# Best WWII automatic weapon



## Desert Fox (Dec 24, 2006)

The Second World War saw the introduction of many automatic weapons, but which one was the best?
My personal favourite was the PPSh-41 for its simplicity. But, it was a hard decision to pick it over the Aussie Owen gun, a very ingenious design and of course, it was an Australian weapon!


----------



## Soren (Dec 24, 2006)

Too bad you forgot the best in your poll, the MP-44.


----------



## Desert Fox (Dec 24, 2006)

For this poll I tried to choose one per country, one that had a significant impact on the fighting men of the war. Sure, the MP44 was a great weapon, but it didn't see as much of the war as the MP40 did.
I could've added the MP44, the FG42, the Type 100 (Japan) or the Suomi. But they werent as influential during the war as these particular weapons that are in my poll.


----------



## Soren (Dec 24, 2006)

The MP-44 is the best small-arm of WW2, and it saw more action than the Owen - so if you ask me it should be on the list, but nevermind.

If I had to choose between the above I think its going to be a tie between the Thompson and MP-40.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 24, 2006)

I would go for the MP40 although I would normally vote for the MP44 but it isn't on the list...


----------



## Wildcat (Dec 24, 2006)

Owen gun. If you are in the jungle you couldn't ask for a better weapon.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 24, 2006)

i assume we're keeping this to small arms and not squad suport weapons like the bren?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 24, 2006)

My vote goes to the PPSh-41. Typically Russian: Simple, rugged, reliable, and lethal as all hell.

I think the Finnish Suomi should be on that list, even though it predates WWII.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Dec 24, 2006)

My vote goes to the Thompson. It was reliable, hard-hitting, and a good submachine gun for intense combat. The Thompson will always to me the sub-machine gun of choice for WWII. (And if I recall, the Thompson was even used by the British in numerous of campaigns like N. Africa.)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 24, 2006)

yeah we used her, but our commandos got the ultimate commando weapon, the sten!


----------



## 102first_hussars (Dec 24, 2006)

The sten was a peice of crap apprently, a friend of mine who was in the Royal Marines from 1947 to 1958 i beleive said that the damn thing was made from old bicycle parts and what not


----------



## MacArther (Dec 24, 2006)

I would vote for the PPSH-41, because it does the job of a submachine gun well. With either a 71 round drum or a 35 round box magazine it had plenty of ammo, and its rate of fire was great for room clearing actions. The thompson, while my other favorite, also took longer to produce than its contemporary, the "Grease Gun" (Although I would take a Thompson over a grease gun any day). Also, from what I've read, the German infantry respected the PPSH-41 enough to capture it and its ammo whenever possible.



> the MP-44


I see a trend in all the choices, they are all SMGs, NOT assault rifles.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 25, 2006)

102first_hussars said:


> The sten was a peice of crap apprently, a friend of mine who was in the Royal Marines from 1947 to 1958 i beleive said that the damn thing was made from old bicycle parts and what not



oh, don't get me wrong, it was made of pressed metal and was liable to fall to bit when dropped.... but she was cheap, easy to produce, easy to use, small, light, compact, great for smuggling around France!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 25, 2006)

Id go for the 44 but since it is not up there I will go for the 40. Not really sure though there are many up there that were just as good or better than the 40.

My vote in theory goes to the 44.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 26, 2006)

Hey since there is no criteria to this other than those on the poll, I vote for the MG42. Hands down. End of thread.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## exec228 (Dec 26, 2006)

with such an offtopic - vickers/maxim due to water cooling which provided almost infinite length of burst.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 26, 2006)

i posed the question earlier what kinda weapon's we're limited to but got no reply, if we're talking any army automatic we can only talk about the Bren........


----------



## timshatz (Dec 26, 2006)

Nonskimmer said:


> My vote goes to the PPSh-41. Typically Russian: Simple, rugged, reliable, and lethal as all hell.
> 
> I think the Finnish Suomi should be on that list, even though it predates WWII.




Same here. PPSh would be the one. Knew a guy who carried one in Iraq as a personal weapon just after the invasion. Had that and a Webly for the simple reason both worked. Trashed them when he rotated out. 

Can't improve on the above quote. Just got the job done. One of those in a Jungle Fighting environment would be fantastic.


----------



## Screaming Eagle (Dec 28, 2006)

I voted for the Thompson. Simply because it was one of the best weapons allied troops had in WW2.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Dec 28, 2006)

I would pick the Grease Gun simpy because it held more ammo then most of the Thompsons


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 28, 2006)

timshatz said:


> Same here. PPSh would be the one. Knew a guy who carried one in Iraq as a personal weapon just after the invasion. Had that and a Webly for the simple reason both worked. Trashed them when he rotated out.


Really? Where the hell did he get it? And he trashed them both, eh? Damn. I'm assuming they were simply worn out by the time he was done, right? 




102first_hussars said:


> I would pick the Grease Gun simpy because it held more ammo then most of the Thompsons


It was a relative piece of crap. It was a cheap, readily produced weapon like the Sten, to mass produce quickly for the front. It was flimsy and full of quirks and flaws. The Thompson was a much better weapon, but was more costly and complicated to produce.


----------



## k9kiwi (Dec 29, 2006)

Toss up between the 40 and the Owen, depending on your region of deployment.

And as far as automatics go 20mm Oerlikon would be my pick.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 29, 2006)

102first_hussars said:


> I would pick the Grease Gun simpy because it held more ammo then most of the Thompsons



Still in use today by the way. They have fit them with silencers for SpecOps. Go figure!


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 29, 2006)

Matt308 said:


> Still in use today by the way. They have fit them with silencers for SpecOps. Go figure!



They fitted the Sten with a silencer to for spec ops work.


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 29, 2006)

Thompson


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 29, 2006)

Hunter368 said:


> Thompson



Too damn heavy.


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 29, 2006)

Matt308 said:


> Too damn heavy.




It will lighten up after you shoot about 6 enemy troops with it.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 29, 2006)

Or 6 enemy troops shoot at you! 

Point made.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 29, 2006)

Matt308 said:


> Still in use today by the way.


Cool. I never would have thought. Why?


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 29, 2006)

What's ya mean?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 30, 2006)

I guess maybe I should have asked "By whom, and why?". Why the Grease Gun? Surely "whoever" must have better SMG types available to them.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Dec 30, 2006)

Im not a huge fan of the grease gun. The only reason it was made was to produce in larger numbers than the Thompson and make the cost a lot less. 

I do think though provided it was cheap and all it was a good smg especially for paratroopers and armored. Its rate of fire also made it easier to aim with.

But with the Thompson; "rat tat tap, away with the Jap!"


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 31, 2006)

Where do you get this stuff, P-38?


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jan 2, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> Where do you get this stuff, P-38?



I just made that up!


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 2, 2007)

No kidding.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jan 2, 2007)

Nope, no kidding. It just came to my head.


----------



## abhiginimav (Jan 3, 2007)

I would say either the Bren or the STG 44 or the sten
maybe the thompson


----------



## plan_D (Jan 4, 2007)

I bet you used to be really indesicive - but now you're not so sure.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2007)




----------



## Gnomey (Jan 4, 2007)




----------



## Matt308 (Jan 7, 2007)




----------



## 102first_hussars (Jan 7, 2007)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 9, 2007)

aren't there some that say the recoil from the tompson was too painful for some?


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 9, 2007)

Painful? No. Its an almost 11lb weapon shooting a pistol cartridge. Even the most recoil sensative would not complain about the Thompson. For comparison, the 1911 .45 pistol weighed a little over 2lbs and was taught to be shot one handed.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 9, 2007)

I would hate to lug around 11 pounds though all day like that. 11lbs does not seem like a lot but the lighter the weapon the better.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 9, 2007)

Thompson is overrated, too complicated to build and too heavy.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 10, 2007)

That I agree with.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jan 10, 2007)

But a 11lb Thompson with a fifty round drum, in my mind would make more sense then a 7 or 8 lb, Greaser with a 50 round drum


----------



## Emac44 (Jan 10, 2007)

Sorry gents will have to go with the Owen Gun local lads win over international models again for me and was still in use by Vietnam until phased out of service. you could drop the Owen in mud and sand and still the weapon would operate under conditions most weapons would fail or jam. Owen gun most effective in the hands of an Aussie Digger in PNG and the areas around Pacific/Asian region Diggers were sent to as for a squaddie weapon from WW2 would go the Bren Gun. damn thing was found every where in Commonwealth forces during WW2


----------



## davparlr (Jan 10, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> Thompson is overrated, too complicated to build and too heavy.



Too complicated to build (costly), too heavy, all true. But it seemed to be highly rated by those who used it, which is the ratings that really count. 

Talk about heavy, a friend of mine has a BAR (he carried one in WWII). WOW! However, it also seemed to be highly rated by those who used it. And I understand that its workings are still used in a modern weapon (M240). And it has an impressive length of service.

The best automatic weapon of WWII (not really in this thread), and probably best ever (if longevity is considered), the Browning 50 cal. heavy machine gun. Over 80 years in front line service and still going. Amazing.

I can't really vote. I am just not familar with all of the contestants.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jan 10, 2007)

I agree the 50. cal is a soldier in its own

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 10, 2007)

Ma Deuce. You got that one right, davparlr.

I'd take the Sten. Built like an AK. Light. Lots of firepower and you can lay LOW firing that bad boy.

And I don't know about you, but if I had a short range weapon, laying low would be high on my priority list.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Soren (Jan 11, 2007)

davparlr said:


> The best automatic weapon of WWII (not really in this thread), and probably best ever (if longevity is considered), the Browning 50 cal. heavy machine gun. Over 80 years in front line service and still going. Amazing.



I'd say the MG-42 beats that.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jan 11, 2007)

And I'd say that in the same class of weapon, the Soviet UB was a better gun than the M2

Lighter
Higher ROF
More reliable
More powerful cartridge

Main failings are limited barrel life, slightly lower M/V and the funky cable based charging system, which was repotedly an absolute bugger to use in the ground versions of the gun, requiring considerable strength.


----------



## davparlr (Jan 11, 2007)

Soren said:


> I'd say the MG-42 beats that.



Definately a good selection an the best infantry machine gun in the war. Apparently the father of many modern weapons. Ma Duece was probably effective in more applications, however. Also, 20 more operating years. For a weapon developed in the era of biplanes and cavlary to be respected in todays warfare is an impressive accomplishment.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Soren (Jan 11, 2007)

The M2 is too big and heavy IMO, and its RoF is way too low, also accurate fire with the M2 is very difficult because of the huge recoil. Its good for mounting on jeeps and AFV's, but its way to clumsy for the infantry - the MG-42 on the other hand can act as both a HMG and LMG, and is very effective in both roles.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## mkloby (Jan 11, 2007)

Soren said:


> The M2 is too big and heavy IMO, and its RoF is way too low, also accurate fire with the M2 is very difficult because of the huge recoil. Its good for mounting on jeeps and AFV's, but its way to clumsy for the infantry - the MG-42 on the other hand can act as both a HMG and LMG, and is very effective in both roles.



M2 is accurate using the tripod mount. It's also a very effective anti-materiel weapon. Granted - it's a b*tch to break apart into loads and carry for leg infantry. There's always mot/mech transport, and also being entrenched and used in a static position.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davparlr (Jan 11, 2007)

Soren said:


> The M2 is too big and heavy IMO, and its RoF is way too low, also accurate fire with the M2 is very difficult because of the huge recoil. Its good for mounting on jeeps and AFV's, but its way to clumsy for the infantry - the MG-42 on the other hand can act as both a HMG and LMG, and is very effective in both roles.



Well, I do think this thread is basically limited to infantry weapons, but the title is best automatic weapon. Not only did the M2 perform admirably as an infantry weapon, but also in many others. I could list the applications, but, gee, I think I would wear myself out. And then, probably miss some.

I don't want to berate the MG-42, it is what you say for the infantry.


----------



## davparlr (Jan 11, 2007)

Jabberwocky said:


> And I'd say that in the same class of weapon, the Soviet UB was a better gun than the M2
> 
> Lighter
> Higher ROF
> ...




The information I got was that the M3 version of the Browning was capable of 1200 rpm vs. 840 for the UB (I am not sure the M3 was around for WWII). Also, the Browning has a higher muzzle velocity.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2007)

The M2 and the MG-42 are two completely differnent classes of weapons. Both are excellent in there respective catagories but I dont think you can compare the two.


----------



## Soren (Jan 12, 2007)

AFAIK the RoF of the M2 carried by the infantry was no more than 550 rpm max. Shot with one as-well, and its slow; *BoomBoomBoomBoomBoomBoom*


----------



## mkloby (Jan 12, 2007)

Soren said:


> AFAIK the RoF of the M2 carried by the infantry was no more than 550 rpm max. Shot with one as-well, and its slow; *BoomBoomBoomBoomBoomBoom*



Sounds about right - granted as a real HMG it had and still has a different role from smaller, lighter machine guns.

The MG 42 was a fearsome weapon - if I remember right our M240 now is based upon it, although cyclic fire for that is only 950.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jan 12, 2007)

Soren said:


> I'd say the MG-42 beats that.


Not likely, shooting infantry is about all its good for, did the Mg42 have the many varietys of ammunition that the M2 HB does, the m2 can take out hard targets such as light to medium armoured vehichles and tear the sh*t out of any kind of cover


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 12, 2007)

good point regarding the fact you can lay low with a sten, it's not something i'd ever really thought about!


----------



## Soren (Jan 12, 2007)

102first_hussars said:


> Not likely, shooting infantry is about all its good for, did the Mg42 have the many varietys of ammunition that the M2 HB does, the m2 can take out hard targets such as light to medium armoured vehichles and tear the sh*t out of any kind of cover



Yes the MG-42 was/is used with a huge amount of different types of ammunition. During WWII the MG-42 primarily used the sS, SmE, SmE(L) SmK, SmK(L), and SmK(H) rounds.

sS = 198gr Std. infantry boat-tail projectile, MV: ~785 m/s - Penetration performance: 10mm of iron at 300m, 7mm at 550m; 5mm of steel at 100m; 3mm at 600m. (30 degree impact angle)

SmE, SmK L = 179gr steel core boat-tail projectile, MV: ~810 m/s - Penetration performance: 8mm's of steel at 100m, 3mm at 600m. (30 degree impact angle)

SmK(H) = 193gr tungsten core spitzer projectile, MV: ~868 m/s - Penetration performance: 
30 degree impact angle = 13mm's of steel at 100m, 8mm at 500m. 
Vertical impact angle = 20mm of steel at 500m. 

A jeep should and would prove no problem, and lightly armored troop-carriers could be engaged fairly effectively at close range.

Ofcourse with special purpose ammunition the larger M2 will always prove more destructive pr. round.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2007)

mkloby said:


> The MG 42 was a fearsome weapon - if I remember right our M240 now is based upon it, although cyclic fire for that is only 950.



No the M240 is not based of the MG 42. The M60 is based off of the design of the MG 42.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## mkloby (Jan 12, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No the M240 is not based of the MG 42. The M60 is based off of the design of the MG 42.



I'm no armorer or gun expert - but that's what I remember from my weapons classes before we hit the range.

this was taken from wiki:

The basic design of the belt-feed mechanism from the MG42 was modified and used in the M60 machine gun and also in the M240s.

It would appear though that you are right also.


----------



## mkloby (Jan 12, 2007)

Soren said:


> Ofcourse with special purpose ammunition the larger M2 will always prove more destructive pr. round.



The beauty of heavy MGs


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2007)

Have you seen a M240. The only thing that it takes from a MG-42 is the belt feld idea which the MG-42 was not the only one that was belt fed anyhow.

The M240 is laser cut and has nothing in common with the MG-42 however the M60 is very similiar. 

I used to play around with both the M60 and the M240 because that is what we used as our door guns from the Blackhawks.


----------



## mkloby (Jan 13, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Have you seen a M240. The only thing that it takes from a MG-42 is the belt feld idea which the MG-42 was not the only one that was belt fed anyhow.
> 
> The M240 is laser cut and has nothing in common with the MG-42 however the M60 is very similiar.
> 
> I used to play around with both the M60 and the M240 because that is what we used as our door guns from the Blackhawks.



Never fired an M60, but stripped and humped, fired and all w/ the 240G. The belt feed mech was similar, and also the trigger mechanism I believe. Again, I'm a pilot NOT an armorer, but have used the 240G. This taken from HQMC:

"While possessing many of the same basic characteristics as the M60 series medium class machine guns, the durability of the M240 system results in superior reliability and maintainability when compared to the M60."

Here's an mg42, m60, then 240G


----------



## Soren (Jan 13, 2007)

God I loath the M60, its a piece of crap if you ask me...

And mkloby is right, the feeding mechanism of the M240 is the same as the MG-42's.

Btw, the operating system of the M-60 is based upon that of the German FG42.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2007)

mkloby said:


> Never fired an M60, but stripped and humped, fired and all w/ the 240G. The belt feed mech was similar, and also the trigger mechanism I believe. Again, I'm a pilot NOT an armorer, but have used the 240G. This taken from HQMC:
> 
> "While possessing many of the same basic characteristics as the M60 series medium class machine guns, the durability of the M240 system results in superior reliability and maintainability when compared to the M60."
> 
> Here's an mg42, m60, then 240G



Wow that does not look like the 240 that we used.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2007)

Soren said:


> God I loath the M60, its a piece of crap if you ask me...



I disagree with you my friend. I used the weapon for 6 years as my door gun from my helicopter and I loved it. The gun worked magnificent and I used it from everywhere in arctic weather in Norway to the desert of Iraq on a daily basis. Never had a jam, run away, or anything and I could hit targets at 500m to 800m from a moving helicopter travelling between 130 and 150 knots.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## mkloby (Jan 13, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Wow that does not look like the 240 that we used.



That was the Golf model. It's a version that they lightened I think for USMC infantry Wpns Plt - they're a Company level asset. I'm not sure if the other services use the M240G. I think it's a fine weapon. Again - w/ the tripod it's damn accurate.


----------



## Soren (Jan 13, 2007)

> I disagree with you my friend. I used the weapon for 6 years as my door gun from my helicopter and I loved it. The gun worked magnificent and I used it from everywhere in arctic weather in Norway to the desert of Iraq on a daily basis. Never had a jam, run away, or anything and I could hit targets at 500m to 800m from a moving helicopter travelling between 130 and 150 knots.



In a helicopter it might be good, but for the infantry its too clumsy, it takes too long to replace the barrell and since each barrel has a bipod permanently attached that means extra weight for the spares - plus, again, RoF is too low.

Design flaws:
The design allows for incorrect reversed reassembly of bolt components Sear wear leading to runaway guns (had to break belt to stop firing). Component durability - failures of welds and peeling of rubber grip coverings. Barrel changes - no handle for changing hot barrel, need asbestos gloves. 

There's a reason the M240 is replacing the M-60.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2007)

mkloby said:


> That was the Golf model. It's a version that they lightened I think for USMC infantry Wpns Plt - they're a Company level asset. I'm not sure if the other services use the M240G. I think it's a fine weapon. Again - w/ the tripod it's damn accurate.



I am not sure what type of 240 the Infantry in the Army uses but in Aviaton we used the 240H.


----------



## mkloby (Jan 13, 2007)

Soren said:


> In a helicopter it might be good, but for the infantry its too clumsy, it takes too long to replace the barrell and since each barrel has a bipod permanently attached that means extra weight for the spares - plus, again, RoF is too low.
> 
> Design flaws:
> The design allows for incorrect reversed reassembly of bolt components Sear wear leading to runaway guns (had to break belt to stop firing). Component durability - failures of welds and peeling of rubber grip coverings. Barrel changes - no handle for changing hot barrel, need asbestos gloves.
> ...



M240G is an excellent weapon. Good point - barrel on 240 changes in a quick second. Breaks down VERY quickly. Tripod adds some weight to the spare barrel bag, but depending on the situation you wouldn't have to take it. Cyclic rate varies from 650-800-950 if I remember right depending on regulator setting.


----------



## Soren (Jan 13, 2007)

The M-60 we used never topped 600 rpm thats for sure.


----------



## mkloby (Jan 13, 2007)

Yup - Rated at 550 I believe.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2007)

Soren said:


> In a helicopter it might be good, but for the infantry its too clumsy, it takes too long to replace the barrell and since each barrel has a bipod permanently attached that means extra weight for the spares - plus, again, RoF is too low.
> 
> Design flaws:
> The design allows for incorrect reversed reassembly of bolt components Sear wear leading to runaway guns (had to break belt to stop firing). Component durability - failures of welds and peeling of rubber grip coverings. Barrel changes - no handle for changing hot barrel, need asbestos gloves.



Where the heck did you get this info from? Trust me I know what I am talking about, I used it on a daily basis almost.

The barrel only takes a few sec to replace. There is a little button that you push and the barrel slides right out. New barrel slides right in and the button automatically clicks and then you push the tab and it is ready to fire.

The bipod assy was made out of very light metal and did not add any relative weight to the gun or the spare barrels. Trust me the bypod assy weighed litterally like a handful of No.2 penciles. Thats not a lot.

ROF is good eneogh.

As for the reassym of bolt assy, you cant put it together wrong. Yeah there are parts that can go in backwards or wrong, but then the overall assy does not work and your checks will show you that it is not right before you even try to fire a round. A good M60 gunner would not make these mistakes anyhow...

Never had a run away gun and I also dont know anyone else over the last 6 years who had one either. You do proper maint to your gun it does not happen.

As for peeling of rubber grip coverings, it never effected the fireing of the gun. I had half of the rubber grip covering missing off of my gun for 6 months in Iraq and it never caused a problem. All it does is allow a bit more dust in the weapon, so I cleaned it a bit more.

The funny thing is, we never cleaned them every day, because when we did, that was when a jam happened. We used good old normal WD-40 or CLP and the gun never jammed and I would only clean it about once a week and I fired it alot every day in Iraq.

As for Componant durability never had a serious problem that was caused by the gun or a componant of the gun. As a matter of fact the only problem I had was when my Feed Tray cover flew off while trying to reload the gun. Why did this happen, because we were travelling at about 120 knots and this will happen to any gun at that speed, if you do it eneogh. I found a good way to pull the gun inside so that the wind did not hit the feed tray cover and then there was not a problem after that. 

As for the changing of the hot barrel and there not being a way to handle it. That is not true. All M60s (atleast the ones used by the US Army) have a handle on the barrel that you use to slide the barrel off. There are asbestos gloves as well and we are told to use them for our own safety, but in combat you dont go digging for your gloves you just put your hand on the handle, push the button and slide the barrel off.

Again I dont know where you get your info from but what you just said up there does not describe any of the M60s that I used in the Army and I happen to be an expert on the weapon.



Soren said:


> There's a reason the M240 is replacing the M-60.



Dont take me wrong. The M240 is a better weapon and it is time that the M60 got replaced. In the US Army the only ones still using the M60 is Aviation but that is slowly being phased out. Right before I got out of the Army my unit finally got rid of there M60s and got 240H's.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2007)

mkloby said:


> Yup - Rated at 550 I believe.



Yeap it is 550 but that is still eneogh to supress or kill you enemy.


----------



## mkloby (Jan 13, 2007)

I see M60E3 on the USMC equipment factfile under infantry weapons. They must have some still in the inventory, that haven't quite been replaced by the M240G yet.


----------



## Soren (Jan 13, 2007)

Adler a helicopter is a clean inviroment compared to the dirt foot soldiers have to go through. In densly vegitated and/or muddy areas the M-60 suffered the problems I mentioned. Was it often ? Well that depends how much you've been through and it depends on the climate as-well.

And I sure don't remember our M-60's having any handle you could use when replacing the barrell - you had to touch the barrell with your hands, and if you didn't have any gloves then your treshold for pain had better be good - and the barrel only lasted a couple of hundred shots when dealing out suppressive fire before you had to change it. Fact is the M-60 wore out quickly.

Now I don't know if the M-60 has changed since, but thats how it was.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2007)

Soren said:


> Now I don't know if the M-60 has changed since, but thats how it was.



It must have compared to what ever version or model you have used. Because what you described is competely different from the M60s that I have used.

It is much more durable and it is a lot different. I never needed to used gloves to change the barrel and by doing it that way, I never burnt my hand. I used the handle.

When did you use the M60? That might explain it. You may very well have been using an early model or version of it.


----------



## Soren (Jan 13, 2007)

It was up until the early 80's.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2007)

Could very well be then that your M60 was different than mine.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 13, 2007)

What about the M60E3?


----------



## Chief (Jan 13, 2007)

I like the MP44 (assault rifle I believe) for it's accuracy.


----------



## Desert Fox (Jan 14, 2007)

Hi everyone, sorry i havent posted on my own thread lately, but Ive been away for a few weeks. Really good opinions guys!


----------



## renrich (May 7, 2007)

Does the M240G use the same cartridge as the M60?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 8, 2007)

Yes both fire the 7.62 x 51 NATO round.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 13, 2007)

I would have picked the Mp44, but of the ones on the list I would rather have the thompson for sheer stopping power. .45 over 9mm when pondering.

of the ones NOT listed Mg42, then Ma Duece for the crew served as long as I didn't have to carry it...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SoD Stitch (Aug 13, 2007)

drgondog said:


> I would have picked the Mp44, but of the ones on the list I would rather have the thompson for sheer stopping power. .45 over 9mm when pondering.
> 
> of the ones NOT listed Mg42, then Ma Duece for the crew served as long as I didn't have to carry it...



Yeah, I would've picked the Stg44 also, but I think they meant to limit the poll to SMG's, not assault rifles, MG's, etc.

However, I also would've listed the MG-34/42; possibly the most influential MG of the 20th century. Was effectively used on every front of the War, from freezing sub-zero Russian winters, to 100+ weather in North Africa; extremely reliable. Adaptable as a bipod-mounted crew-served weapon, highly accurate tripod-mounted weapon, anti-personnel tank weapon, aircraft-mounted anti-aircraft weapon, tank-mounted anti-aircraft weapon, etc., etc. Spawned a "copy" in the form of the late 20th-century MG-3, which is still in production in several countries today. Also had the highest rate of fire of any medium machine gun in history (I believe) at 1200+ RPM.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Aug 13, 2007)

SoD Stitch said:


> Yeah, I would've picked the Stg44 also, but I think they meant to limit the poll to SMG's, not assault rifles, MG's, etc.
> 
> However, I also would've listed the MG-34/42; possibly the most influential MG of the 20th century. Was effectively used on every front of the War, from freezing sub-zero Russian winters, to 100+ weather in North Africa; extremely reliable. Adaptable as a bipod-mounted crew-served weapon, highly accurate tripod-mounted weapon, anti-personnel tank weapon, aircraft-mounted anti-aircraft weapon, tank-mounted anti-aircraft weapon, etc., etc. Spawned a "copy" in the form of the late 20th-century MG-3, which is still in production in several countries today. Also had the highest rate of fire of any medium machine gun in history (I believe) at 1200+ RPM.



It was all of those things - I thought about the Mg34 just because I like machined weapons, less those with stamped parts - but both had about the same performance and reliability as I recall. Would like either one. 

My uncle brought one back from ETO - he was ex 2nd, then 5th, Rangers - a Thompson carrying MD..I think they 'liberated' Dachau and he brought it back from there in pieces.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Aussie1001 (Aug 13, 2007)

Well since i don't know much about this subject so i will just provoke questions (in a good way).
Wasn't the sten a contender for the best SMG i mean what were the brits dropping to the resistance in france and other countries ?
I personally like the owen however if a jap was coming at me a tommy wouldn't be bad for sheer stopping power remember some japs were fanatics so go on give me answers !!!!!!
Heh heh


----------



## Stupid (Aug 13, 2007)

I went for thompson of course! 20-30 round 45. ACP would pack some serious stopping power! Once shot a can with my friends grandfathered Colt 1911 and wow did it do a number on the can. My Grandfather who fought in the aleutians in the Army Engineers dove under a bulldozer during a bonzai charge with his non-scoped springfield, he got hold of a Thompson, put it on semi auto and on his first shot it blew a Japanese Soilders leg in half, he says he thinks the bullet hit right below the shin. If not the Thompson i'd go for the PPSh-41, it had a very high rate of fire and with a 71 round drum it was one heck of a gun.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Aug 14, 2007)

Aussie1001 said:


> Well since i don't know much about this subject so i will just provoke questions (in a good way).
> Wasn't the sten a contender for the best SMG i mean what were the brits dropping to the resistance in france and other countries ?
> I personally like the owen however if a jap was coming at me a tommy wouldn't be bad for sheer stopping power remember some japs were fanatics so go on give me answers !!!!!!
> Heh heh



The main reason the Sten was so ubiquitous was because they were relatively inexpensive to manufacture (almost all of the parts were stamped steel), and there were only about two moving parts in the whole thing, so they were fairly reliable. The Brits used them up until fairly recently in their Spec Ops; I know the SAS used to train with them back in the '70's '80's.


----------



## trackend (Aug 14, 2007)

The Sten was made for 7s 6d which is about 35p in new money, in 1939 my old man was paid £2.50p a week in the Navy + 5p hard layers payment for combined ops service so even then it was a very cheap gun.
I personally think the Thomson was the best sub machine gun not prone to stoppages, not too higher muzzel velocity, a relitively heavy round and thin bullet casing so the stopping power was high. Ideally suited to building clearance and close quarter action.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 14, 2007)

trackend said:


> The Sten was made for 7s 6d which is about 35p in new money, in 1939 my old man was paid £2.50p a week in the Navy + 5p hard layers payment for combined ops service so even then it was a very cheap gun.
> I personally think the Thomson was the best sub machine gun not prone to stoppages, not too higher muzzel velocity, a relitively heavy round and thin bullet casing so the stopping power was high. Ideally suited to building clearance and close quarter action.



The only feature I didn't care for on the Thompson was tendency to 'ride up' in fully automatic fire - but I learned to fire short bursts and was able to control it just fine. This is one area that I favored the Mp40, but I would choose 40 S&W or .45 ACP for any short range stuff way over the 9mm or even 357 SiG.

Off topic - I recently fired the H&K Mp5 in 40 S&W - awesome piece, would choose that over any other small weapon available today from any era for short range stuff 50 yards or less.


----------



## trackend (Aug 14, 2007)

drgondog said:


> The only feature I didn't care for on the Thompson was tendency to 'ride up' in fully automatic fire



If I'm not mistaken slightly to the left as well? DD


----------



## drgondog (Aug 14, 2007)

trackend said:


> If I'm not mistaken slightly to the left as well? DD



Trackend - for a right hander like myself it was high right - a natural motion for a rifle, shotgun or submachine gun with a lot of drop in the stock.


----------



## Wildcat (Aug 15, 2007)

I'm a fan of the Owen gun myself. For jungle warfare it was ideal, tough and very reliable.
Here's an interesting article written by an American
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/owen_gun.txt


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Aug 15, 2007)

I have to go with the MP40 here...cheap, easy to produce, compact and a 32 rounds magazine.Of course the Thompson did have more stopping power but it had more recoil than the MP40.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Aug 22, 2007)

I like the PPSH best in the video game, , Medal of Honor. It shoots for one many bullets in a small space, and it's got 20 rounds more than the Thompson.


----------



## Aussie1001 (Aug 22, 2007)

he he he


----------



## drgondog (Aug 22, 2007)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> I like the PPSH best in the video game, , Medal of Honor. It shoots for one many bullets in a small space, and it's got 20 rounds more than the Thompson.



Than the Thompson 50 round drum? Although I would have stuck with the clips as lighter and less cumbersome.


----------



## ccheese (Aug 22, 2007)

I purposly stayed out of this thread because I've only fired two types of
MG's.... a BAR on a bipod and the ole M3A1. My first day in Nam they gave
me an M1 Carbine, and hustled my butt to Chu Lai where I hooked up with
the ROK's. Less than a week later one of our "advisors" an Air Force S/Sgt
was wounded and sent back to Da Nang. He "willed" me his M3A1. It
was better than what the ROK's were carrying.... 12 Ga. shotguns, M1's
and one Thompson in the bunch. The Lt had that. 

The only problem I had was the feed mechanism. It never really jammed,
but once or twice an ejected round wouldn't completely clear. The oil
reservoir was something else, tho. 

The BAR I shot at Fort Mead, and that was a "lemme try that" kinda thing.
But I did vote for the M3A1......

Charles


----------



## lucanus (Aug 22, 2007)

Well guys I have read with interest all the replies...And just speaking for me
this is what I think...I was a Marine grunt and during my 2 hitches I got to fire
and be fired upon with a lot of the weapons mentioned, except the Owen and
the Beretta...All will kill and do it right smartly. The hardest weapon I ever had to hump was the Browning 1918A, this little hunk of iron wasn't heavy,
just awkward...Ma Deuce is nice to have in support whether on a trak or in
a defensive fire(mad minute) or FPF(Final Protective Fire)...M60 is a HOG
and in combat everybody even the Docs humped spare ammo for it....SMGs
are really only good for close up, where as the M2, M60, and the BAR can 
reach out and wreak havoc on a group of enemy trying to push thru your pos.

If you read about Edson's Ridge (aka Raider Ridge) on the Canal, you will see
that those Gyrenes were using 50 cals with water jacketsto defend their pos
and the airfield behind...In the daylight in front of the pos the Japs were in
piles...

Two last things....Has anybody ever noticed they always give the BAR to the
feather-merchant? And did you know that according to the Geneva 
Convention it is unlawful (read a BIG NO NO) to use the M2 or any other
HMG against troops?


----------



## Jank (Aug 22, 2007)

lucanus said, _"And did you know that according to the Geneva
Convention it is unlawful (read a BIG NO NO) to use the M2 or any other
HMG against troops?"_

I don't believe that is true. Please cite the provision that states that.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Aug 22, 2007)

Jank said:


> lucanus said, _"And did you know that according to the Geneva
> Convention it is unlawful (read a BIG NO NO) to use the M2 or any other
> HMG against troops?"_
> 
> I don't believe that is true. Please cite the provision that states that.



This is a common misconception; there is nothing in the GC that says anything about using large-caliber weapons against personnel. It may be unethical to use a Barrett M82 against a human target, but it is not unlawful. Marine Corps training does not encourage using 50-cal weapons against human targets; however, it does not specifically forbid it, either. Depending on the given situation, it may be necessary to employ large-caliber weapons (including 20mm 25mm weapons, such as the Bushmaster cannon mounted on AH-64's, M-2's M-3's) against human targets. I know for a fact that the 25mm Bushmaster cannons on Bradley APC's were used against human targets during the invasion of Irag, particularly during the "Thunder Run" up Highway 8 shortly after US forces entered Baghdad for the first time (source: _Thunder Run: The Armored Strike To Capture Baghdad_, by David Zucchino).


----------



## lucanus (Aug 23, 2007)

SoD Stitch and Jank, 
I was taught that it was against the GC while in the Marines, but like the instructor finished - 
"Why put em on tanks and traks? To shoot up tanks or knock down jets?!?!?"
  
The bit about the BAR was a joke and I believed that most of you guys
with military training - would see the Ma Deuce bit as one too.
Sorry my fault...


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Aug 28, 2007)

> Than the Thompson 50 round drum?



I have never played with a 50 drum. I only have the demo of Spearhead that works, and that doesn't have 50 drums for Thompsons.


----------



## trackend (Aug 28, 2007)

I was always under the impression that with MG's it was the load ratio (tracer,incendary etc too common) that was governed by the GC.


----------



## lucanus (Aug 28, 2007)

> ...I know for a fact that the 25mm Bushmaster cannons on
> Bradley APC's were used against human targets during the
> invasion of Irag, particularly during the "Thunder Run" up
> Highway 8 shortly after US forces entered Baghdad for the
> ...



Now I am not trying to start something...But to state:
_



'I know for a fact'

Click to expand...

_Implies to me you saw it done or your real name is David Zucchino.
I know that what I said:
_



Ma Deuce is nice to have in support whether on a
trak or in a defensive fire(mad minute) or FPF(Final Protective
Fire)...M60 is a HOG and in combat everybody even the Docs humped spare
ammo for it....SMGs are really only good for close up, whereas the M2, M60,
and the BAR can reach out and wreak havoc on a group of enemy trying
to push thru your pos.

Click to expand...

_Is a fact, cause I was there firing the 'mad minute/FPF', I have also seen 
106mm RRs fire their beehive rounds to breakup NVA assaults...I was
never really inclined to use the GC, for I feared it was created by Pols
and do-gooders *after* a conflict, not by warriors who know
that you do whatever it takes to survive and complete your mission.
These are my statements as I experienced them and are not told
to start a brouhaha...


----------



## SoD Stitch (Aug 28, 2007)

lucanus said:


> Now I am not trying to start something...But to state:
> 
> Implies to me you saw it done or your real name is David Zucchino.
> I know that what I said:
> ...



Okay, okay, maybe I was a little too literal in my statement . . . you're right: unless I was there and actually saw it happen, or I was the one actually manning the M2 turret, I don't know it "for a fact", I'm just going off of what was written by someone who was there and saw it happen (i.e.: David Zucchino). 

So, I'm not trying to start anything, either, I'm just relaying what I have read and what I believe to be is true. Nobody is infallible (well, except for my father-in-law, but that's another story), least of all me, and I'm sure I'll be wrong again. I cannot claim to have been "there", as some of you can, so I may talk out of my ass from time to time. You have the right to put me in my place if I start spouting BS . . .


----------



## mkloby (Aug 28, 2007)

USMC defines small arms as those 40mm and below. The St Petersburg Declaration placed limits on the use of rounds less than 400g that are explosive/incendiary. The US was not a member of this treaty, nor does it recognize it.


----------



## Aussie1001 (Aug 29, 2007)

Dad told me the Shotguns are also banned by the convention by i know for a fact that they were used in the war.... Is it shotguns or just trench guns.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 29, 2007)

Shotguns are not banned. We use them on a day to day basis for close quarter combat.


----------



## ccheese (Aug 29, 2007)

The ROK's carried shotguns in "Nam". Remington pump, 12 ga. loaded with
00 Buck and slug. A couple of them had been sawed off.... both barrell
and stock..... I guess for close quarters.

Charles


----------



## SoD Stitch (Aug 29, 2007)

ccheese said:


> The ROK's carried shotguns in "Nam". Remington pump, 12 ga. loaded with
> 00 Buck and slug. A couple of them had been sawed off.... both barrell
> and stock..... I guess for close quarters.
> 
> Charles



I also know (and, no, I won't say "for a fact"!) that shotguns are an "official" sidearm of the Special Forces, Delta in particular; they seem to prefer the Mossberg 500-series of shotguns for CQB.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 29, 2007)

Shotguns are used by all branches of the US Army for close quarter combat such as what is going on in Iraq.

When we did Air Assaults there was allways a squad member on our aircraft who had a shot gun.


----------



## Aussie1001 (Aug 29, 2007)

Ok thaks guys wasnt sure.....
Just as a side point is there any point in having restrictions for weapons in war......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 30, 2007)

Nope because the only people that will follow them are the Western Allies.


----------



## Aussie1001 (Aug 31, 2007)

thats what i mean the only people that are going to follow them are honest countries and there arn't too many of them around. There will be no incentive to follow 'cause everyone else will have one but you......


----------



## trackend (Aug 31, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Nope because the only people that will follow them are the Western Allies.



Agreed Adler. All this lets ban Mines tripe makes me laugh I can just imagine Iran the Taliban ect ect saying lets not produce mines as its a bit naughty. If a IED is not a type of mine whether remote or trip operated then my pricks a bloater.


----------



## Aussie1001 (Aug 31, 2007)

agree with everything trakkie who is going to obey them..


----------



## drgondog (Aug 31, 2007)

lucanus said:


> If you read about Edson's Ridge (aka Raider Ridge) on the Canal, you will see
> that those Gyrenes were using 50 cals with water jacketsto defend their pos
> and the airfield behind...In the daylight in front of the pos the Japs were in
> piles...
> ...



of couse our guys *loved* being taken under fire by German 20mm flak..

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 1, 2007)

trackend said:


> Agreed Adler. All this lets ban Mines tripe makes me laugh I can just imagine Iran the Taliban ect ect saying lets not produce mines as its a bit naughty. If a IED is not a type of mine whether remote or trip operated then my pricks a bloater.



Basically the only countries that abide by the rules are NATO countries and a few other ones.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Sep 8, 2007)

In the WWI airwar, wasn't it considered bad show to fire machineguns with incendiary bullets, designed for taking down ballons by bursting them into flames, into enemy aircraft with pilots? I think there was even a rule saying, that if all your gun had was incendiary bullets, you couldn't fire back at an enemy plane, even if he was attacking you. I guess it was because it was even more painful to have a bullet burning your insides as an added cruelty. 

In WWII, didn't they stop following this rule? As I understand, a lot of WWII planes used incendiary bullets?



Edit: I found the bullet I was thinking of was the Pomeroy Bullet. They didn't use them in WWII. It sounded like the Browning .50 caliber could use incendiary bullets, and the British Browning .30 caliber, and didn't the German MG 131 use them too?

Well, since it was WWII, something had to get worse, and the planes were also tougher to shoot down.


The Pomeroy Bullet
Updated - Saturday, 9 August, 2003

The Pomeroy Bullet was an explosive machine gun bullet deployed specifically for use against the Zeppelin threat over Britain. The incendiary bullet, developed by New Zealand engineer John Pomeroy (1873-1950) in 1902, was quickly adopted by British defence services as a means of combating the growing German Zeppelin threat in the skies above Britain.

Filled with nitro-glycerine the bullet ignited the hydrogen gas which escaped from the tear in the Zeppelin gas bag created by the bullet's passage. The bullet's effectiveness led to a marked decrease in the number of Zeppelin attacks.

In time Pomeroy was paid some £25,000 in royalties for his invention

First World War.com - Encyclopedia - The Pomeroy Bullet


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 8, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Nope because the only people that will follow them are the Western Allies.





Kinda like today with the ballistic tip bullets in the MiddleEast. Some claim that they are "expanding bullets" when in actuality they are only plastic tipped bullets made so for accuracy and whose performance is not expansion, but rather they fragment because they are fragile match bullets.

War is not politically correct. Even the Germans complained about shotguns in WWI as being inhumane. The US uses them to this day while abiding by the Geneva convention that no terrorist will ever hold dear.

Gun laws are only obeyed by civilized people. And I question why we continue to fight a civilized war with these savages.


----------



## Aussie1001 (Sep 9, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> Kinda like today with the ballistic tip bullets in the MiddleEast. Some claim that they are "expanding bullets" when in actuality they are only plastic tipped bullets made so for accuracy and whose performance is not expansion, but rather they fragment because they are fragile match bullets.
> 
> War is not politically correct. Even the Germans complained about shotguns in WWI as being inhumane. The US uses them to this day while abiding by the Geneva convention that no terrorist will ever hold dear.
> 
> Gun laws are only obeyed by civilized people. And I question why we continue to fight a civilized war with these savages.



A Very Very valid point and one that i think is sadly true....


----------



## Screaming Eagle (Sep 11, 2007)

drgondog said:


> The only feature I didn't care for on the Thompson was tendency to 'ride up' in fully automatic fire - but I learned to fire short bursts and was able to control it just fine.



That is why they addded a Cutts compensator on the M1 variant.


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 13, 2007)

...and then removed it because it was operationally insignificant and too expensive to machine.


----------



## Screaming Eagle (Sep 16, 2007)

thanks for the info matt, I didn't know that.


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 17, 2007)

All of those niceties that made the Thompson such a work of art were scrapped because of expediency, too expensive or no military utility.

- Cutts compensator
- 50rd drum mag
- Cooling fins
- Adjustable sights

Too bad you can't buy a semi-auto version to plink around with that doesn't have the short barrel on it. You can, but here in the US you have to have a Class III license and the 16" barrel is a visual monstrosity.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Screaming Eagle (Sep 18, 2007)

Yeah it is a shame. Do they limit class III licences?


----------



## drgondog (Sep 18, 2007)

Screaming Eagle said:


> Yeah it is a shame. Do they limit class III licences?



They are not near as easy to obtain as they were before Clinto took office. The background check is no different but the 'justification' is much tougher.

I didn't like the constant 'visits' and inspections of my books, either.

FFL tougher also. I had one simply because I like to 'build' rifles and custom stock shotguns/rifles as a hobby - but forced out because my place of business then had to be open to public (my home in this case)


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 18, 2007)

Crap. Sorry drgondog. I must vote better.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 26, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> Crap. Sorry drgondog. I must vote better.



Matt - I still 'do' the custom thing but only for myself - I don't really know how you can make a living at it today - very very few people are still alive that can fully inlet a sidelock shot gun, much less start with a buttstock blank and do it from scratch..and do it in 8-16 hours.. it takes me 30-40 hours to do a 22-24 lpi wrap around point pattern on forearm and butt.

That's why Purdey can get $4500-6000 for just a buttstock replacement..

Takes a lot of skill to do it fast on either but checkering is a lot easier.

It took a lot of sell outs to get 1995 GCA passed but hold on to your cheeks for 2009!

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 30, 2007)

Isn't that a fact. Hillary's BATF will truly become the jack booted thugs if she has her way.


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Jan 17, 2018)

Soren said:


> The MP-44 is the best small-arm of WW2, and it saw more action than the Owen - so if you ask me it should be on the list, but nevermind.
> 
> If I had to choose between the above I think its going to be a tie between the Thompson and MP-40.


I'd take the MP-40 slightly over the 1928A-1 Thompson, due to larger magazine capacity (32 vs. 20 rds.) and lighter weight. But I could survive in hostile territory with either weapon, given sufficient extra loaded magazines. If I had the MP-40, I would also want a Walther P-38 for common ammo- if I had the Thompson, I would want a 1911-A-1, again for common ammo.


----------



## Guchi (Apr 25, 2022)

MP-44


----------



## SaparotRob (Apr 25, 2022)

Thompson sub machine gun. Sergeant Saunders never ran out of ammo with it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Christopher Tarana (Apr 27, 2022)

I chose the Thompson Sub-Machine Gun!

Christopher Tarana

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thumpalumpacus (Apr 27, 2022)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I would hate to lug around 11 pounds though all day like that. 11lbs does not seem like a lot but the lighter the weapon the better.



My #1 guitar for over a decade was an 11-lb Les Paul, and I'm here to tell you that after a two-hour gig, even in my late twenties, my left shoulder knew it had earned my money that night.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 27, 2022)

Since I've never used a firearm*, I don't have a favorite. However, my father's (he served on PT boats in the Pacific) favorite automatic weapon of WW2 was the 40 mm Bofors**. He wasn't particularly fond of the Thomson SMG.

----
* I neither like nor dislike guns, _per se_; my life just makes them totally superfluous, as I don't hunt and don't feel any particular need to "protect my home." I'm also not fond of loud noises.

** I wonder if he was thinking "go big or go home." He also got a hernia lifting the receiver out for maintenance.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Apr 27, 2022)

It's a shame the StG44 isn't on the list...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 27, 2022)

swampyankee said:


> Since I've never used a firearm*, I don't have a favorite. However, my father's (he served on PT boats in the Pacific) favorite automatic weapon of WW2 was the 40 mm Bofors**. He wasn't particularly fond of the Thomson SMG.



If you are on a PT boat then you are using a Thomson to repel borders and it beats a Cutlass 

If you are firing ship to ship (or boat to boat) and you are using a shoulder fired weapon.........................................

YOU ARE TOO DARN CLOSE!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------

