Discussion in 'Small Arms and Edged Weapons' started by MarineRaider, May 16, 2009.
The .45 does not lack penetration.
Yeah, i agree. I think that the STEN gun is kind of like the Ak-47. They can both get made out of cheap metal and wood. You just can't abuse then sten as bad.
The type 100 is a bad weapon, yes. But is was about all they could make and afford rather than the Type 99 LMG and The Type 99 Rifle or "Arisaka". Which Neither of them didn't do that well.
Too true, people have made that mistake for years. While the range and penetration of the Thompson is generally denigerated, it did have an exceptional range considering it was a pistol round. However, the accuracy was not that great beyond a 50 meters. The 10 1/2 inch barrel just wasn't up to the task, it was a "lead pump" first and foremost. That said, here is a portion of an interesting report (Philip B. Sharpe review of the M1928A1 Thompson from 1929):
"This .45 automatic pistol cartridge, in the arm designed for it, delivers about 810 foot per seconds velocity. In the 10 1/2-inch barreled Thompson it delivers about 925 f.p.s. Tests indicate that accuracy and penetration is quite respectable, even at the longer ranges. A single shot two feet from the muzzle, using the 230 grain bullet, tested on 3/4-inch yellow pine boards spaced one inch apart, ran through 6 3/4 boards. At 100 yards it would plough (sic) through six boards; at 200 yards through 5 1/4; at 300 yards, 4 1/2; at the 400 mark through four boards, and at 500 yards it could still stumble through 3 3/4 boards¾sufficient to cause very unpleasant sensations in the body of a recipient." [Page 1107]
It could "reach out there" more distance than I would have assumed, but I have NO idea where one would have to aim to get the bullet to that distance! 500 yards! My word that must have been aimed at the sky to get to that spot. The M1928A1 did have a sliding scale rear sight that was calibrated out to 500 yards, but the M1A1 didn't have the same rear sight, even though the bullet and the barrel remained identical.
At 925 ft/sec it would take something over 1.5 sec to reach 500 yards. It would be expected to drop about 36 feet in that time. Actually plugging the 925 into the equation yields 42 feet so a bit more than that once you account for loss of velocity. If I haven't messed up my calculations that's about 1.6 degrees.
it,s not rocket science but it works the type 100 was a wierd smg for the simple fact that well it sucks and who says the japanese had a folding stock paratrooper model the japanese did,nt even have paratroopers or even the planes to carry them now take the grease gun for example the stock could be pushed in making it easier to hold against your chest and land with it was slow but extremely reliable the sten was a good weapon but it had its disadvantages such as it easily jammed and somebody mentioned the pps-43 now that was a good gun just a simplified model of the more famous ppsh-41 which fired a weak round but at amazingly high rate of fire the thompson was even better with a .45acp round at 700rpm it was extremely deadly at close range and had great penetration but even simlified models were hard to make the mp-38/mp-40 were first used by the german paratroopers or better known as the fallschirmjager now here are a few more the mp-28s magazines were actually able to be switched between the mp-28 and the sten the bergman mp-18 was known to use drum mags and a special piece that clipped on to the magazine chamber to hold drum mags in the gun so they did,nt fall out of the gun but the mp-28s magazine only held 20 rounds at the most .
The Sten rarely has wood on it.
Excellent post all around gentlemen. =)
About the accuracy of the M1 Thompson, one of our veterans Mr. Marlowe wrote in another thread that with the selector switch at semi-automatic, he could make accurate shots at 100 yards. M3 Grease Gun I think was underrated. It was a cheap, cobbled together piece, but surprisingly durable and actually had decent inherent accuracy.
As for STEN with wooden furniture, the last STEN Mark indeed has wood, but they are rare and represent an improvement in quality than the earlier Marks. They were brutally simple guns, but will fire and spray lead when needed. I was told that they were so cheap, when one was broken it was simply thrown away and a new one was picked up from the armorer.
Since I was so quoted I would like to add an observations. I state in the same communicatio that I used two weapons depending on the situation. The Thompson was my choice for close quarters fire fights. You wante enought firepopwer to influence the outcome. Above 50 yards I used simiautomatic fir because it could be Aimed. On ranges grater than 100 yds I use the M1 with a Weaver 4x Scope. I was a morksman of some skill and althought I could do quite well at 500 meters most of my shots were taken at 200 & 300 meters. Thank You.
Walter L. Marlowe
( Airborne all the Way)
the only sten that has a wooden stock is the sterling smg
I would have to say either the Thompson, or the PPSH-41.
The Thompson has increcible stopping power with its .45 ammo.
The PPSH-41 is amazingly reliable, even in the worst of Russian conditions.
The PPSH also had the 71 round drum...BTW, welcome to the forum...Happy posting.
yeah but the pps-43 was cheaper to make and extremely reliable
It's great to be here with other WWII 'fanatics' .
I have all these SMG's. Go to youtube look at kiwitedferny channel. They are all there on vids, including strip and assemble.
As an Ex Grunt, I'd say the Ppsh is the 'best'. Very simple (only 3 parts!!!); very robust; compact; high rate of fire (but the option for semi only on the versions produced pre 1945); large mag capacity; high muzzle velocity; and RELIABLE!!
My Mp40 jams frequently. The Sten, occasionaly (mainly due to damaged feed lips on the mag).
The 1928 Thompson and M1 almost never jam, but they are heavy and tricky to strip. My M3 Grease Gun is probably better than both, and has the same grunty .45 cartridge.
Interestingly, the Lanchester 9mm SMG is one of the most pleasant and controlable to shoot (see my Youtube vid).
I'd rather cary the M1 .30 carbine than any of the SMG's. It's a very under rated little weapon that does the same job as an SMG, with better range, it's lighter, less prone to stoppages, and a breeze to 'snap shoot'.
I forgot to add the URL to my Youtube site:
YouTube - Gun Collection - NZ collection of WW2 small arms
The Thompson. Knock down power per round and control-ability trump everything.
Why does everybody loves the ppsh the round drum was not very good (takes in much space,problems w/ reloading and is les reliable)and its rate of fire was a little bit high...
Its rounds weren't the strongest (small but fast bullets means:if it does hit a vital organ it could kill fast otherwise the rounds would miss otherwise...
The tommy gun was a very good machine pistol (the m1a1 didn't had a drum) and its speed + stopping power was very nice (altough the penetration wasn't the best).But is was quite heavy and the rounds were heavy to.(my English isn't the best so it
is maybe bad explaining)But it made much noise because you could shake some parts(I can't explain it very good,sorry)So it wasn't very good while sneaking...Accuracy was good.(I think the recoil wasn't very much because of the weight of the weapon itself.
The mp40 was a quite reliable machine pistol and its rounds were nice to(same with magazine)(It could overheat if used much because the metal ).It was cheap,good accuracy very nice recoil.
But in the end it is al about the man behind the gun.
I would take the Thompson because it's (IMO) the best balance between RPM, stopping power, and ammo capacity. The PPSH doesn't have enough stopping power, the Type 100 is trash (not the same as Sten), the MP40 has a rate of fire that's tanking, and I believe the Sten had feeding problems with the side fed mag.