>saw no real action compared to literally any other rifle of ww2 >other rifle
It's not a rifle it's a pistol. Why would you compare it to rifles? You should compare it to other pistols
It may have been heavy and had poor ergonomics but it was pretty reliable and hit hard enough to put a lot of the men in the grave. I dont know how that makes it overrated. It has always gotten a lot of media attention because it was the original ganstet gun.
The biggest issue is really just that the shape of the stock sucks for the transfer of recoil to the shooter, at least if you're trying to fire it from the shoulder. Maybe it was supposed to be more comfortable to fire from the hip in the concept of the "trench broom" it was originally designed to be? However since the Thompson weights about as much as an M1 Garand the recoil isn't really bad or anything.
I don't think you could call it a bad gun since it worked and we were able to build something around 1 million of them. It was just inefficient in several different senses.
>The biggest issue is really just that the shape of the stock sucks for the transfer of recoil to the shooter,
This is really the one big problem. Calling it "ergonomics" can mislead since that often means control layout. The Thompson's control positioning was ahead of its time - almost everything can be operated without changing your strong hand's position.
>Maybe it was supposed to be more comfortable to fire from the hip
I'm pretty sure it was to bring the sights up to eye level while keeping them close to the bore. This works well for careful shots in semi-auto - it just isn't beneficial in full auto which is the gun's main practical fire mode.
The Sten was supposed to be cheap and something you can make in a bike garage. So true the early versions had many bad moments like Heydrich. But hey, you got what you paid for.
Underrated? By who? People view it in some near-mythological context and make claims as wild as it having less recoil than an M16. It was indeed an impressive design in many respects but when the Germans could only manage to build 10,000 of them at best it wasn't exactly having a huge impact on the war. The STG-44 was more influential in that it was an early examples of the widespread shift to intermediate caliber cartridges that would soon occur.
>The most overrated gun of WW2
That's actually the nugget. Default configuration minute of human and beat the bolt open. Enemy at the gates? A sniper rifle to rival a tuned Mauser!
Underrated picks >SVT-40
God I wish I got one before they became unobtaium. Box mag, battle rifle, fully auto possible >Johnson rifle
Nuff said.
Overrated: >Thompson for sure despite reliability >Springfield bolt gun of numbers I don't care to memorize.
>The most overrated gun of WW2
That's actually the nugget. Default configuration minute of human and beat the bolt open. Enemy at the gates? A sniper rifle to rival a tuned Mauser!
NTA but in the close-quarters jungles of 'Nam? I'm definitely taking the full auto sub gun that's controllable& marginally handier (though not lighter) over the unwieldy battle rifle that's truly uncontrollable in full auto.
Not him but depending on circumstance, a shorter automatic is what the doctor ordered. People were sawing off M14s in Vietnam. One very effective tactic was to lie in the bushes and jump out guns blazing at point blank range. In that situation, a Thompson may be better.
A semi-auto battle rifle isn’t great in close quarters but it can at least work. A full auto thompson past 50 yards is going to get dicked on by even a sks
2 months ago
Anonymous
>majority of your combat is in dense cities and jungles >you have an entire squad with you
we ain't talking rambo here
2 months ago
Anonymous
I was trying to say that you’d be better off giving a rifle platoon M14s instead of Thompsons. A few shotguns and smgs mixed in with them makes sense but they are niche weapons.
2 months ago
Anonymous
no one ever claimed giving everyone a Thompson was a good idea.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah I took your post about close ambushes the wrong way. In that situation a Thompson is better than a M14 but that was too small of a role it to be issued outside of special forces early in the war.
[...]
Have you ever been in a jungle? In 'Nam they were rarely engaging the VC beyond 100yd; within the Thompson's effective range. As to your praise of the M14, you do realize the military decided it was absolute shit for jungle fighting and replaced it quickly, right? And well after the adoption of the M16, regular and SOF units were still eager to get their hands on Thompsons and Grease guns for the duration of the war
>And well after the adoption of the M16, regular and SOF units were still eager to get their hands on Thompsons and Grease guns for the duration of the war
Yeah have fun getting in a shootout with a gun with the same weight and similar capacity as an M14 but with handgun ammo. I’m sure you’d want to be firing full auto in every situation
2 months ago
Anonymous
>eah have fun getting in a shootout with a gun with the same weight and similar capacity as an M14 but with handgun ammo. I’m sure you’d want to be firing full auto in every situation
You're rambling on about your opinions, I'm just telling you how it was in the real world dipshit
2 months ago
Anonymous
Oh I thought the M14 was ass and the Thompson was sought after. Why would anyone ever need a rifle caliber in combat?
2 months ago
Anonymous
I was trying to say that you’d be better off giving a rifle platoon M14s instead of Thompsons. A few shotguns and smgs mixed in with them makes sense but they are niche weapons.
Have you ever been in a jungle? In 'Nam they were rarely engaging the VC beyond 100yd; within the Thompson's effective range. As to your praise of the M14, you do realize the military decided it was absolute shit for jungle fighting and replaced it quickly, right? And well after the adoption of the M16, regular and SOF units were still eager to get their hands on Thompsons and Grease guns for the duration of the war
2 months ago
Anonymous
You realize that most of Vietnam isn't jungle.
And that only a very small proportion of the fighting took place in or anywhere near a jungle, right?
2 months ago
Anonymous
>You realize that most of Vietnam isn't jungle.
The North, where the majority of the fighting occurred, is mountainous and was, at the time of the Vietnam War, very much covered in Jungle. Deforestation from Agent Orange and artillery/carpet bombing has left its mark even today. You're statement: >very small proportion of the fighting took place in or anywhere near a jungle
Is simply wrong and misleading
2 months ago
Anonymous
It was in that middle range of rate of fire where it's more difficult to control, combined with high momentum .45.
Plus moronic stock angle [...]
>You realize that most of Vietnam isn't jungle.
The North, where the majority of the fighting occurred, is mountainous and was, at the time of the Vietnam War, very much covered in Jungle. Deforestation from Agent Orange and artillery/carpet bombing has left its mark even today. You're statement: >very small proportion of the fighting took place in or anywhere near a jungle
Is simply wrong and misleading
Actually a lot of fighting did take place in jungle because
1. Vietnam today is vastly more densely populated than it was there, and vastly more ground has been put under cultivation due to industrialized farming
2. The jungle is a good place for guerillas to fight since that provides cover from an enemy with vastly superior. ISTAR capabilities
The various regions had different characters of fighting though.
Some of the heaviest what we might term conventional fighting was in I Corps region, which was pretty much entirely jungle. This was the place where the NVA occasionally even brought tanks into play against American bases.
Whereas down in IV Corps region it was a pure war of insurrection and guerilla, with night raids, informers and bombs.
1 month ago
Anonymous
[...]
Have you ever been in a jungle? In 'Nam they were rarely engaging the VC beyond 100yd; within the Thompson's effective range. As to your praise of the M14, you do realize the military decided it was absolute shit for jungle fighting and replaced it quickly, right? And well after the adoption of the M16, regular and SOF units were still eager to get their hands on Thompsons and Grease guns for the duration of the war
There was open terrain (mostly North) where the M14 would've been preferable. Otherwise the fire superiority gap in close quarters in the jungle vs. AK wielding NVA/whoever was conspicuous until M16s are issued in mass and the bullshit with the wrong powder and unissued cleaning kits was rectified.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>There was open terrain (mostly North)
Nope, wrong again. During the time of the Vietnam War the open cultivated are was the Southern part of the country. Not nearly as much fighting down there
1 month ago
Anonymous
>M16s are issued in mass and the bullshit with the wrong powder and unissued cleaning kits was rectified.
My problem with the m16 was it was filling a role that was already covered by other guns more reliably
This is a good noguns info parroter test. If you've ever had the displeasure of shooting one of these pieces of shit in F/A you'd understand how bad they are.
I hipfired it with the stock tucked under my elbow and I thought it was really controllable that way. Obviously that's a very close-range technique, but I'd be happy with it in the jungles of Papua New Guinea or in Vietnam. Otherwise in WW2 I'd want an M1 Carbine
>overrated
Thompson, sten, Springfield >underrated
Enfield, SVT, the Japanese type machine guns >earned the hype or revolutionized arms development
MG42, M1 garand, M1911, STG44
>ridiculously heavy for such a simple action >frickheug longboy >no pistol grip moronation >lacking magazine capacity
it was just bad all around. I suppose it led to wider usage of automatic weapons like that Thompson. But this is overrated to me. Even modernized, it's still inferior to other platforms.
>Overrated
Everything used by the Germans
Everything used by the Americans
Everything used by the Russians >Properly Rated
Everything used by the British
Everything used by the French >Underrated
Everything used by the Italians that wasn't an HMG
Everything used by the Japanese
Everything used by the Czechs
Wrong, that isn't a Luger. >Clumsy but interesting action >Hand fitted parts, hard to repair or find spares >Praised by boomers and only sold for the most insane prices >Gets everything from Hollywood and boomers
The only thing it did good was introducing the 9x19mm cartridge. They're not worth more than $500.
>ridiculously heavy for such a simple action >frickheug longboy >no pistol grip moronation >lacking magazine capacity
it was just bad all around. I suppose it led to wider usage of automatic weapons like that Thompson. But this is overrated to me. Even modernized, it's still inferior to other platforms.
Most of the American troops who used it in combat had a high opinion of it regardless of its weight and limitations. It was accurate and besides for rather flimsy magazines was reliable. It could penetrate a lot of jungle and other obstacles that M1 carbines or submachine guns could not.
Admittedly the vast majority of them never had a chance to try some of the better competition out there like the Bren gun. Even if they had I doubt they would completely reverse their opinion and declare the BAR to be just awful.
only factual statement in this thread. overrated and outdated for its time, reason it didn't last
>outdated for its time
The alternatives in 1918 were the Lewis gun (pretty good but even heavier and more cumbersome) and Chauchat (also heavy, had some design issues, and the .30-06 version was simply broken) >didn't last
It served from 1918 all the way up to some limited use in the Vietnam War where many were given to the ARVN and sometimes used by the US advisors and Green Berets who worked with the ARVN and Montagnards. How did that "not last"?
>Does anybody even rate the BAR highly?
The BAR is a good in many respects. It's basically just a full power rifle scaled up as much as it needs to be and made fully automatic. It's controllable, accurate, powerful, and has a simple manual of arms that overlaps with many smaller guns. It's lighter than most weapons used in similar roles and more versatile in the sense that it's more suited to firing from the shoulder. More specialized machine guns are generally better for the purposes to which the BAR was put, but it had a lot going for it. Military forces that adopted it tended to keep it for decades and try to address perceived flaws instead of replacing it - to the point that its modern derivative (FN MAG) eventually became the default general purpose machine gun for most western militaries. They liked it that much despite the fact that it fit so poorly into their tactical doctrine. It's a good gun. Also, there's something pleasant about shooting the BAR that's hard to describe - it just feels like it was made properly to accommodate human physiology in a way a lot of other guns don't. There's something like that about many of JMB's guns that makes people like them despite "obsolete" feature lists (1911).
>>no pistol grip moronation
The other complaints make some sense, but this is just personal preference or lack of experience with the gun. Picking it up feels weird at first because the receiver is so huge, but it works fine when aiming and shooting.
The problem was that the BAR lasted way too long for its own good.
It was the best automatic rifle of WW1, when its competitors were stuff like a gun made of fricking bicycle parts and a Maxim with a sling.
The problem is that it stuck around until Korea, 40 years later.
It existed for that walking fire concept in WWI. It did its job, its just if that job was any good an idea. But for WWII, I'd argue there's much worse even for decades after it's creation.
The Thompson was a WW1 gun that was late to the party but hung around long enough to be involved in WW2, much like the BAR. But it also went on to serve in Korea and Vietnam.
If it hadn't been such a heavy b***h people would be crooning about it like the M1911 with such a long service life.
was it really complete junk? i thought it might have some basis with super large guns, like ship guns, just not on a small scale. dont really remember what the story was
The basic idea that pressure increases friction is true. That is common sense. Those high pressure shells created more friction than low pressure ones.
The idea that dissimilar metals had some unique locking effect is nonsense.
Otherwise the Thompson was an angular delayed blowback action, where the H bar had to run down a cam track before the bolt could move.
Which didn't do anything in practice, but did actually happen.
The most underrated gun of WW2
Extremely high levels of kino
>underrated
it literally got barely used. carried a lot but saw no real action compared to literally any other rifle of ww2
>saw no real action compared to literally any other rifle of ww2
>other rifle
It's not a rifle it's a pistol. Why would you compare it to rifles? You should compare it to other pistols
OP said gun, not rifle or pistol
Only handgun with an A2A kill. Took down a Mitsubishi Zero.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_J._Baggett
>he believes this is a real story
Because I believe it, it is real.
The only handgun to take out a tiger
Thank you for posting the truth anon. God bless you. Frick anyone that thinks otherwise
>Thompson
overrated by whom? The M3 exists for a reason
Um, sweetie? We use M4s now.
It may have been heavy and had poor ergonomics but it was pretty reliable and hit hard enough to put a lot of the men in the grave. I dont know how that makes it overrated. It has always gotten a lot of media attention because it was the original ganstet gun.
This. The Thompson was popularized by the gangster era before WWII ever happened.
i don't get the ergonomics thing, other SMGs like the PPSh look way weirder to hold
The biggest issue is really just that the shape of the stock sucks for the transfer of recoil to the shooter, at least if you're trying to fire it from the shoulder. Maybe it was supposed to be more comfortable to fire from the hip in the concept of the "trench broom" it was originally designed to be? However since the Thompson weights about as much as an M1 Garand the recoil isn't really bad or anything.
I don't think you could call it a bad gun since it worked and we were able to build something around 1 million of them. It was just inefficient in several different senses.
>I don't think you could call it a bad gun since it worked
>The biggest issue is really just that the shape of the stock sucks for the transfer of recoil to the shooter,
This is really the one big problem. Calling it "ergonomics" can mislead since that often means control layout. The Thompson's control positioning was ahead of its time - almost everything can be operated without changing your strong hand's position.
>Maybe it was supposed to be more comfortable to fire from the hip
I'm pretty sure it was to bring the sights up to eye level while keeping them close to the bore. This works well for careful shots in semi-auto - it just isn't beneficial in full auto which is the gun's main practical fire mode.
It was in that middle range of rate of fire where it's more difficult to control, combined with high momentum .45.
Plus moronic stock angle
It was decidedly unreliable. That was the major complaint with it in operations.
In the macro it was too complex/expensive to produce.
That's not the Sten
The Sten was a cheap piece of shit that did what it needed to do, pretty sure everyone knows that.
Russia tier cope.
Sten was ok for its price
The Sten was supposed to be cheap and something you can make in a bike garage. So true the early versions had many bad moments like Heydrich. But hey, you got what you paid for.
>no grip
there's no reason to have a thompson unless you enjoy old stuff also
>no grip
that's not the mg42
Wouldn't call the MG34/42 overrated because it pioneered the GPMG concept and we still see its design in use today.
thanks for proving my point
actual moron
MG42’s DNA is still in every HMG in existence except the M2 because ‘murica.
>MG42’s DNA is still in every HMG in existence except the best one
FTFY
lel the frick you're smoking, Black person? The only thing overrated on the MG42 is the fire rate,
Cope
Actual most underrated gun of WW2.
Underrated? By who? People view it in some near-mythological context and make claims as wild as it having less recoil than an M16. It was indeed an impressive design in many respects but when the Germans could only manage to build 10,000 of them at best it wasn't exactly having a huge impact on the war. The STG-44 was more influential in that it was an early examples of the widespread shift to intermediate caliber cartridges that would soon occur.
>it having less recoil than an M16
It has less recoil than all the big three battle rifles (M14, FAL and G3).
True. Aside from some other flaws, the stock is an abomination. That single aspect of the design makes it the worst SMG I have ever fired.
Second most overrated gun of WW2.
Yeah all six of them
wrong
For SMGs, IMO the PPS-43 is underrated too. Maybe even moreso because of barely any media attention. The 41 sucked up all the big screen screentime.
Based grease gun chads
Not in terms of aesthetics. Just look at that thing.
it was the G36 of WW2, an alright weapon that caught the imagination because it looked super cool
the M1A1 with the Cutts compensator was said to be a very good weapon
>M1 with a Cutts
Oh my gawd that bout ta make mu fricking BUST
>The most overrated gun of WW2
That's actually the nugget. Default configuration minute of human and beat the bolt open. Enemy at the gates? A sniper rifle to rival a tuned Mauser!
>pointless time-wasting question
>lust provoking image
Underrated picks
>SVT-40
God I wish I got one before they became unobtaium. Box mag, battle rifle, fully auto possible
>Johnson rifle
Nuff said.
Overrated:
>Thompson for sure despite reliability
>Springfield bolt gun of numbers I don't care to memorize.
>Tell me you've never actually shot an SVT-40 or a Johnson without telling me.
They arent bad, but under rated is wild. The Johnson isnt even better then the M1 on paper.
I've shot SVTs and love em.
Never shot a Johnson but yo mudda has
The M1941 Johnson is the best American semiautomatic rifle of WW2 other than the M1 and the other M1
but the carbine is better than the garand ofc, right anon?
If you're a truck driver, assistant for crew served weapon, or parachuting in less than optimal circumstances than sure.
That's not the k98
who the frick praises bolt actions?
Idolized until I picked one up for the first time. What a hunk of shit.
beep beep best smg of wwii coming through
That's not an Owen or a Patchett
Based
is that ai? what's up with her hand?
gloves.
Most underrated gun of 'nam though
I would definitely be happier with a Thompson over an m14
Then you're a moron.
NTA but in the close-quarters jungles of 'Nam? I'm definitely taking the full auto sub gun that's controllable& marginally handier (though not lighter) over the unwieldy battle rifle that's truly uncontrollable in full auto.
Not him but depending on circumstance, a shorter automatic is what the doctor ordered. People were sawing off M14s in Vietnam. One very effective tactic was to lie in the bushes and jump out guns blazing at point blank range. In that situation, a Thompson may be better.
Only if you were in SOG. For regular soldiers a M14 makes more sense than a thompson
How so?
A semi-auto battle rifle isn’t great in close quarters but it can at least work. A full auto thompson past 50 yards is going to get dicked on by even a sks
>majority of your combat is in dense cities and jungles
>you have an entire squad with you
we ain't talking rambo here
I was trying to say that you’d be better off giving a rifle platoon M14s instead of Thompsons. A few shotguns and smgs mixed in with them makes sense but they are niche weapons.
no one ever claimed giving everyone a Thompson was a good idea.
Yeah I took your post about close ambushes the wrong way. In that situation a Thompson is better than a M14 but that was too small of a role it to be issued outside of special forces early in the war.
>And well after the adoption of the M16, regular and SOF units were still eager to get their hands on Thompsons and Grease guns for the duration of the war
Yeah have fun getting in a shootout with a gun with the same weight and similar capacity as an M14 but with handgun ammo. I’m sure you’d want to be firing full auto in every situation
>eah have fun getting in a shootout with a gun with the same weight and similar capacity as an M14 but with handgun ammo. I’m sure you’d want to be firing full auto in every situation
You're rambling on about your opinions, I'm just telling you how it was in the real world dipshit
Oh I thought the M14 was ass and the Thompson was sought after. Why would anyone ever need a rifle caliber in combat?
Have you ever been in a jungle? In 'Nam they were rarely engaging the VC beyond 100yd; within the Thompson's effective range. As to your praise of the M14, you do realize the military decided it was absolute shit for jungle fighting and replaced it quickly, right? And well after the adoption of the M16, regular and SOF units were still eager to get their hands on Thompsons and Grease guns for the duration of the war
You realize that most of Vietnam isn't jungle.
And that only a very small proportion of the fighting took place in or anywhere near a jungle, right?
>You realize that most of Vietnam isn't jungle.
The North, where the majority of the fighting occurred, is mountainous and was, at the time of the Vietnam War, very much covered in Jungle. Deforestation from Agent Orange and artillery/carpet bombing has left its mark even today. You're statement:
>very small proportion of the fighting took place in or anywhere near a jungle
Is simply wrong and misleading
Actually a lot of fighting did take place in jungle because
1. Vietnam today is vastly more densely populated than it was there, and vastly more ground has been put under cultivation due to industrialized farming
2. The jungle is a good place for guerillas to fight since that provides cover from an enemy with vastly superior. ISTAR capabilities
The various regions had different characters of fighting though.
Some of the heaviest what we might term conventional fighting was in I Corps region, which was pretty much entirely jungle. This was the place where the NVA occasionally even brought tanks into play against American bases.
Whereas down in IV Corps region it was a pure war of insurrection and guerilla, with night raids, informers and bombs.
There was open terrain (mostly North) where the M14 would've been preferable. Otherwise the fire superiority gap in close quarters in the jungle vs. AK wielding NVA/whoever was conspicuous until M16s are issued in mass and the bullshit with the wrong powder and unissued cleaning kits was rectified.
>There was open terrain (mostly North)
Nope, wrong again. During the time of the Vietnam War the open cultivated are was the Southern part of the country. Not nearly as much fighting down there
>M16s are issued in mass and the bullshit with the wrong powder and unissued cleaning kits was rectified.
My problem with the m16 was it was filling a role that was already covered by other guns more reliably
>saw off M14s
i'm not even gonna ask.
.45's got stopping power sonney
do you have a pic of it?
Everyone in this thread is a c**t.
Yeah well YOU A BUSTA CJ, STRAIGHT BUSTA!
That's not a PPSh
I think the Breda is the most overrated not because anyone praises it but because it doesn't get enough hate. it sucked.
It's really not. Pretty much everyone acknowledges that it was too heavy and expensive. Being iconic doesn't mean overrated, anon.
According to https://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/stg44-assault-rifle.html
The STG44 was inferior to American contemporary firearms.
I'm very happy with my Thompson.
This is a good noguns info parroter test. If you've ever had the displeasure of shooting one of these pieces of shit in F/A you'd understand how bad they are.
I hipfired it with the stock tucked under my elbow and I thought it was really controllable that way. Obviously that's a very close-range technique, but I'd be happy with it in the jungles of Papua New Guinea or in Vietnam. Otherwise in WW2 I'd want an M1 Carbine
Some of us who tried contemporary weapons found it heavy but not the worst.
m3a1 is better
Discuss booby traps
>pre-war higher ROF versions more controllable
>excessively expensive
Isn't a grease gun, but it's cool and had explicit gangster movie appeal even abroad.
>overrated
Thompson, sten, Springfield
>underrated
Enfield, SVT, the Japanese type machine guns
>earned the hype or revolutionized arms development
MG42, M1 garand, M1911, STG44
Fair!
>enfield
>Underrated
European BARs were bretty good
Youre an idiot. Literally only captains carried this cause it was so based. Have you ever shot one? A full auto one?
We get it, you watch fuddbusters. You're late.
>Overrated
Everything used by the Germans
Everything used by the Americans
Everything used by the Russians
>Properly Rated
Everything used by the British
Everything used by the French
>Underrated
Everything used by the Italians that wasn't an HMG
Everything used by the Japanese
Everything used by the Czechs
Wrong, that isn't a Luger.
>Clumsy but interesting action
>Hand fitted parts, hard to repair or find spares
>Praised by boomers and only sold for the most insane prices
>Gets everything from Hollywood and boomers
The only thing it did good was introducing the 9x19mm cartridge. They're not worth more than $500.
all you have to do is pick one up at a gun show and you'll immediately recognize why its bad.
it weighs more than a fricking m14, but shoots 45ACP.
>ridiculously heavy for such a simple action
>frickheug longboy
>no pistol grip moronation
>lacking magazine capacity
it was just bad all around. I suppose it led to wider usage of automatic weapons like that Thompson. But this is overrated to me. Even modernized, it's still inferior to other platforms.
Does anybody even rate the BAR highly?
Most of the American troops who used it in combat had a high opinion of it regardless of its weight and limitations. It was accurate and besides for rather flimsy magazines was reliable. It could penetrate a lot of jungle and other obstacles that M1 carbines or submachine guns could not.
Admittedly the vast majority of them never had a chance to try some of the better competition out there like the Bren gun. Even if they had I doubt they would completely reverse their opinion and declare the BAR to be just awful.
>outdated for its time
The alternatives in 1918 were the Lewis gun (pretty good but even heavier and more cumbersome) and Chauchat (also heavy, had some design issues, and the .30-06 version was simply broken)
>didn't last
It served from 1918 all the way up to some limited use in the Vietnam War where many were given to the ARVN and sometimes used by the US advisors and Green Berets who worked with the ARVN and Montagnards. How did that "not last"?
>Does anybody even rate the BAR highly?
The BAR is a good in many respects. It's basically just a full power rifle scaled up as much as it needs to be and made fully automatic. It's controllable, accurate, powerful, and has a simple manual of arms that overlaps with many smaller guns. It's lighter than most weapons used in similar roles and more versatile in the sense that it's more suited to firing from the shoulder. More specialized machine guns are generally better for the purposes to which the BAR was put, but it had a lot going for it. Military forces that adopted it tended to keep it for decades and try to address perceived flaws instead of replacing it - to the point that its modern derivative (FN MAG) eventually became the default general purpose machine gun for most western militaries. They liked it that much despite the fact that it fit so poorly into their tactical doctrine. It's a good gun. Also, there's something pleasant about shooting the BAR that's hard to describe - it just feels like it was made properly to accommodate human physiology in a way a lot of other guns don't. There's something like that about many of JMB's guns that makes people like them despite "obsolete" feature lists (1911).
>>no pistol grip moronation
The other complaints make some sense, but this is just personal preference or lack of experience with the gun. Picking it up feels weird at first because the receiver is so huge, but it works fine when aiming and shooting.
For its time? It was pretty alright.
didnt the fbi like it? i thought they kept making/asking for versions for a little bit right?
only factual statement in this thread. overrated and outdated for its time, reason it didn't last
The problem was that the BAR lasted way too long for its own good.
It was the best automatic rifle of WW1, when its competitors were stuff like a gun made of fricking bicycle parts and a Maxim with a sling.
The problem is that it stuck around until Korea, 40 years later.
It existed for that walking fire concept in WWI. It did its job, its just if that job was any good an idea. But for WWII, I'd argue there's much worse even for decades after it's creation.
Hating on the Thompson is the most cucked contrarian opinion one can have.
I too watch fuddbusters
It's no MP5 but practice makes perfect.
Also, the guy saying it's unreliable is a moron.
The Thompson was a WW1 gun that was late to the party but hung around long enough to be involved in WW2, much like the BAR. But it also went on to serve in Korea and Vietnam.
If it hadn't been such a heavy b***h people would be crooning about it like the M1911 with such a long service life.
this. thompsons kick ass, they're just expensive and heavy
I just like the thompson for the fact that it was deigned to operate under a principle that isn't real
and what principle is that?
The Blish lock - the M1A1 version didn't have it and worked just the same.
was it really complete junk? i thought it might have some basis with super large guns, like ship guns, just not on a small scale. dont really remember what the story was
The basic idea that pressure increases friction is true. That is common sense. Those high pressure shells created more friction than low pressure ones.
The idea that dissimilar metals had some unique locking effect is nonsense.
Otherwise the Thompson was an angular delayed blowback action, where the H bar had to run down a cam track before the bolt could move.
Which didn't do anything in practice, but did actually happen.