.45 Grease Gun


PDA






higene
March 9, 2009, 10:03 PM
45 zillion new .45s this year. How come nobody makes a semi auto Grease gun?

Higene

:neener:

If you enjoyed reading about ".45 Grease Gun" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
MikeJackmin
March 9, 2009, 10:12 PM
You'd need a 16 inch barrel and a closed bolt; the telescoping stock would be an issue in many states as well.

It would help fill the gap left by the Marlin camp carbine...

MikeJackmin
March 9, 2009, 10:15 PM
You'd need a 16 inch barrel and a closed bolt; the telescoping stock would be an issue in many states as well.

It would help fill the gap left by the Marlin camp carbine...

Rockwell1
March 10, 2009, 12:11 AM
The M-3 "grease gun" was notoriously inaccurate. If I remember from my Army days (yes, it really was that long ago) they didn't even have sights.

The original spray and pray. :D

My first unit issued M-3s to all the 113 drivers. Qualification was on the 25 meter target only

rogertc1
March 10, 2009, 04:41 AM
Get a Mech Tech CCU upper....

http://www.mechtechsys.com/

jackstinson
March 10, 2009, 12:10 PM
45 zillion new .45s this year. How come nobody makes a semi auto Grease gun?
Valkyrie Arms LLC made 16" barreled fixed stock and collapsible wire stock carbines, and short barreled pistol versions in semi-auto.
I saw an example at a local shop last summer for around $750. I didn't have the cash to buy it then, I regret that.
Here is a photo of one that was on gunbroker......
http://pics.gunbroker.com/GB/120168000/120168896/pix2514351906.jpg

mattk
March 10, 2009, 01:19 PM
I think the Grease Gun is super cool in that rugged, cheaply made kind of way.

My dad was issued one as a tanker in the 60's before he went to OCS and ened up in Vietnam with an m2 carbine and a Luger.

bannockburn
March 10, 2009, 10:19 PM
jackstinson

I've seen a couple of Valkyrie Arms version of the M3 Grease Gun. One appeared to have some sort of black enamel finish with stainless pins and tabs on the receiver; in other words it didn't look much like a G.I. issue sub gun. The other one I examined was more like the one in your pic; it was parkerized but the barrel didn't have a shroud on it. The barrel was skinny the entire length from the receiver. I think the price was around $750 as well.

The Lone Haranguer
March 10, 2009, 10:40 PM
Post removed.

d906670
March 10, 2009, 10:52 PM
"The 16-inch barrel I understand, but is there some legal reason why it needs a closed bolt? "
The powers that be think it is to easy to convert an opened bolt to fire full auto than a closed bolt is.:confused:

The Wiry Irishman
March 11, 2009, 12:01 AM
Valkyrie Arms LLC made 16" barreled fixed stock and collapsible wire stock carbines,

A friend of mine bought one of those. Wouldn't feed anything, and there was no cocking handle - you had to stick your finger in the bolt to charge it. He sent it off to a gunsmith recently (can't remember the name) who got it running reliably and put a cocking handle on. Apparantly that was difficult, because the bolt wasn't case hardened, but hardened all the way through. He says it runs great now.

LightningCrash
March 11, 2009, 06:55 AM
Is there a particular reason you want a .45ACP grease gun, other than the historical significance?

(I have wanted a Sten ever since I saw the MkII blueprints on the internet)

moxie
March 11, 2009, 07:03 AM
The M3 does have sights.

The cocking lever was removed from the M3 and replaced with the finger hole for simplicity and reliability, and renamed the M3A1.

Zach S
March 11, 2009, 08:26 AM
The powers that be think it is to easy to convert an opened bolt to fire full auto than a closed bolt is.
They are. Open bolt semis usually have extra parts to make them semi auto, however closed bolt semi autos usually have to have a few parts added.

jaysouth
March 11, 2009, 09:37 AM
Once (many moons ago) I traded a South Vietnamese village guard two cartons of Kools for an M-3 and 2 mags.

It took me about two weeks to realize that I had been screwed royally on that deal.

Mine was inaccurate and failed to fire a whole mag without malfunction. There is no balance point and awkward to carry with one hands. I could not imagine a worse weapon to carry in the bush. As I recall, the cost of manufacture was less than $10. You always get what you pay for.

All was not lost however, I traded it to an AF warrant officer for a pallet of Black Label beer.

TIMC
March 11, 2009, 10:07 AM
Since I have been on the hunt for a good accurate and reliable pistol caliber carbine, I opted for one of the .45 caliber Uzi's The gun is very accurate, compact and reliable. the big down side is you have to either buy $150 a piece IMI mags when you can find them or do the Grease gun mag conversion for $350 + $40 a mag. Since I wanted to stay all IMI I now own $1000 worth of IMI mags which is almost as much as I spent on the gun!

kirkcdl
March 11, 2009, 11:15 AM
You could always get an HK USC and buy a GG lower,new production GG mags are running about $25...

cat9x
March 11, 2009, 11:27 AM
Valkyrie Arms Grease Gun, this auction ends tomorrow...

http://www.gunrunnerauctions.com/listings/details/index.cfm?itemnum=920585620

dudester
March 11, 2009, 02:09 PM
I had one of the old Thompsons once a long time ago. It was not very reliable or accurate. Definitely a conversation piece though ;)

CapnMac
March 11, 2009, 02:29 PM
Well, the other question is why not a reproduction Reising? Ok, they have a terrible rep from combat, but combat is a harsh environment. Johnson rifle had similar problems, but has been replicated. Reising was just fine in LE use, so "modern civilian" would seem similar. Nice wood stock to as to not twist the chones of the knotted-drawers set, too <g>.

Valkyrie makes a nice deLisle, too. And, like too much of their stuff, it's all better with NFA applications <sigh>.

Matrix187
March 11, 2009, 04:42 PM
The gun I really want is an Mp40. They were preferred by alot of US troops over the US sub machine guns. It looks similar but not as clunky ;)

dfariswheel
March 11, 2009, 07:45 PM
Someone is currently making a semi-auto Mp-40.
Closed bolt and a non-extendable stock fixed in the closed position.

amd6547
March 11, 2009, 10:44 PM
My Father served before and during WWII, and had alot of experience with both the thompson and the grease gun. He preferred the grease gun.

Gatofeo
March 11, 2009, 11:48 PM
Interestingly, the U.S. military used the M3 "grease gun" right up to the late 1980s.
It was still being issued to tankers then.
I know, because I recall an article about 1987 in the Tacoma News Tribune (Washington state) about the tankers at Fort Lewis finally turning in their M3s for a short-barreled, collapsible-stock M16.
My father, who had attended tank school at Fort Knox, Ky. in World War II, brought the article to my attention. Like me, he was amazed it was still an issue item.
He preferred the Thompson, though the M3 was small enough to store well in a tank.
Actually, he was among the first G.I.s to be issued the M1 carbine, in 1942 as I recall. The M3 was taken away from the tankers at Fort Knox and replaced with the M1 carbine.
The Army wanted to see if the M1 was any better.
Shortly after, Dad completed tanker school and his M1 carbine followed him to engineering school.
It was serial number 3100, he told me. Made by Winchester, he thought.
That little carbine became his issue gun. Followed him from the States by ship to Glascow, Scotland. By truck and train to England. From England to Normandy, France about 10 days after D-Day. Up through France, Belgium and Germany.
Germany surrendered.
Back down to Marseille, France. Out the Straits of Gibraltar and across the Atlantic. Through the Panama Canal and on to the Philippines to prepare for the invasion of Japan.
Bomb got dropped.
Finally, turned in that M1 at San Francisco after the war ended.
I can't spot an M1 carbine at a gun show or shop without going over and checking the serial number. I know ... I know ... but hey, lightning strikes!
Dad died in 1998 at the age of 83.
If I ever found Serial No. 3100 I'd probably drop to the ground and bawl my fool head off!
Aw crud ... I'm getting teary-eyed now, writing this ... I gotta go! :D

dogrunner
March 12, 2009, 12:43 AM
Why bother!!

Absolutely the WORST ergonomics of any firearm I have ever held in my nearly 70 years.....accuracy is problematic due to the cycling of that heavy bolt, the sights are a joke, consisting of a bent "L" for a rear and a lousy stamped front, in truth one can actually fire a semi auto design different than the GG faster than that thing can be cycled full auto!!..............

AIR, cyclic is a paltry 450........Further, those single position magazines'l wear out your fingers trying to top 'em off.

Truly fits the description of 'boat anchor'.

ANY High Point is a better piece!

higene
March 12, 2009, 01:58 AM
Why - I had one in VN and I liked it. Most reliable gun in the mud field tests. Simple, reliable, deadly. You don't shoot a grease gun with the sights, you shoot it by dead reckoning. Threat appears, face the threat, open ejection port, address problem. (I had the best results firing from the hip with the sling over the shoulder) If you decide to aggress the target, pull the trigger. The 4 lb bolt rattles down the guide rails picks up a bullet and fires. The slow firing rate is a feature because you can correct between rounds. Most people firing full auto are affected by the adrenaline rush and cant the muzzle up when looking at the target. They miss high with the first round and the muzzle rise causes them to miss high with the whole clip because they don't shut the gun off in a 3 to six round burst. They are then facing an armed enemy with an empty weapon trying to figure out how they missed that big a target at that close a range when they get shot to death!

I personally would rather have a sub-machine gun (pistol caliber) than a machine gun in a close range gun fight which is implied with a grease gun. Mine went bang every time. If I got a gun from the enemy there might be a reason - he didn't know **** about guns, he booby trapped it, whatever. Consider the source.

Hell an original grease gun was an emergency weapon. If you needed one, your tank had a serious problem or your duce and half was broke and you can't run and you can't hide.

If you drop an ejection on an AR you are truly beeped if you don't have a cleaning rod handy because you can not clear a stuck case if you can't get at the chamber with your K-bar. Early Ar's were notoriously unreliable. I have heard that it was the ammo not the gun but it doesn't matter. A broken or non functioning weapon is not an asset in a gun fight.

Bottom line reliability and training. I know I damn sure wouldn't want a Marine Corps Gunnery Sergeant shooting at me with a grease gun.

Higene

:evil:

LightningCrash
March 12, 2009, 08:43 AM
You could probably find a cut receiver somewhere. Blueprints are available online to fabricate the rest of the items.

KidKaos
April 13, 2009, 07:02 AM
http://www.kidkaos.us/Mech-Tech_1911_CCU_004-1.jpg
Kinda close???

41magsnub
April 13, 2009, 12:06 PM
The M-3 "grease gun" was notoriously inaccurate. If I remember from my Army days (yes, it really was that long ago) they didn't even have sights.

The original spray and pray.

My first unit issued M-3s to all the 113 drivers. Qualification was on the 25 meter target only

Not that long ago.. the mechanics in my Combat Engineer unit still had M3's in '95 which they then traded in for M9's. I suppose they probably have M4's now but I don't know that for sure.

Pack
April 13, 2009, 01:52 PM
To the gentleman who posted the pic of the HK USC 45 modified to take grease gun magazines - or anyone else who has information related to the same...

I MUST have one

Please tell me anything you can.

I did an extensive Google search a couple of months ago and came up generally empty-handed (confirmed they exist, but not how to get one).

I have yet to do another.

I was also going to post here asking about one, but signed up over the weekend and hadn't gotten around to it.

bryanZ06
April 13, 2009, 03:19 PM
The USC grease gun lower is made by Top Notch.

Plinkeriffic
April 13, 2009, 04:10 PM
Hi-Point is supposed to come out with a 45acp carbine soon (already make a 9 & 40). Astonishing lack of 45 carbines on the market when considering the M3 & Tommy guns' contributions to America's fighting men.

ACP230
April 13, 2009, 04:31 PM
An M3 (Grease Gun) was the second FA weapon I shot.
The first was a Thompson. I liked the Tommy for looks but shot the M3 better. Shot both at a rental range in GA.

Later, at the old Second Chance Bowling Pin Shoot, I fired a suppressed Grease Gun in a side match, Raptor Road. The target array was steel plate targets with stylized hawks or eagles painted on them. They lasted through the first 12-15 competitors.
I loved the suppressed Grease Gun. It chugged away and the clang of the 230 grain RNFMJ bullets hitting steel was the loudest thing I heard.

If I had the cash, I'd own a Grease Gun.

Pack
April 13, 2009, 04:40 PM
BryanZ06: Thank you! I'll just include "Top Notch" in a search, instead of trying to enter 55 different combinations of terms to describe the gun generally.

Plinkeriffic: I'd consider a Hi-Point, Kel-Tec, or anything else that promised more magazine capacity than 8 or 12 rounds. I love the feel of my 45 ACP CX4 Storm by Beretta (have yet to shoot it). If there were magazines with a capacity greater than 8 rounds available for it, I'd certainly get a hold of them.

Things being the way they are, rather than holding my breath for someone to furnish bigger mags for the Storm, I'm wondering if I shouldn't sell the Storm, which remains unfired in the box, scrap my plans to find an 8045 Cougar as a companion, and get the HK with the Top Notch lower.

Then, however, you lose the capability of magazine interchangeability with a handgun. The Beretta also seems to be a quality gun.

If only there were a lower/adaptation for the HK to switch it to, say, Para Ordnance mags.

Or, Beretta could have been real sweethearts, and gone to the trouble that Glock did with their model 21 - take the time and money to design and produce a separate gun with a larger frame to accommodate the larger cartridge.

A 92FS in 45 ACP might have been something many of us would be interested in - with the possible inclusion of our military.

I guess I can hope for new developments. The FNP in 45 looks to be a solid gun, having just gotten a great write-up in a magazine I receive. Maybe FN will issue forth a pistol-caliber (traditional pistol-caliber - I have no interest in the 5.7x28, but don't want to be called on a technicality :p) carbine of their own? Not anytime soon, though. I imagine they'll have all hands focused on pushing SCARs out the door.

Holy cow! That went on forever. My apologies. :o

.455_Hunter
April 14, 2009, 01:48 PM
Not that long ago.. the mechanics in my Combat Engineer unit still had M3's in '95 which they then traded in for M9's. I suppose they probably have M4's now but I don't know that for sure.

My unit had four Grease Guns for the M88A1 until just prior to my arrival in Feb 1999. They were replaced by four shiny new M4s. I am sure that the Greasers are still soldiering on somewhere in the AD/RD/NG inventory, let alone in foreign service!

rcmodel
April 14, 2009, 01:55 PM
What has this thread got to do with handguns?

If you are man enough to hold up a 10 pounds loaded, 16" barreled M3 grease-gun one-handed and shoot it, you don't need a gun!

rc

SharpsDressedMan
April 14, 2009, 04:56 PM
This thread on the M3 or M3A1 is getting to be quite interesting. There is definitely a big division over those that think it is inaccurate, poorly balanced, etc, and those who really like it. For me, I found that it shot and returned to point well during the firing cycle, laying in shots pretty darn well. Very much like the handling of the MP40. The cycling rate on the M3 is almost boring it is so slow...I think a good pistolero can shoot a 1911 that fast. BUT, as stated, the rate is about perfect for getting back on target with the rounds. M3's have a an occasional magazine that won't work well, but overall, I think they are a great gun.

Eric F
April 14, 2009, 05:23 PM
I have shot 4 m-3 guns. Some were great some not so much. The ones that failed all the time were first generation ww2 models. The last one was a "remanufactured" model for the philipino spec war folks. It had a cool supressor and a red dot of some sort, not an expensive one though. The other was an "a3"??? with the operating linkage on the side. Iron sights. The updated one could make hits out to 100 yards with little problems. Now understand at 100 yards you hitting man sized targets not running sub moa groups. With the iron sights it was a bit more challenging. I did not think ballance was an issue if you used the stock. I was told that the innaccurate ones are likely old and with shot out barrels. Further more there is a national gard unit here in Va with 25 of them still in inventory but have not been issued for some time..........I was going to plan an armory one time but thought better..........(its a joke on the Bonnie and Clyde level)

gloucestergarand
April 14, 2009, 06:57 PM
I got my butt chewed out real good many, many moons ago as a young 2LT for allowing my Spc4 M113 track driver to go on an ambush patrol out of Liberty Bell armed with his M3A1. Seems our "MP Armbands" did not permit the carry of "automatic" weapons inside the DMZ. So yup, we stuck to our .45's and M16A1's! Go figure. All part of the Imjin Scout days!

Eric F
April 14, 2009, 07:30 PM
MP Armbands" did not permit the carry of "automatic" weapons then and M16A1's did I miss something?

If you enjoyed reading about ".45 Grease Gun" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!