Shes a beauty
Kinda ugly really
>>65006501i prefer the m3a1
>>65006563The grease gun looks a bit wonky doesnt it?
>>65006563you misspelled thompson m1a1
>>65006501It's ugly and gay. Especially compared to the Thompson.
MP 38 is better looking than MP 40
>>65006563Have you ever actually shot one? Doubtful. There were still two of those pieces of shit in the armory of 102nd MI BN at Camp Hovey in 1994, so as the armorer during my tour over there, I absolutely took one out during a range day. It might look cool, but the grease gun is a low-rent, stamped frame, pile of garbage that cycles so slowly, it's impossible to hold a group of any reasonable size, at any range, if you try anything resembling an automatic pattern past 30 feet. iirc, the whole thing was about 15 parts, stripped completely (including magazine parts), but that was a long time ago. What I do recall with clarity was how shitty the thing really was and obviously made to be as cheap as humanly possible.
>mp40>grease gun>thompsonNormies, why don't you get a REAL smg?
>>65006910I love weird Italian guns
>>65006501It's better with the wooden stock.
A surprisingly successful history on this one, if on a relatively small scale
>>65006900I fired a Thomson and a grease gun at a machine gun range in Vegas, the Thomson felt like dog shit that wanted to murder the ceiling and the grease gun felt like my old Buick rumbling along and keeping on paper with minimal effort. My paper man shaped target was at 21 and 30 feet though. And I like how cheap it felt. Felt nice. Like cheap cigarettes when youre drunk off fine whiskey.
>>65006910Really does not look right with that big open gap under the tube behind the magwell.Love Spaghetti Subguns though.
>>65006932The Greasegun is pretty good, yeah. When GIs first got them, people who were used to Thompsons were all "Oh, what the fuck is THIS thing?"But then when they got to shoot it, people came to really like it because of how slow and easy it was to shoot, it was a much easier gun to qual with. It really doesn't climb even close to as much, and your mags last longer.Being that the mags are copied from the Sten gun's design though, those are still the weak link. Not AS bad as Sten mags, because Greasegun mags were much more consistent and had stronger feed lips, but they could occasionally be troublesome.However, you could get something like 15 Greaseguns for the price of a single M1A1 Thompson, if I recall right, and it was extremely fast to manufacture, so you got WAY more subguns in peoples hands and much quicker.It's almost a shame that the M2 subgun didn't work out, as its use of Thompson mags I think was a good thing. If the Greasegun had been made to also use Thompson mags, or maybe something else more robust and using a two position feed, it'd have been just about perfect.
>>65006932>>65006974I'm not being an ass saying this, but it seems probably right that a new guy to automatics would say that. That's probably why so many raw recruits back in day thought a grease-gun was great. On the other hand, nobody with any experience with automatics (rifles, belt-feds, or subs) would ever describe a greaser as anything but garbage. NOBODY who had a Thompson willingly traded it for a greaser.
>>65006985Thompsons are way nicer made, so yeah, they'd be a nicer gun to just have as an enthusiast, but that cyclic rate and its low dropped stock makes you have to practice a lot more with the thing.I really don't think that the Thompson is that bad. The original ones were way expensive, but the M1A1 economized things pretty considerably, and using the much more rugged and reliable blowback bolt makes it very dependable. The magazine is really good, it even has a last round hold-open so that you don't need to rack the bolt after swapping mags.For collectability though, best I know transferable Greaseguns are actually not very common, there's way more Thompsons on the registry as transferables, and apparently the M3 is way less common than the M3A1.Different matter for SOTs, as usual, as they're not restricted to just transferable ones.
>>65006900>Have you ever actually shot one? Have you? The greasegun is one of the most easy-going SMG's of WW2 to shoot lmao.
>>65007007>I really don't think that the Thompson is that bad.the ergonomics are godawful possibly the worst of any gun with real solid stock. the mag rail makes it really annoying to load compared to a magwell.if the grease gun had a forend or just a bit more wood it would be superior in every way to a tommy. though wood furniture kinda kills the whole cheap gun idea.
>>65007048Thompson mags are still more reliable than Greasegun mags though.
It's a cliche, but there's no beating the Suomi. 1st generation smg's in general have better aesthetics than the stamped era ones.
>>65006501>mp40 is the most sexy gun of all time>Eyyyy I'm woppin' here. It's not even the sexiest SMG of WW2
>>65006501*mp50s your mp40**refuses to elaborate*
>>65006900Tankers loved it jn desert storm so stfu
>>65007707>leave it folded up in the corner and never touch it>yeah it was great!
>>65006501I hold that it's these curved bits and the gentle taper of the barrel that makes it look good
>>65007079Mostly correct.
>>65007079>>65009286but there are exceptions
>>65009286/thread. Best SMG ever.
>>65009292
>>65009294>Best SMG everFinest manufacturing quality for certain
>>65006900>and obviously made to be as cheap as humanly possible.Fun fact: Remember the Sten gun? Of course you do. Designed to be made cheap as possible. The Germans managed to make a simplified version of the Sten gun (MP 3008). That's right, they managed to simplify the Sten.
>>65006501wrong
>>65006930I love how their solution to it burning through the 25 round mag too fast was to just weld a second magazine to it upside down.
>>65007588I want to have sex with that gun. Not even like a romantic thing but gross sweaty, animalistic breeding. I want to get it pregnant, which I know is impossible but damn if I'm not gonna try
>>65007048The ergonomics are worse, for sure, but really once you practice they really aren't that bad. Even the mag rail isn't a big deal once you practice a little.
>>65006501From a distance? That's a matter of taste, but sure. Up close? Nah. It's the same with MP5's. Stamped sheetmetal and spot-welds, like an economy car from the 1970's.
