Thompson accuracy?

Heavier bullets can push through things better, but any round that hits something else in flight will deflect.

Frontal area will have as much to do with trajectory as actual bullet weight. Combine lower velocity, larger frontal area, and bullet weight and you will start seeing a quicker degradation of terminal ballistics.
A .45 cal slug with a conical point would probably retain more terminal speed and energy than a standard ball type round given the same bullit weight and velocity.
A 230 round nose, ball type bullit at 900 fps will slow faster than a boat tail conical bullit of the same weight, diameter and velocity.
A 230 grain .30 cal conical bullit will fly better than the .45 ca ball and probably the conical bullit as well. In a perfect vacuum where wind resistance is not a factor, there should be no difference given all other factors are equal.
On a range in FL I fired a Thompson semi-auto (civilian model) at 50, 75, and 100 yards. I could easily group shots into a silloette target in the head @ the 50 and 75 yard marks, at 100 yrds, it would have been a chance shot in real life. Although body shots were easy to place at that range.
At ranges over that distance, a smart leader tells his rifleman with an '03 Springfield or M-1 Garand to do the dirty work. My $.02

 

The Thompson was never renowned for its accuracy, mainly because of the heavy recoil and resulting barrel rise. However, for an SMG(.45) it did pretty darn well. The Cutts compensator was not on the m1a1, as it was being mass produced during war years as cheaply as possible(not saying stamped steel or anything but it still retained its reliability in the field).

 

Yes, I have. I shot both the fully automatic and semi automatic version. I own the Model 1927 Deluxe. Mine has the 16" barrel on it. I took it to a 100 yrd range, off the bench on a sandbag, I shot 4" groups. I could'nt believe it. I could actually see the rounds hitting the target. I had to aim very high to actually make contact on the paper. It was fun.

Mike

 

There's a semi-auto version? I never knew. Good shots too XD. And really I don't think the Army cared about accuracy (although from what it seems, they got it). These were officer's weapons. They didn't have to shoot 600 yards to pick off a sniper from a church tower, they had people doing that with Springfields (just watch Saving Private Ryan!). They didn't have to shoot even 300 yards, they had people with M1's doing that! They had to keep the enemy's head down from about 5 feet away while someone with a brain and a knife beat them down. Though on the original subject, I believe mostly officers would use them and they would be highly trained. I could be wrong.

 

The Thompson has a lot of kick to it, but overall it is a good gun. As long as you don't empty the magazine all in one pull of the trigger, its very accurate at short range. If you want to shoot it at a target at a long range, you have to aim the gun a bit higher to correct the trajectory of the bullet. If you shoot two or three bullets at a time, then that improves the accuracy other than keeping the trigger down

 

There's a semi-auto version? I never knew. Yes- Auto Ordnance ( now owned by Kahr Arms) makes the Thompson 1927A1 Deluxe. It is fully legal in the eyes of the ATF because the parts used cannot be made to be interchangeable with the fully automatic Thompson 1928.

These were officer's weapons. That is really not 100% true. The Thompson was used in World War II in the hands of Allied troops as a weapon for scouts, non-commissioned officers, and patrol leaders. In the European theater, the gun was widely utilized in British and Canadian Commando units, as well as U.S. paratrooper and Ranger battalions who used it widely because of its high rate of fire, its stopping power and because it was very effective in close combat.


Mike

 

The "Official" officer's weapon is a M1 carbine. Drivers of trucks and tanks and specialist troops like MPs have M1 Thompson. Of course, regulation being what they are and soldiers being who they are, many regular infantry squads augmented their firepower with Thompsons.

 

I'm not sure a movie is a reliable source-- especially one from Spielberg.
You are kind of dancing around the real answer. Officers are not supposed to engage in combat, that's the job of the troops he's leading. They will get caught-up in the fight and neglect to monitor the situation and appropriately direct fire and/or movement. Their weapon is purely for defensive close combat. That theory doesn't exactly work well for a 2LT, in a combat arms CMF, but it does for a field officer (MAJ and up).

 

If you read a lot of the first hand accounts of your typical combat officer that saw action in WWII or Korea, many would use the Garand. Officers didnt want to be picked off by snipers identifying them with their shiny insignia. They wanted to blend in like regular grunts. It really wasnt until KOrea that the Carbine was actually issued as a main battle rifle. In WWII it was a rear echelon weapon. Not to deviate from the original post, yes...there were officers that carried the Thompson, as there were officers that carried the Garand, M1 Carbine. Gen. Matthew B. Ridgeway carried a 1903 Springfield.

MIke

 

Hmm. Guess I was wrong. Thanks for enlightening me! And I suppose that Spielberg's films are not really sources, but hey- at least this one was "based" on a true story-right? And yes, sf cwo, I was dancing around the answer there and I should have put it in more direct terms (which you beautifully explained.).

 

I'll paraphrase a funny story a U.S. 2d Infantry Division vet once told: Getting ready for a patrol into the Normandy hedgerows, he borrowed a comrade's Thompson. During the patrol, while walking point, he turned a corner, and there, 25 yards in front of him was a German soldier. Stunned, the German turned and ran. The GI raised his Thompson and fired a long burst. Then he said (65 years later) "for all I know, that guy is still running!" He said "I would have dropped him with one shot if I had my M-1!"

Greg C.