall of that detail is not sharp. However, I do recall reading somewhere not that long ago that the actual weapon they were shot with was a BAR. Now that would have represented some serious malice aforethought.

Michael

[MikeyD]

By coincidence they showed that old movie on PBS just a couple days ago. Bonnie & clyde had he BAR, the posse who gunned them down blasted them with Tommy guns... in the film.

[Michael Emrys]

Bonnie & clyde had he BAR...

Yeah, I suppose that coulda been it. Like I said, serious malice...

Michael

[Lee]

Yeah, both the Thompson and MP40 are highly effective weapons at common combat ranges. And they excel at close quarters combat, such as is often seen in and around villages, towns and cities. I admire the Thompson's power and the MP40's handling and precision. And both of them look great.

You wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of either of them.

[nik mond]

Hey guys watch this US army training video it compares the mp40 thompson and M3. The M3 wins in accuracy this should clear things up;)

[Lee]

A completely accurate and unbiased video for sure... =P

[gunnergoz]

"Accurate and unbiased?" Probably not. But a necessary bit of information to put out when dealing with GI rumors of the supposedly unbeatable German weapons that they were facing (or were soon to face.) In fact the US weapons did have their strong points and properly used, could effectively do their job on the battlefield. Everything has to be taken in context, which is easily overlooked or played down with the passage of time.

[John Kettler]

MikeyD,

Maybe not. See here.

http://www.historybuff.com/library/refbonnie.html

Regards,

John Kettler

[Vanir Ausf B]

[John Kettler]

Vanir Ausf B,

Outstanding!!!

Regards,

John Kettler