So the MP28 was single stack because the MP18 was single stack because it used magazines for the Luger pistol. Then the Sten used used single stack because it drew upon the Lanchester magazine which copied the MP28 so the M3 used single stack as it was a 0.450” version of the Sten magazine. Thus it all goes back to the 1901 Luger design decision.
@@samray3644 the horse butt story is an urban legend. roman carts didn't have standardized axle tracks but it's logical that they were typically around 5 feet wide because that's a convenient size for horses to pull and carpenters to build, and standard gauge rail wasn't adopted until the mid-1800s, about 15 years after stephenson's rocket was built but about a century after the first railways were being built. but the spirit of the story is certainly true. there are all kinds of standards that trace their roots back decades if not centuries. some examples: - the 3.5mm jack that's slowly fading away from smartphones was developed in the 1950s for transistor radios as a miniature version of the 1/4" jack that had been around since 1877 used in telephone switchboards. - the origins of standard 8.5"x11" printer paper are a bit dubious, but they can probably trace their lineage back to the netherlands or england in the 1600s. - traffic lights use the colors that they do because railways started using those colors in the 1800s, even though they're obviously not optimal given that 1 in 12 men and 1 in 200 women are red-green colorblind.
Memories. I bought an M3 in 1966 from a guy rotating out for $20. I was (and still am) amazed at just how simple a full auto weapon can be. Sold it when I rotated out. Sorta wish that I still had it.
I got to shoot one in Vegas years ago and I was really surprised at how heavy it was. For all of my life, up to that point, I had always thought that they would be pretty light because, to me, they looked light. But when I got to the range, I was surprised at how much heft they had. I was equally surprised at how mild the recoil was. Becasue its chambered for .45 I had always expected it to kick like a mule but it really didn't, I don't think that the recoil was much more than an M-16, even when firing bursts it didn't kick much.
When I was a kid, maybe 1985-86 our family went to Cabelas while on vacation. Back when it was awesome and in the old building. They had an m3 that was demilled and two sten guns. They were only twenty bucks. I begged dad to buy them. They are the best toy guns ever... But nope. Mom said no.
@@happyhaunter_5546 I gather that you'[re asking Riceball01, but my memories of 55+ years ago are of a .45 cal aerosol spray that could cook off a round (or two) if you dropped it.
I'd also add a point of view from a manufacturing perspective; the tooling for the Thompson magazines would be getting worn and needing replacement every now and then regardless. Once the ready supply of tools are worn out it would trivial to scrap the worn tooling and re-setting for a new standard as your millwrights are already taking everything apart in the turn-around. More efficient designs make millwrights happy, too. The sane ones, anyway.
They made 1.5million Thompson M1A1s. At a cost of something like $250+ just to build a Thompson.An m1 Garand only cost the government something like $8. There's a reason only one Thompson was used by the squad leader. The gunsmiths making Thompsons spent many many man hours on each individual gun. There's a reason the weapon embodies the style of the time. It's a beautiful looking weapon with a tight fit and finish. The cost and complexity of the Thompson is what created the need for the grease gun, which was produced for $2 or $3.50 each. That's insane if you think about it. The M1A1 was already a simplified version of the previous m1928 styles. There's actually a toggle friction system on the models made before the M1A1. The original designs and designers were pretty confident in the toggle block design and thought it heavily affected the operation of the guns unlocking speed. The receiver is already a complicated block of machined steel, and the toggle design called for a square shaped perfectly machined block that would ride in cammed grooves that were killed on the inside of the receiver. The M1A1 features a more traditional straight blowback only one piece bolt with the charging handle attached to the bolt. Effectively making a design with less separate overall pieces.
The Thompson was like the PPD/ PPSH SMG’s , an incredibly iconic guns that were well liked but replaced purely because they were too expensive/ took too long to make .
@@grzegorzbrzeczyszykiewic3338 The PPS-42/43 was a lot cheaper than the PPSh-41, but the PPSH-41 was still a relatively cheap mostly stamped gun. The gulf between the PPS and PPSh is a lot smaller than the one between the Thompson and the PPSh.
I mean, they look like they could be simplified very easily: Just close the magazine on the back without the T-lug, and then cast/extrude/mill a separate, solid T-lug and spot weld that onto the back of the magazine.
@@DriveCarToBar Magazines were (and arguably still are) "disposable", there's very little in the way of "sunk costs" with a stockpile of surplus magazines, because the guns that used them will also go into surplus and give them life. Playing about with adjusting the design of the M3 to accommodate Thompson mags; being double-feed; and certainly any modification to the Thompson mag - would completely undo any of the proposed goal of the M3 - economising. The extremely disposable single-feed, cheap M3 magazine is orders of magnitude less money to build, and less machine/operator time in the factory. In wartime production, those concerns are key. Wartime procurement was full of cases of buying hundreds or thousands of guns or parts that were never used - the "cost" of the "waste" wasn't a huge concern, but the "value" is. Spending millions on adding elements to the design of the Grease Gun to accommodate Thompson parts vs just dumping Thompson mags into warehouses and stamping a few ounces of sheet steel every few seconds - no contest.
Ian, if you read the TH-cam comments (and are taking a poll) I much prefer these 1-question 6-8 minutes answers to Paetreon questions than the previous monthly hour+ long Q&A sessions. They seem to allow you to give a fuller answer to the question than the previous videos. Just my point of view.
I've read that another factor was that the decision was made to design a 9mm conversion kit for the grease gun (which was never used) and it used Sten magazines. One need only change out the bolt, barrel and recoil spring, and then Sten magazines could be inserted (I'm fairly sure an adapter sleeve would have been part of the conversion kit also, as 9mm mags would have been narrower) and the gun used as a 9mm submachine gun. Obviously, if it was going to use _actual_ Sten mags as a 9mm weapon, the regular, .45ACP magazines had to be similar in design to those of the Sten: double column, single feed.
I was just about to post this- yep, the original TDP required the M3 to use 9mm and Sten mags as a conversion kit. I appreciate Ian's analysis, but if not for that requirement the M3 could have been made to use Thompson magazines, which were readily available in the supply system and would have made supply infinitely easier than the cost and logisitics of developing an all new magazine.
@@freakingabagool3510 Well, the US was using the M1 and M1A1 Thompson by this point in time so the drum mags were already not compatible and likely given out as aid for nations using M1928A1 thompsons (like commonwealth nations).
Another reason the Thompson mags are probably designed that way is because the original guns use drum mags extensively. If you don’t want your drum mags to be bulky and complex, you can’t have a traditional mag well on the gun. The sides need to be open or you have to put a feed tower on every drum mag, so it works better for that to have the features that secure the mag on the back. Suomi and ppsh are similar.
One thing you may have forgot to mention Ian is the Grease gun is way easier to do quick mag changes. The Thompson is harder because you must line up the rail in the mag with the frame of the Thompson to get it to connect and seat. The Grease gun has a regular modern mag well so all you have to do is get the mag in the well and you’re good. Much quicker mag changes, I’m sure the military ordinance officers recognized this. I own both guns and I’ve noticed this problem when competing in sub gun matches.
That's a good reason to eschew Thompson mags specifically, but the M3 is kinda thick and there should have been plenty of room for a double feed mag. Maybe it's worth mentioning that the M3 was designed to be converted to 9mm in the field, and it would have used Sten/MP40 mags, so the .45 mags needed to work similarly.
While possibly true, probably the bigger influence was just that it made for a simpler, cheaper gun. With only one place where the bullet was presented, the feed mechanism is a lot easier to design and tolerances are likely a bit looser.
The Thompson magazine is easier to load since it is a double stack, double presentation magazine. This is because the Tommy gun has a relative wide and long feed ramp to effectively funnel the rounds into the chamber. The finger torturing double stack single presentation magazine on the grease gun is need because the "feed ramp" is a simple chamfer countersunk into the end of the barrel. It goes all the way around as the barrel isn't indexed in any particular position. The single presentation allows the cartridge to align more closely with the chamber over a shorter distance. A Tommy Gun will feed any bullet shape you like, in fact it will usually feed empty cases. The grease gun pretty much need ball to feed reliably if the bullet hits the chamber a tiny bit off angle..
Really loving these shorter, single question q&a videos. I still love the long form ones, but these are great. Thank you so much for all the fantastic content, Ian!
Would this be the same reason for the apparently excellent C96 detachable magazines not becoming the norm for submachine guns? They even get inserted to a magazine well; no tracks or lugs in sight.
Thompson designed the mag catch system around being able to accept a drum. Use of a drum would not allow a mag well. That’s why the t slot was used to give support but keep the mag area open for a drum.
Many often ignore the magazine when they think of costs. A submachine gun needs 6-8 magazines so even small saving in the costs can be significant. When Finland copied the PPS-43 as the KP-49 the cost was 749 marks for a weapon. It was intended to be used with five drum magazines which were 200 marks a piece so the magazines were more than the weapon.
Ian has specifically talked about this. A single feed presents the round in the same position every time. A double feed presents the round in two positions.
Indeed it is. Space might also be the issue, as with virtually every single double stacked pistol currently on the market. Because the double feed would take up more space internally in the pistol, they remain single feed. The grips can be wider to accommodate the double stacked magazine, but the top needs to be thinner due to the typical width of a pistols slide and frame. Notable exceptions being the fn five seven and that Russian pistol who's name eludes me. Grach maybe?
I must admit I was much more in control of the grease gun when I fired it, but the 1928 Thompson was WAAAAAAY more fun to shoot. But flippin hell I'd have hated having to lug one of em around. The poor old grease gun never had the glam factor, did it? Excellent video as always, Ian.
Couldn't agree more. I love my Thompson, even though it is only one of the current prodution ones, but it took owning it for me to finally understand why it was replaced ASAP.
Excellent question and very complete answer. As an engineer I am fascinated by the construction and industrial aspects of firearms. Greetings from Patagonia Argentina.
I think it had less to do with stamped receiver/mag well compatibility, and more to do with the cost of producing a sufficient number of magazines for as many M3s as we're being produced. Producing a stamped mag well to accept Thompson mags would be super easy, barely an inconvenience. But the cost difference on the M3 mag vs the Thompson, while it may seem inconsequential, adds up when you get into big production numbers.
As soon as I saw that beautiful folded sandwich that is the Tompson magazine rail, I understood EVERYTHING. Even for sheet-metal stamping that is a LOT of operations, lots of finicky parts, lots of chances to screw up assembly and junk the whole part.
"Let's start looking at the whole purpose, the raison d'etre of the M3 Grease gun" Ian can't even talk about an American as it gets gun without throwing his love of all things French into it...😆
As the owner of a Reising, the single worst issue I have is finding Reising .45 magazines. It literally took me over a year to find a single magazine, that wasn't over $200 USD for the small 12 rounder. I've seen asking prices now of $400!! Now to see if I can adapt to take M3 magazines, either by modifying the mag's collar or 3d printing a new magwell.
It's also worth noting that 45acp MAC-10s (circa 1964) were originally compatible with M3 mags. In the 90s, 9mm Macs started taking Sten Mags because they were cheap and available
Honestly that adds to the cool factor on the Mac series of pistols and yes macs are basically useless but man they are cool and I love them fun range toy and that's about the extent of them
With these Q&A videos, I'd kind of brainstormed to myself why the grease gun didn't use Thompson mags. And suffice to say, I was darn near spot on in my head.
Drums. TheThompson acepts drum mags as well as stick mags. If you have a mag well the drum would have to have a feed tower to feed the round up to the bolt. Without the tower the drum has to fit flush to the receiver. That requires that the stick mags have some way to guide and hold the mag without a well. the Tee slot acomplishs the guiding of both both mag styles. The Suomi has a similar requirement.
Absolutely, came looking for this comment, this is clearly the main reasons why Thompson designed it that way - even with it being a very early SMG design I still believe he would have used a traditional magwell if drums had not been a consideration
The M-3 Grease gun mag-well could have been made to accept a Thompson magazine if they'd really wanted to. I believe the main reason was that the one real flaw with the Thompson Double feed magazine lips were all too easy to bend when dropped rendering then useless. The upper single feed magazine trough was very robust and far less prone to being damaged.
Fascinating answer to the question, and very nicely detailed; thank you, Ian. What may be interesting is that, when the British Airfix company made a toy Thompson, the magazines had the same T-shaped lug for locating in the mag well.
It’s been said before repeatedly but I am really enjoying the single-question style of Q&A video. I had never really watched the Q&A series because of the length of the videos but I have watched just about every single individual topic. Great improvement on the format!
Hi Ian, been following your channel since it was available. Keeps getting better. I have to comment, that I find your question and answer sessions are always excellant and very informative. Further more being a lifelong gun guy, I can talk and listen about gun stuff ad-nauseoum ,, your channel provides high value content in terms of everything gun related in an historical and relevant manner. Great work and very entertaining and informative..
I thoroughly enjoy these short q&a videos. They are of great quality, and I hope you maintain this format, for my young short attention span brain is just that
I love these stories about the early years of "modern" firearms development and the various different attempts at getting it right that were invented. As just one exampke: I'm sure that very few people in 1908-1910 would have predicted that a Borchardt/Luger type toggle lock would be a dead end.
It is a question I have always wondered. Granted the guns (and ammo) we initially used at work were military hand me downs (military to GSA, then to us), but the Thompson stick mages we had displayed no problems on the range, but sometimes we saw jams with the M3s. I will take the position Army Ordnance messed up by not specifying the new gun had to work with the Thompson stick mags already in inventory. The M3 bolt was a machined block of steel. I concur that making the stamped M3 body hold a Thompson mag would have probably required a little more creativity on the part of the M3 designers, but I think they would have come up with a way if it had been in their tasking,, but it wasn't. Of course we won the war anyway, so what did it matter..
@@victorortiz193 I saw it. I think he should do more range videos like he did with the Reising. I'm not interested in seeing him disassemble the guns I want to see him shoot the things.
Looking at WW2 SMG adopting history and then watching today's military AR-15 family's manufacturing process helps realize how the size of battlefield has shrunk and how the size of industrial civilization has been maximized.
My answer is a bit different. Even if the M3 could have used Thompson mags, those were expensive, which would somewhat undermine the point of the M3. Yes, two different mags did complicate logistics, but US logistics were second to none. The M3 mags did have some downsides, though. Since they were longer than Thompson mags, they wouldn't fit in existing mag pouches. There are actually a lot of pictures of US soldiers with M3 mags stuffed in their trouser pockets. It was pretty late in the war when the M3 pouches made it to the troops.
The Thomson from the start did use big heavy drum magazines,,those mags did really need a lot of surport/rigid mag holding system , way more than just a catch,,the grease gun just neded what they came up with
Another issue to consider is, from a logistics standpoint. Yeah, they had a whole bunch of expensive Thompson guns, and a whole pile of expensive magazines. If you design the M3 to use Thompson mags, now you have a whole pile of expensive Thompsons with an enormous sunk cost in both R&D and production that you can't use for anything, because there aren't any magazines, unless you expand production of expensive Thompson magazines, to support both the existing Thompsons, and the M3. Think about it like this, you're a GI in 1944. Top says to turn in your Thompson for this new whiz-bang SMG, BUT, keep your mags, because they still work. Cool. What happens to the expensive Thompson? It goes into a warehouse somewhere. Because now that this cheap metal Grease-gun thing is flying off assembly lines, they're going to need existing, or expanded Thompson magazine production to feed the pipeline of M3s to the field. Anyway, that's my take on it. Let me know what you think. Different mags actually makes sense.
My istant guess is that the bolts for single feed mag guns are easier to machine and require less specialized workers to make it. Since bolts are much more difficult to machine than stamped steel magazines, it's worth it to spend a little more to make single feed magazines if you can put out a million more cheap guns.
Wish you had described a little bit more about the differences between the bolt feed surfaces required for the double stack double sided feed magazines.
Probably to get a few extra bucks out of people, or they found the solution of shaving down the back of the magazine to fit the gun before shaving a bit off the back of the mag catch. While the MAC-10 and Grease Gun use different styles of mag catch, the MAC uses the lower ledge of the M3’s mag. And it isn’t as if shaving down the mag catch isn’t possible. I know of mag catches which let you use unmodified Grease Gun mags, so the technical possibility is there.
@@classifiedad1 They had to be modified, because they did not work with the magazine catch. Plus like all other companies, they will make their own magazines and other parts so people have to buy from them. Probably the worst gun for this is the AR10 style rifles. There are two main patterns, either the Armalite pattern or the DPMS LR308 pattern. Once DPMS made the LR308, most companies adopted that pattern and most of the AR10 style parts and rifles today are DPMS pattern. But there are a lot of companies out there making their own version of the AR10, and for the uppers and lowers to work you must buy from them, because they will not work with Armalite or LR308 pattern receivers. Since there is no AR10 standard, these companies get to take advantage of people. Even companies that do use Armalite or LR308 pattern receivers will lie on their websites and claim that their receivers will only work with their receivers. For example, Brownells claims their BRN10 receivers only mate to their receivers, but they are lying, because they work with Armalite pattern receivers. Nonetheless, the AR10 style rifles is the most used gun that companies make proprietary parts for and lie about their parts only working on their guns, and they do it so people will but parts from them. One of the funnier ones is BCA, because their AR10 style rifle uses DPMS pattern receivers, but they used to claim you could only use their receivers. Then a lot of people made videos showing they worked with DPMS receivers, so now they just say it is best to just use their receivers, and that their receivers may not mate up with other DPMS pattern receivers. Gun companies scheme just like other companies.
My dad trained paratroopers for Korea.. He didn’t like the Thomson because it was heavy and ate ammunition. He preferred the grease gun because of its lower rate of fire which was fast enough for the purpose it was used for. It was also easier to carry the Thomson was at 10 pounds and the M3 was a little over 8 but could pack smaller.
Probably the same reason why they didn't use the 9×19mm submachine guns that they purchased to drop to European freedom fighters; a combination of "Muh stoppin' powah!" and simplifying logistics by continuing to use the .45 ACP round that they already had loads of and issued with the M1911A1 pistol at the time.
I would say that the Owen wasn’t more than a blip on their radar since it was an Aussie tool shed wonder gun. And my guess with the sten is that the US looked at it and said, “we’re desperate… but not THAT desperate”. It was probably easier to do a clean sheet design than convert a sten to .45. The sten was a good enough gun, especially for Britain with its smaller industry. But the M3 is just a better more ergonomic firearm overall IMO.
They could have cut the "T" off the Thompson mag and made a more modern mag well and it would have been a significant improvement in manufacturing ease I'd think. I think the system I would have proposed would have been a "hybrid." Add a hole to Thompson mags, then add a ramp to the M3. I mean look at the AR9, they basically stuck the feed ramp in the mag block and it wasn't a big deal even when they ran them in FA.
Another fantastic class Ian. Thank you. It would be interesting to know how many weapon systems use the M3 magazine. I know of a few. The M3, the M10, and the volunteer Arms Thompson copy. Anyways, Cheers.
I wish Ian would have put those two mag designs in a quantitative approach, as how much did it cost to build a Thomson mag in 1940/45, vs a Grease gun mag. I'd like to see how much the US Army was trying to skimp on the mags and thought they were saving big bucks :)
So Ian said that the Thompson was basically the third submachine gun ever mass produced. Does anyone know what the first two were? I assume the MP18 was the first but what was the second?
I believe the Thompson's "magwell'" construction was also due to it being engineered with drum magazines in mind, no "well" in the "magwell" means you don't need a long, articulated, awkward follower to push bullets through it.
From what I can gather, there's actually two different mag retention mechanisms at play in the M1928. One offset for the drums and a latch for the hole on the stick mags. It's overengineered with both in mind, without coming to a sane middle ground design for the drums and mags.
The feed ramp(s) on a Thompson are quite long in order for the bolt head to properly feed round from the double stack mag. Also, the Thompson mag has a flare at the front to mate with the feed ramps. All of these could have been overcome with a little more engineering, even with the use of stampings. If they were copying the Sten, US designers should have stuck with the straight tube receiver and side mounted magazines. But then, the US wasn't looking at the M3 as a new infantry weapon, but a compact, quick defense weapon for truckers and tankers.
IMHO they should’ve spend the extra couple cents per unit and implemented a front sight post on the muzzle of the M3 to increase the sight radius much like the MAT49. In that configuration the rear sight could have likewise been moved forward on the receiver so it wasn’t right in the user’s face and still provided a significantly longer sight radius for a better sight picture and target acquisition. If you’ve ever ran an M3 you’d likely agree with this suggestion.
Maybe this can be a patreon thing, but I'd love it if at the end of this month, all of the Ask Ians were compiled into a single video with the intros/extros edited out.
I think the Sten series is the pinnacle of 'just how cheap and mass-produced can a weapon be'? The latter Sten handle is atrocious to the point of almost being unusable; there is a need for a front hand placement but no good one (muzzle jack gets super hot, so you gotta hold onto that mag); the sights are rudimentary. What it does is shoot: and shoot a lot of rounds fast. The American Grease Gun was basically a slightly better step in ergonomics/practical usage over the Sten. Both were basically 1st gen SMGs, only made cheaply due to wartime necessity. Whereas the Thompson was also 1st gen but was overcomplicated and thus fundamentally expensive.
Not sure about the Sten mags, but another annoying thing about Thompson mags is that the tab on the follower that activates the bolt catch is extremely flimsy and prone to break. Changing magazines is also a lot slower and requires more fine motor skills due to that T lug as opposed to a magwell. IMO the only thing more annoying to use then the Thompson stick mags, are the Thompson drum mags...
It’s occurred to me that (on the scale of WW2 mass production) Thompson magazines might have actually cost more to produce than an M3? Anybody know the numbers? (In 1945, Thompsons cost around 3x more than an M3).
The Thomson cost around $200 I believe to make. the Grease gun could be made for $15 or $20. The Thompson mag is more complex shape with a rib and they were nicely blued. I would think it’s more expensive to make than a Grease gun mag.
It may be futile, but I'll keep asking about it for a while at least, but you guys think you'd be able to track down a surviving copy of a KAC PDW in 6x35mm? After they didn't get any contracts after the Secret Service purchases and the commercial market wasn't interested, they straight up evaporated from the internet. Not a whole lot of info on them out there and like 2 videos of them being fired. Even if you couldn't track one down, I would still love to see a video of you talking about it.
Hey Ian I want to ask why didn’t the USA army in the 1900s and ww1 adopt the savage model 99 lever action rifle, that is a lever action that can cycle the US .306 or .308 rounds (I forgot) reliably while not suffering the problem of a lever action firing tipped cartridges because of its able to load like regular bolt actions and with further development could reload faster than a bolt action.
![ทุกครั้งที่หลับตา (Lucid Dream) - AYLA's [ Official MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4i1OBAQyv58/mqdefault.jpg)
So the MP28 was single stack because the MP18 was single stack because it used magazines for the Luger pistol. Then the Sten used used single stack because it drew upon the Lanchester magazine which copied the MP28 so the M3 used single stack as it was a 0.450” version of the Sten magazine. Thus it all goes back to the 1901 Luger design decision.
Yup.
@@ForgottenWeapons as an engineer, I'm screaming inside
This is just like the history of why Jesus Christ is a white dude
Yup, and the width of the modern us railroad goes back to the horse butt width in Rome
@@samray3644 the horse butt story is an urban legend. roman carts didn't have standardized axle tracks but it's logical that they were typically around 5 feet wide because that's a convenient size for horses to pull and carpenters to build, and standard gauge rail wasn't adopted until the mid-1800s, about 15 years after stephenson's rocket was built but about a century after the first railways were being built.
but the spirit of the story is certainly true. there are all kinds of standards that trace their roots back decades if not centuries. some examples:
- the 3.5mm jack that's slowly fading away from smartphones was developed in the 1950s for transistor radios as a miniature version of the 1/4" jack that had been around since 1877 used in telephone switchboards.
- the origins of standard 8.5"x11" printer paper are a bit dubious, but they can probably trace their lineage back to the netherlands or england in the 1600s.
- traffic lights use the colors that they do because railways started using those colors in the 1800s, even though they're obviously not optimal given that 1 in 12 men and 1 in 200 women are red-green colorblind.
Memories. I bought an M3 in 1966 from a guy rotating out for $20. I was (and still am) amazed at just how simple a full auto weapon can be. Sold it when I rotated out. Sorta wish that I still had it.
I got to shoot one in Vegas years ago and I was really surprised at how heavy it was. For all of my life, up to that point, I had always thought that they would be pretty light because, to me, they looked light. But when I got to the range, I was surprised at how much heft they had. I was equally surprised at how mild the recoil was. Becasue its chambered for .45 I had always expected it to kick like a mule but it really didn't, I don't think that the recoil was much more than an M-16, even when firing bursts it didn't kick much.
How did you like it? Have an ongoing argument with a friend who hates them solely because of rumors his dad heard in Desert Storm as tanker
When I was a kid, maybe 1985-86 our family went to Cabelas while on vacation. Back when it was awesome and in the old building.
They had an m3 that was demilled and two sten guns. They were only twenty bucks.
I begged dad to buy them. They are the best toy guns ever... But nope. Mom said no.
@@happyhaunter_5546
I think Ian has answered this before, but essentially the guns were old and worn by then and therefore had problems.
@@happyhaunter_5546 I gather that you'[re asking Riceball01, but my memories of 55+ years ago are of a .45 cal aerosol spray that could cook off a round (or two) if you dropped it.
I'd also add a point of view from a manufacturing perspective; the tooling for the Thompson magazines would be getting worn and needing replacement every now and then regardless. Once the ready supply of tools are worn out it would trivial to scrap the worn tooling and re-setting for a new standard as your millwrights are already taking everything apart in the turn-around.
More efficient designs make millwrights happy, too.
The sane ones, anyway.
I mean you'd be swapping from milling equipment to stamping presses, not a small change by any stretch but I get where you're coming from
They made 1.5million Thompson M1A1s. At a cost of something like $250+ just to build a Thompson.An m1 Garand only cost the government something like $8. There's a reason only one Thompson was used by the squad leader. The gunsmiths making Thompsons spent many many man hours on each individual gun. There's a reason the weapon embodies the style of the time. It's a beautiful looking weapon with a tight fit and finish. The cost and complexity of the Thompson is what created the need for the grease gun, which was produced for $2 or $3.50 each. That's insane if you think about it. The M1A1 was already a simplified version of the previous m1928 styles. There's actually a toggle friction system on the models made before the M1A1. The original designs and designers were pretty confident in the toggle block design and thought it heavily affected the operation of the guns unlocking speed. The receiver is already a complicated block of machined steel, and the toggle design called for a square shaped perfectly machined block that would ride in cammed grooves that were killed on the inside of the receiver.
The M1A1 features a more traditional straight blowback only one piece bolt with the charging handle attached to the bolt. Effectively making a design with less separate overall pieces.
Even the Thomson's magazines were incredibly complex and expensive to produce.
The Thompson was like the PPD/ PPSH SMG’s , an incredibly iconic guns that were well liked but replaced purely because they were too expensive/ took too long to make .
@@grzegorzbrzeczyszykiewic3338 The PPS-42/43 was a lot cheaper than the PPSh-41, but the PPSH-41 was still a relatively cheap mostly stamped gun. The gulf between the PPS and PPSh is a lot smaller than the one between the Thompson and the PPSh.
I mean, they look like they could be simplified very easily: Just close the magazine on the back without the T-lug, and then cast/extrude/mill a separate, solid T-lug and spot weld that onto the back of the magazine.
@@DriveCarToBar Magazines were (and arguably still are) "disposable", there's very little in the way of "sunk costs" with a stockpile of surplus magazines, because the guns that used them will also go into surplus and give them life.
Playing about with adjusting the design of the M3 to accommodate Thompson mags; being double-feed; and certainly any modification to the Thompson mag - would completely undo any of the proposed goal of the M3 - economising.
The extremely disposable single-feed, cheap M3 magazine is orders of magnitude less money to build, and less machine/operator time in the factory. In wartime production, those concerns are key.
Wartime procurement was full of cases of buying hundreds or thousands of guns or parts that were never used - the "cost" of the "waste" wasn't a huge concern, but the "value" is. Spending millions on adding elements to the design of the Grease Gun to accommodate Thompson parts vs just dumping Thompson mags into warehouses and stamping a few ounces of sheet steel every few seconds - no contest.
with an open bolt gun, the magazine is everything. yes, they are probably the most complex and highly engineered and specific part of the gun.
Ian, if you read the TH-cam comments (and are taking a poll) I much prefer these 1-question 6-8 minutes answers to Paetreon questions than the previous monthly hour+ long Q&A sessions. They seem to allow you to give a fuller answer to the question than the previous videos. Just my point of view.
I like both
I like the monthly group of questions...
I prefer this format too.
This format is nice because it's not a big time commitment to watch and you know exactly what you're getting.
I've read that another factor was that the decision was made to design a 9mm conversion kit for the grease gun (which was never used) and it used Sten magazines. One need only change out the bolt, barrel and recoil spring, and then Sten magazines could be inserted (I'm fairly sure an adapter sleeve would have been part of the conversion kit also, as 9mm mags would have been narrower) and the gun used as a 9mm submachine gun. Obviously, if it was going to use _actual_ Sten mags as a 9mm weapon, the regular, .45ACP magazines had to be similar in design to those of the Sten: double column, single feed.
I was just about to post this- yep, the original TDP required the M3 to use 9mm and Sten mags as a conversion kit. I appreciate Ian's analysis, but if not for that requirement the M3 could have been made to use Thompson magazines, which were readily available in the supply system and would have made supply infinitely easier than the cost and logisitics of developing an all new magazine.
@@svenjonsson9 not to mention, 50 round Thompson drum mags in the grease gun would be pretty bitchin’
@@freakingabagool3510 Well, the US was using the M1 and M1A1 Thompson by this point in time so the drum mags were already not compatible and likely given out as aid for nations using M1928A1 thompsons (like commonwealth nations).
Another reason the Thompson mags are probably designed that way is because the original guns use drum mags extensively. If you don’t want your drum mags to be bulky and complex, you can’t have a traditional mag well on the gun. The sides need to be open or you have to put a feed tower on every drum mag, so it works better for that to have the features that secure the mag on the back. Suomi and ppsh are similar.
Ian: *flexes on everyone by using a rare, obscure French smg as an example*
Did Ian ever find that French long ammo, while we're on the MAT?
I believe so star ammunition manufacturing I think makes brass and I think he said somebody was using it to make new ammunition.
He did manage to find some for the MAS 38.
th-cam.com/video/eEy-gy_8gqY/w-d-xo.html
Digging these single Q&A videos, it is a great format and extremely interesting.
Great!
@@ForgottenWeapons Agreed, I like these snacky shorts better than the long-form Q&A videos
One thing you may have forgot to mention Ian is the Grease gun is way easier to do quick mag changes. The Thompson is harder because you must line up the rail in the mag with the frame of the Thompson to get it to connect and seat. The Grease gun has a regular modern mag well so all you have to do is get the mag in the well and you’re good. Much quicker mag changes, I’m sure the military ordinance officers recognized this. I own both guns and I’ve noticed this problem when competing in sub gun matches.
@Emerius Jones thx
That's a good reason to eschew Thompson mags specifically, but the M3 is kinda thick and there should have been plenty of room for a double feed mag. Maybe it's worth mentioning that the M3 was designed to be converted to 9mm in the field, and it would have used Sten/MP40 mags, so the .45 mags needed to work similarly.
While possibly true, probably the bigger influence was just that it made for a simpler, cheaper gun. With only one place where the bullet was presented, the feed mechanism is a lot easier to design and tolerances are likely a bit looser.
Reference Ian's earlier video "Single feed vs Double Feed". Like all his videos, there is a lot of really good info in it.
The Thompson magazine is easier to load since it is a double stack, double presentation magazine. This is because the Tommy gun has a relative wide and long feed ramp to effectively funnel the rounds into the chamber. The finger torturing double stack single presentation magazine on the grease gun is need because the "feed ramp" is a simple chamfer countersunk into the end of the barrel. It goes all the way around as the barrel isn't indexed in any particular position. The single presentation allows the cartridge to align more closely with the chamber over a shorter distance. A Tommy Gun will feed any bullet shape you like, in fact it will usually feed empty cases. The grease gun pretty much need ball to feed reliably if the bullet hits the chamber a tiny bit off angle..
Really loving these shorter, single question q&a videos. I still love the long form ones, but these are great. Thank you so much for all the fantastic content, Ian!
Would this be the same reason for the apparently excellent C96 detachable magazines not becoming the norm for submachine guns? They even get inserted to a magazine well; no tracks or lugs in sight.
Thompson designed the mag catch system around being able to accept a drum. Use of a drum would not allow a mag well. That’s why the t slot was used to give support but keep the mag area open for a drum.
Many often ignore the magazine when they think of costs. A submachine gun needs 6-8 magazines so even small saving in the costs can be significant. When Finland copied the PPS-43 as the KP-49 the cost was 749 marks for a weapon. It was intended to be used with five drum magazines which were 200 marks a piece so the magazines were more than the weapon.
My guess is simplicity it’s easier to design a gun around a single feed mag than a double feed mag
Ya , I agree 👍
100% correct
It's ask Ian, not ask a regular person...
Ian has specifically talked about this. A single feed presents the round in the same position every time. A double feed presents the round in two positions.
Indeed it is. Space might also be the issue, as with virtually every single double stacked pistol currently on the market. Because the double feed would take up more space internally in the pistol, they remain single feed. The grips can be wider to accommodate the double stacked magazine, but the top needs to be thinner due to the typical width of a pistols slide and frame.
Notable exceptions being the fn five seven and that Russian pistol who's name eludes me. Grach maybe?
I must admit I was much more in control of the grease gun when I fired it, but the 1928 Thompson was WAAAAAAY more fun to shoot. But flippin hell I'd have hated having to lug one of em around. The poor old grease gun never had the glam factor, did it? Excellent video as always, Ian.
Couldn't agree more. I love my Thompson, even though it is only one of the current prodution ones, but it took owning it for me to finally understand why it was replaced ASAP.
Excellent question and very complete answer. As an engineer I am fascinated by the construction and industrial aspects of firearms. Greetings from Patagonia Argentina.
I think it had less to do with stamped receiver/mag well compatibility, and more to do with the cost of producing a sufficient number of magazines for as many M3s as we're being produced. Producing a stamped mag well to accept Thompson mags would be super easy, barely an inconvenience. But the cost difference on the M3 mag vs the Thompson, while it may seem inconsequential, adds up when you get into big production numbers.
As soon as I saw that beautiful folded sandwich that is the Tompson magazine rail, I understood EVERYTHING.
Even for sheet-metal stamping that is a LOT of operations, lots of finicky parts, lots of chances to screw up assembly and junk the whole part.
love these short form question videos instead of the long form qna videos, far more digestible and easy to access. Keep them coming!!
"Let's start looking at the whole purpose, the raison d'etre of the M3 Grease gun"
Ian can't even talk about an American as it gets gun without throwing his love of all things French into it...😆
He even used his MAS 38 to illustrate a "modern" style of magazine!
I was waiting for him to say that the M3 was the ne plus ultra of SMG simplification. The crème de menthe.
Mais bien sur mon ami
As the owner of a Reising, the single worst issue I have is finding Reising .45 magazines. It literally took me over a year to find a single magazine, that wasn't over $200 USD for the small 12 rounder. I've seen asking prices now of $400!!
Now to see if I can adapt to take M3 magazines, either by modifying the mag's collar or 3d printing a new magwell.
It's also worth noting that 45acp MAC-10s (circa 1964) were originally compatible with M3 mags. In the 90s, 9mm Macs started taking Sten Mags because they were cheap and available
Honestly that adds to the cool factor on the Mac series of pistols and yes macs are basically useless but man they are cool and I love them fun range toy and that's about the extent of them
With these Q&A videos, I'd kind of brainstormed to myself why the grease gun didn't use Thompson mags. And suffice to say, I was darn near spot on in my head.
Drums. TheThompson acepts drum mags as well as stick mags. If you have a mag well the drum would have to have a feed tower to feed the round up to the bolt. Without the tower the drum has to fit flush to the receiver. That requires that the stick mags have some way to guide and hold the mag without a well. the Tee slot acomplishs the guiding of both both mag styles. The Suomi has a similar requirement.
Right, the Thompson actually started with drum mags, box mags weren’t invented for it until later.
Absolutely, came looking for this comment, this is clearly the main reasons why Thompson designed it that way - even with it being a very early SMG design I still believe he would have used a traditional magwell if drums had not been a consideration
The 1928 model Thompson's use drum mags. The simplified m 1A Thompsons do not.
The M-3 Grease gun mag-well could have been made to accept a Thompson magazine if they'd really wanted to. I believe the main reason was that the one real flaw with the Thompson Double feed magazine lips were all too easy to bend when dropped rendering then useless. The upper single feed magazine trough was very robust and far less prone to being damaged.
Loving this new Q&A format Ian. I much prefer bite size pieces vs the long format, cheers!
The question I never thought to ask but always needed answered
Fascinating answer to the question, and very nicely detailed; thank you, Ian. What may be interesting is that, when the British Airfix company made a toy Thompson, the magazines had the same T-shaped lug for locating in the mag well.
Love these little videos answering questions ive never thought of.
Another great video Ian. I'm really liking these dives into specific questions. Very technical and interesting.
Don't normally comment, but I want to say how much I love this series for smaller form Q&A's. Keep up the great work Ian!
This has been a question on my mind for years! Thanks Forgotten Weapons!
I'm really enjoying these short question/answer videos from Ian.
a simple man is in awe of complexity, a genius is in awe of simplicity
Ian is the definition of an expert. He is proof that by doing your homework and educating yourself you can create your own profession.
I guess Thompson wanted the magazine attachment sturdy because it used drum mags as well which are even heavier than 30 round mags
In a alternative universe, there's a 100rds drum for the M3...
That must be like at least a 20 seconds mag dump XD
An American PPHS?? I would like to see that!!
it would jam at least vour times though
Oh you mean the one in Fallout 3 *wink*
It would be between 13 and 15 seconds of sustained fire assuming a cyclic rate around 400/450 rpm.
@@manitoba-op4jx theoretical sustained fire is just ammo÷(rpm÷60). Takes all of 5 seconds to do.
I really like this new Q&A format.
The sheet metal for the magazine appears to be hand cut with tin snips verses being stamp cut. Interesting for mass production.
It’s been said before repeatedly but I am really enjoying the single-question style of Q&A video. I had never really watched the Q&A series because of the length of the videos but I have watched just about every single individual topic. Great improvement on the format!
I like the monthly group...
I really like these Ask Ian videos, thanks for sharing them for non-members to see!
Just wanted to tell you how much I enjoy these regular "bite-sized" videos! Thanks for such great content!
Hi Ian, been following your channel since it was available. Keeps getting better. I have to comment, that I find your question and answer sessions are always excellant and very informative. Further more being a lifelong gun guy, I can talk and listen about gun stuff ad-nauseoum ,, your channel provides high value content in terms of everything gun related in an historical and relevant manner. Great work and very entertaining and informative..
I thoroughly enjoy these short q&a videos. They are of great quality, and I hope you maintain this format, for my young short attention span brain is just that
I love these stories about the early years of "modern" firearms development and the various different attempts at getting it right that were invented.
As just one exampke: I'm sure that very few people in 1908-1910 would have predicted that a Borchardt/Luger type toggle lock would be a dead end.
It's so long since I've seen the M2 videos. I didn't realize they were metal sintered. No wonder they had issues tooling up.
It is a question I have always wondered. Granted the guns (and ammo) we initially used at work were military hand me downs (military to GSA, then to us), but the Thompson stick mages we had displayed no problems on the range, but sometimes we saw jams with the M3s. I will take the position Army Ordnance messed up by not specifying the new gun had to work with the Thompson stick mags already in inventory. The M3 bolt was a machined block of steel. I concur that making the stamped M3 body hold a Thompson mag would have probably required a little more creativity on the part of the M3 designers, but I think they would have come up with a way if it had been in their tasking,, but it wasn't. Of course we won the war anyway, so what did it matter..
I am really enjoying these qiestion and answer series!
I really like how so many ww2 smgs are just "it's MP28 all the way down"
The .45 caliber Reising was ,in fact, used by Marines in the Pacific though it proved much too sensitive to the mud and dirt of combat conditions.
Check the video Ian did about the reising. I think is the best smg ever...
@@victorortiz193
I saw it. I think he should do more range videos like he did with the Reising. I'm not interested in seeing him disassemble the guns I want to see him shoot the things.
Looking at WW2 SMG adopting history and then watching today's military AR-15 family's manufacturing process helps realize how the size of battlefield has shrunk and how the size of industrial civilization has been maximized.
I'm loving this kind of videos, Ian!
My answer is a bit different. Even if the M3 could have used Thompson mags, those were expensive, which would somewhat undermine the point of the M3. Yes, two different mags did complicate logistics, but US logistics were second to none.
The M3 mags did have some downsides, though. Since they were longer than Thompson mags, they wouldn't fit in existing mag pouches. There are actually a lot of pictures of US soldiers with M3 mags stuffed in their trouser pockets. It was pretty late in the war when the M3 pouches made it to the troops.
Really loving all these ask ians.
I've been wondering the same question for a while now.
I have wondered this myself, but figured it was a cost issue.
the cheapo ww2 smgs like the grease gun, sten and pps-43 are so charming
The Thomson from the start did use big heavy drum magazines,,those mags did really need a lot of surport/rigid mag holding system , way more than just a catch,,the grease gun just neded what they came up with
Another issue to consider is, from a logistics standpoint.
Yeah, they had a whole bunch of expensive Thompson guns, and a whole pile of expensive magazines.
If you design the M3 to use Thompson mags, now you have a whole pile of expensive Thompsons with an enormous sunk cost in both R&D and production that you can't use for anything, because there aren't any magazines, unless you expand production of expensive Thompson magazines, to support both the existing Thompsons, and the M3.
Think about it like this, you're a GI in 1944. Top says to turn in your Thompson for this new whiz-bang SMG, BUT, keep your mags, because they still work. Cool.
What happens to the expensive Thompson? It goes into a warehouse somewhere. Because now that this cheap metal Grease-gun thing is flying off assembly lines, they're going to need existing, or expanded Thompson magazine production to feed the pipeline of M3s to the field.
Anyway, that's my take on it. Let me know what you think. Different mags actually makes sense.
My istant guess is that the bolts for single feed mag guns are easier to machine and require less specialized workers to make it. Since bolts are much more difficult to machine than stamped steel magazines, it's worth it to spend a little more to make single feed magazines if you can put out a million more cheap guns.
I like the new Q&A format. Thanks Ian.
Keep these good questions coming guys!
I never fail to be intrigued and fascinated by your videos. Keep up the good work!
I still love the sten.
If they ever repeal the NFA or even just drop the Hughes Amendment, I want a Sten.
Only Ian would break out the MAS-38 for a magazine breakdown
I’m liking the shorter Q&A format, though the long-form videos in the smoking jacket were a bit more classy.
Wish you had described a little bit more about the differences between the bolt feed surfaces required for the double stack double sided feed magazines.
Wondering why the M10 wasn't manufactured to accept M3 mags without modification.
Probably to get a few extra bucks out of people, or they found the solution of shaving down the back of the magazine to fit the gun before shaving a bit off the back of the mag catch.
While the MAC-10 and Grease Gun use different styles of mag catch, the MAC uses the lower ledge of the M3’s mag.
And it isn’t as if shaving down the mag catch isn’t possible. I know of mag catches which let you use unmodified Grease Gun mags, so the technical possibility is there.
@@classifiedad1 They had to be modified, because they did not work with the magazine catch. Plus like all other companies, they will make their own magazines and other parts so people have to buy from them. Probably the worst gun for this is the AR10 style rifles. There are two main patterns, either the Armalite pattern or the DPMS LR308 pattern. Once DPMS made the LR308, most companies adopted that pattern and most of the AR10 style parts and rifles today are DPMS pattern. But there are a lot of companies out there making their own version of the AR10, and for the uppers and lowers to work you must buy from them, because they will not work with Armalite or LR308 pattern receivers. Since there is no AR10 standard, these companies get to take advantage of people. Even companies that do use Armalite or LR308 pattern receivers will lie on their websites and claim that their receivers will only work with their receivers. For example, Brownells claims their BRN10 receivers only mate to their receivers, but they are lying, because they work with Armalite pattern receivers. Nonetheless, the AR10 style rifles is the most used gun that companies make proprietary parts for and lie about their parts only working on their guns, and they do it so people will but parts from them. One of the funnier ones is BCA, because their AR10 style rifle uses DPMS pattern receivers, but they used to claim you could only use their receivers. Then a lot of people made videos showing they worked with DPMS receivers, so now they just say it is best to just use their receivers, and that their receivers may not mate up with other DPMS pattern receivers. Gun companies scheme just like other companies.
My dad trained paratroopers for Korea..
He didn’t like the Thomson because it was heavy and ate ammunition.
He preferred the grease gun because of its lower rate of fire which was fast enough for the purpose it was used for.
It was also easier to carry the Thomson was at 10 pounds and the M3 was a little over 8 but could pack smaller.
Fleming's M16 in .45 used modified Thompson magazines. I want to see one being shot. He made an integrally supressed one too.
Interesting question and answer
Did the US consider adopting a STEN or Owen SMG? If so why didn’t they?
Probably the same reason why they didn't use the 9×19mm submachine guns that they purchased to drop to European freedom fighters; a combination of "Muh stoppin' powah!" and simplifying logistics by continuing to use the .45 ACP round that they already had loads of and issued with the M1911A1 pistol at the time.
Mostly national pride and patriotism, just like every other big nation(local/world power) with industrial capability and gunmaking experience.
National pride, most likely.
@@stevenbobbybills You can't forget the simple reason of it's not American same reason why they had the M14 instead of a FAL, G3 or BM59 later on
I would say that the Owen wasn’t more than a blip on their radar since it was an Aussie tool shed wonder gun.
And my guess with the sten is that the US looked at it and said, “we’re desperate… but not THAT desperate”. It was probably easier to do a clean sheet design than convert a sten to .45.
The sten was a good enough gun, especially for Britain with its smaller industry. But the M3 is just a better more ergonomic firearm overall IMO.
They could have cut the "T" off the Thompson mag and made a more modern mag well and it would have been a significant improvement in manufacturing ease I'd think.
I think the system I would have proposed would have been a "hybrid." Add a hole to Thompson mags, then add a ramp to the M3. I mean look at the AR9, they basically stuck the feed ramp in the mag block and it wasn't a big deal even when they ran them in FA.
oh gawd the cosmoline on that Thompson mag...
I really enjoy this form of content. The full Q&A's are very enjoyable too.
Another fantastic class Ian. Thank you. It would be interesting to know how many weapon systems use the M3 magazine. I know of a few. The M3, the M10, and the volunteer Arms Thompson copy. Anyways, Cheers.
I wish Ian would have put those two mag designs in a quantitative approach, as how much did it cost to build a Thomson mag in 1940/45, vs a Grease gun mag. I'd like to see how much the US Army was trying to skimp on the mags and thought they were saving big bucks :)
So Ian said that the Thompson was basically the third submachine gun ever mass produced. Does anyone know what the first two were? I assume the MP18 was the first but what was the second?
Maybe the MP.34?
Second were the split-up versions of the Villar Perosa.
@@ForgottenWeapons Cheers mate, was wondering that myself.
@@ForgottenWeapons OK, first ten then?
I believe the Thompson's "magwell'" construction was also due to it being engineered with drum magazines in mind, no "well" in the "magwell" means you don't need a long, articulated, awkward follower to push bullets through it.
From what I can gather, there's actually two different mag retention mechanisms at play in the M1928. One offset for the drums and a latch for the hole on the stick mags.
It's overengineered with both in mind, without coming to a sane middle ground design for the drums and mags.
The feed ramp(s) on a Thompson are quite long in order for the bolt head to properly feed round from the double stack mag. Also, the Thompson mag has a flare at the front to mate with the feed ramps. All of these could have been overcome with a little more engineering, even with the use of stampings. If they were copying the Sten, US designers should have stuck with the straight tube receiver and side mounted magazines. But then, the US wasn't looking at the M3 as a new infantry weapon, but a compact, quick defense weapon for truckers and tankers.
IMHO they should’ve spend the extra couple cents per unit and implemented a front sight post on the muzzle of the M3 to increase the sight radius much like the MAT49. In that configuration the rear sight could have likewise been moved forward on the receiver so it wasn’t right in the user’s face and still provided a significantly longer sight radius for a better sight picture and target acquisition.
If you’ve ever ran an M3 you’d likely agree with this suggestion.
“Sterdilly,” hilarious!
Maybe this can be a patreon thing, but I'd love it if at the end of this month, all of the Ask Ians were compiled into a single video with the intros/extros edited out.
I think the Sten series is the pinnacle of 'just how cheap and mass-produced can a weapon be'?
The latter Sten handle is atrocious to the point of almost being unusable; there is a need for a front hand placement but no good one (muzzle jack gets super hot, so you gotta hold onto that mag); the sights are rudimentary.
What it does is shoot: and shoot a lot of rounds fast.
The American Grease Gun was basically a slightly better step in ergonomics/practical usage over the Sten. Both were basically 1st gen SMGs, only made cheaply due to wartime necessity. Whereas the Thompson was also 1st gen but was overcomplicated and thus fundamentally expensive.
I have known WW2 Sten gun users who were delighted with it. Did the job within the range the average infantryman used to engage the enemy.
Not sure about the Sten mags, but another annoying thing about Thompson mags is that the tab on the follower that activates the bolt catch is extremely flimsy and prone to break. Changing magazines is also a lot slower and requires more fine motor skills due to that T lug as opposed to a magwell. IMO the only thing more annoying to use then the Thompson stick mags, are the Thompson drum mags...
Great question
It’s occurred to me that (on the scale of WW2 mass production) Thompson magazines might have actually cost more to produce than an M3?
Anybody know the numbers?
(In 1945, Thompsons cost around 3x more than an M3).
The Thomson cost around $200 I believe to make. the Grease gun could be made for $15 or $20. The Thompson mag is more complex shape with a rib and they were nicely blued. I would think it’s more expensive to make than a Grease gun mag.
@@DriveCarToBar true I own a 1928 so I heard they were around $200 I didn’t realize they got the M1A1 that low for cost.
I would have like to have SEEN a grease gun magazine next to the Thompson magazine.
I really do wanna see a m3 with m1921 furniture and drum mag
It may be futile, but I'll keep asking about it for a while at least, but you guys think you'd be able to track down a surviving copy of a KAC PDW in 6x35mm? After they didn't get any contracts after the Secret Service purchases and the commercial market wasn't interested, they straight up evaporated from the internet. Not a whole lot of info on them out there and like 2 videos of them being fired. Even if you couldn't track one down, I would still love to see a video of you talking about it.
The M2 smg is a neat looking gun
Thank you , Ian .
🐺
Initially the Thompson also accepted drum magazines and couldn’t have mag wells, needing the more rigid mags.
Noticed the french MAS 38 as a reference at 2:25 :)
I figured the answer would be how the Thompson mag works
Amazing introducing
Hey Ian I want to ask why didn’t the USA army in the 1900s and ww1 adopt the savage model 99 lever action rifle, that is a lever action that can cycle the US .306 or .308 rounds (I forgot) reliably while not suffering the problem of a lever action firing tipped cartridges because of its able to load like regular bolt actions and with further development could reload faster than a bolt action.