Battle of the Submachine Guns Pt.1: M1A1 Thompson
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ส.ค. 2024
- Battle of the Submachine Guns Pt.1 M1A1 Thompson
Click here to subscribe:
www.youtube.com...
Click here to keep up with me:
Twitter: / larryvickers
Facebook: / larryvickers
Instagram: / lvickers45
Other videos you should see:
Minigun Torture Test
• Torture Test of Mini-Gun
Insane Russian Shooting Drill
• INSANE Russian Counter... .
Badass Slow Motion Heavy Weapons Sequence
• BADASS Slow Motion Hea... .
50 Cal Machine Gun
• Browning M2 50 Cal Mac... .
Larry reunites with legendary firearms trainer Ken Hackathorn and they compare the M1A1 Thompson and M3 Grease gun to one of the new kids on the Sub-Machine gun block…the KRISS Vector! Comparing everything from accuracy, controllability, and power on target, they find out if the new pup is up to the challenge of the battle tested veterans! - บันเทิง
It's extremely difficult to dislike the Thompson. a machine gun that fires a .45 ACP is just so appealing. The power and accuracy, especially within the 100 yard range, are excellent.
Some Active duty armor units still had M3 grease guns during 2nd invasion of Iraq in 2003/2004.
STB 1971 I did not know that!
I can believe that. We had M3s in our M110 Howitzers during the First Gulf War.
That is true. I carried a mac 10 along with my m4 and beretta. It was alot easier to use when sweeping houses...
WWII's real experts with the Thompson were American paratroopers in the ETO. They practiced extensively, and in combat, fired short bursts from the hip. They did not use the sights, and they did not miss. You'll notice that the Thompson feels a bit odd when shouldered. Stick the butt stock under your arm and clamp it with your elbow, and suddenly the gun fits, and is perfectly balanced. With practice, the gun will shoot where you're looking, every time.
tsmgguy so gangsters were using it right this whole time?
Kinda funny to think that because if you look at the Iron Sights its as if they were made for an entirely different gun. No point in trying to target shoot.
They really put the Thompson on blast and said a lot of exaggerated things. The Thompson was and is a great SMG. I have heard of police officers using the M1A1 Thompson today because of its effectiveness and firepower. One thing I have learned is that cheap is not always (or never) better. It may be expensive but the price will be all worth it. It could go through a lot of tough terrain modern weapons would have trouble with such as the urban areas, cold mountains in Korea, jungles of Vietnam. It's 10 lbs weight would reduce recoil. It's almost all about compensating.
+Stanley Yelnats True that. Hell I have heard of some police officers who still use the M1A1 Thompson because of the power it has.
Exactly. I have heard of police officers and SWAT operators who use the Thompson. The weight keeps the recoil down anyway.
M1A1s still being used by officers??? Where the hell did you hear that??
I gotta say, maybe I'm ignorant, but I have to disagree with you on saying the m3 is a better weapon than the m1a1 thompson. The Thompson had a higher rate of fire, higher muzzle velocity meaning more power, and was extremely reliable, because its principles of operation were so simple. Also, the Thompson was very, very controllable and accurate when fired correctly; at the hip
What a silly comment. Fire rate is only a factor at very short ranges, muzzle velocity hardly a factor at all given the slight difference between the M3 and the M1A1-your last bit about firing from the hip is laughable. Go to the range and try to hit targets at 50m or 100m from the hip. Even if you could pull it off it would be quicker to have good, functioning sights like on the M3.
@@calebhu6383 ok. You seem defensive. Did I inadvertently offend you as a person? When you're ready to drop the unwarranted venom and have an adult conversation get back to me. Also recognize that there are some elements of bias in my comment. I know both submachine guns far better than you do, both in the mathematical principles of operation and performance. I was an engineer at Remington. However, I simply think the thompson is more attractive and iconic. Seriously, if you want to get into a discussion about each submachine gun your amount of knowledge will look laughably small compared to mine. Better stick to piano, my friend.
The Thompson is good, but it's heavy and expensive.
Higher capacity, when in drum form, and higher fire rate--no I think I would
rather have the Thompson. Granted I have never fired the Grease gun and
it's an ugly gun which is why it is not popular, but a Thompson in the hands
of a strong shooter who could control it better would still have you dead sooner. I was unimpressed with the times even for the Kriss which I also own and love. But the Thompson has a special place in my heart so much that I own three. I shoot it more
than any and find it deadly accurate within 50 yards.
Drums were often known to cause feed problems for the Thompson, but if it were to be modernised in some form like the BAR was with the HCAR, it would be an interesting weapon.
You say you own both the vector and the Thompson do they shoot the same ammo even down to the grain or does the Thompson take a different type of 45
Great video as usual.
H&R Reising Model 50 SMG, 45 acp
This is the kind of stuff I love to see!
What I wouldn't give for one of those Kriss Vector subguns! You can add it to the P90 & the Glock G18C as the top three reasons I truly hate the blatantly UNCONSTITUTIONAL Hughes Amendment to the National Firearms Act!!! (BTW, I'm not especially fond of anything else in the NFA either, and that goes double for the restrictions on sound suppressors, SBR's & SBSG's!)
Hot damn!!!! Ya'll are in Dunn. I drive through Dunn all the time going back and forth between Raleigh and North Myrtle Beach. Love that tommy gun and some .45 acp. Keep on trucking Vic&Hac!
Hmm... despite of the Thompson's heavy 10 pounds weight, recoil, and inaccuracy over 50 yards. I still prefer the Chicago Typewriter over the M3 and M3A1 SMGs, because of the Thompson's fame history, higher rate of fire, better magazines, and high reliability during the winters of WWII, Korean War, and during the jungles at WWII and Vietnam War.The Thompson SMGs are more effective than M3 and M3A1 SMGs during combat, it's just the shooter need to bring more skills than usual to master using the Tommy Gun in general of controlling the gun and reloading it at any situation.
Larry vickers is a combat tested warro and ex delta force operatwr and a world class shooter. You, on the othwr hand dont k ow a dn thing, the m3 is the superior weapom the thompson is just famous and over rated
Jr Juarez The MAC-10 is better than both those guns, but didn't show much service in the US military. The machine pistol is lighter, extremely compact, very high rate of fire,and got a option to be suppress. However, it came too late and the gun gotta be held like a ordinary pistol because lack of a proper fore-grip. Also the fire rate makes it a bit difficult to control on full-auto, but MAC-10s did make the 80s roar though. A decent weapon for the tanker and pilot.
Nihil
The guy who runs "GI History Handbook" keeps telling me that weapons don't matter. "Stop fetishizing weapons! The Americans and Germans could have switched weapons with ZERO effect!"
This is a good show for people who don't know much about guns. What I mean is for us gun owners who know guns it's extremely painful to watch.
Video starts 1:19
I always felt the grease gun never got its full due. Nice to hear i'm right. Lol. Had i been in WW2, that's what i would want for city fighting. A bit more compact and maneuverable than the Thompson, and abt 3 lbs lighter (thank god).
I love Thompson 1928 , 50 rouds in magazine
Great show Vickers Tac!
I would love to see how a UMP45 stacks up as well.
Suomi Kp, same era but much much better than those crabguns
Yes! more WWII guns!
Always liked the Thompson, but I'm going to have to look into the M3a1 after watching this
What's the difference between mp40 and grease gun
The new intro is great!
Love the new intro LAV, keep the good stuff coming:D
According to Yugoslav trials the Thompson was a bit more accurate [edit: than MP-40] at 50 and 100 meters.
DeathWishMonkey Wow--that's saying something considering the UMP
is lighter weight.
I was responding to a previous post that asked about the Thompson vs. MP-40.
Hate to say but that rise in the beginning is of end user fault. Good shooting in any ones book, but not the best I have seen with this gun.
Jd Mitchell Yeah it's merely the shooter in this video fault, not the gun itself. Also for example, when it comes to trench warfare or storming into a building for room clearing (killing) enemies, I chose the Thompson M1A1 over the Grease Gun, Sten, and MP40. That higher rate of fire that's 700 RPM, superior magazines, and .45 ACP caliber does make a huge difference during battles of any war like WWII, Korean War, and Vietnam War.
sample size of 1. what can ya do, ya know?
No talk....Just do it!!...and get your benefit klik
How much would a M1A1 model cost and where can I find one?
+Pedro Matias Anywhere between $25-$65k depending on condition , and online you can find dealers. You need two tax stamps, a lot of money, and a clean record...
+No compliance Thanks a lot buddy. I really appreciate your help.
25-32k, and you only need one tax stamp
Nightverslonn the m-1 thompson you would need two right? Because of the length...no?
No compliance No, I own one. It's just one stamp. I got it done before the new Obama rules, so other than the cost, it as fairly easy.
Larry is Freakin Bad A
Kriss vector is beast, guys.
The Thompson was used in WW2, Korea and Vietnam
So was the Grease gun. Actually they carried M3a1 in tanks up until the late 1990’s.
@@craigthescott5074 Yes I have held a M3A1 before; they are rather cheaply made SMGs. The Greese gun is small and lightweight, that's why it was used for vehicles. The Thompson was much heavier but better made then many new weapons.
@@seanhiatt6736 true
Y’all hating on the Thompson
Tommy Gun!
Vector defeats all
crazy intro
Lots of butthurt Tommy Gun fanboys. Lol, I love the Thompson as much as any other gun guy, but I’d take a Grease Gun over a Thompson anyday of the week.
A Thompson weighs more than an M1 Garand, the drum magazines on the 1928 rattled a lot when fired and sometimes even fell off, they are not as reliable as people want you to think (standards were much lower at the time), and did I mention it was heavy?
I’ve had a chance to fire both the Thompson and Grease Gun, and the M3 is a far better shooting gun. More controllable (even though the M1A1 Thompson’s recoil is very predictable, kicks from 7-2 o’clock exclusively), compact design with a folding stock, very ergonomically friendly, lightweight, and just an all around amazing SMG.
Sights and trigger are comparable if you ask me, in that both aren’t spectacular, but decent for what they are. Really the only thing the Thompson has going for it is the double stack magazines, those M3 mags are a bitch to load.
I want a second opinion
Is this a Thompson review or a grease gun review what the hell's the matter with you guys
Would a Cutts Comp be historically accurate?
Up to and well into WW2 yes. Then it was dropped for the M1 and
the M1A1 in order to make them cheaper to produce and save time.
But they were back after world war 2 because they actually work. What
DOESN'T work, despite John Thompson's insistence that it does, is the
blish lock system. That was dropped with the M1. Nor do semi-auto
"Thompsons" have that system.
Sgt Rock was the best!
S&w m76
23 seconds in...the Texas flag is upside down?
World war two guns are too outdated to match the vector.
Jack Ku they are both better than the Vector. The Vector has too high of a cyclic rate and has been known to be unreliable. Also unless your a class 3 dealer you can’t own one anyway. The m3 and Thompson are both transferable weapons you can own.
The grease gun sucks
How would you know ass clown. I actually own one. They are very good sub guns.