When will someone start making "Grease gun" .45's?


PDA






IRONFIST
December 10, 2003, 04:40 AM
Yup, I know the old Grease gun .45 wasn't the prettiest weapon out there, but I sure would like one now. Semi auto, of course. Make it with an integral rail on top for red-dot scopes, lights and such, a fixed tube shoulder stock and the ability to swap out barrels easily. I looked at an old Grease gun recently and it seemed to be of a very simple and strong construction. I am aware that the government regulations would probably demand that it be fired using a closed bolt, and that the stock would have to be fixed/non-folding, but other than some issues like that... Why not? There are plenty of original Grease gun mags available for sale, and while the weapon probably wouldn't be a tack-driver, it would be fun to take plinking! I think there would be a market for such a beast, as long as it was well-made and the build cost was kept down. What do you all think?


Michael in Sandy, Oregon/Owner of Ironwolf Industries

If you enjoyed reading about "When will someone start making "Grease gun" .45's?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Devonai
December 10, 2003, 05:11 AM
Valkyrie Arms (http://www.valkyriearms.com/m3.htm) already does.

IRONFIST
December 10, 2003, 05:16 AM
Thank you Devonai, I just had someone PM me the pertinent info. The price is $750 for M3A1 Carbine. I will wait and spend my money on something just a little more practical. Thanks again.


Michael in Sandy, Oregon/Owner of IronWolf Industries

foghornl
December 10, 2003, 08:57 AM
To most folks, the M3 'Grease Gun' does fall under the heading of "pig-butt ugly".

However, that being said, to those that really enjoy and appreciate the history of WWII era weapons [like ME!] ...'WOOOHOOO!'

RTFM
December 10, 2003, 10:49 AM
To bad I don't have the extra $$$, I second that foghornl
'WOOOHOOO!'

That would be the rage out on the firing line. Everybody else with there bolt actions and you with a Grease Gun.

RTFM

ACP230
December 10, 2003, 01:29 PM
The January edition of Small Arms Review has a writeup on the Valkyrie Arms semi "Grease Gun." Three pages of text and five black and white photos.
The article answered some of my questions about the gun.

Kodiak AK
December 10, 2003, 03:23 PM
I have a friend up here with one of those . Less then 200 rounds thru it and the cast hammer snaped in two .He is still trying to get a replacment part or it.YMMV.

Werewolf
December 10, 2003, 03:36 PM
I served in M-60 tanks in the early 70's.

Our personal issue weapons were the 1911 and 2 M3's per tank which were usually carried by the driver and the gunner.

I have very fond memories of firing that thing full auto with 3 30 round mags taped together on days when we were shooting up expired ammo.

You could chop down a tree with one of those things from 25 yards.

They had almost no felt recoil to speak of because they are blowback operated and the bolt is one big piece of metal with a humongous spring behind it. They did climb up and to the right however so if you were actually trying to hit something it was a quick pull and release on the trigger to fire off just 2 or 3 rounds. :) I did however on more than one occasion rip off 30 rounds without releasing the trigger and do a quick flip on the mag to pop in and rip off another one. Fun, fun, fun!

FWIW the one pictured by valkyrie arms has a barrel that is way longer than I remember. I seem to remember the M3 as having a barrel somewhere in the 7" to 9" long range. No way did they have 16" barrels.

And $750 dollars is a bit much considering most of the parts in the thing are stamped sheet metal.

TheeBadOne
December 10, 2003, 03:39 PM
And $750 dollars is a bit much considering most of the parts in the thing are stamped sheet metal.

Agreed (from someone who's fired the Military ones too).

MAKOwner
December 10, 2003, 06:02 PM
It's totally freakin' ridiculous for it to cost that. Someone else needs to make them and sell them for a more reasonable $200 or under... What did they cost to make during WWII, like 4 bux a piece or something?

IRONFIST
December 10, 2003, 07:57 PM
If you could keep costs down, and sell the weapon for 300 bucks, even $350... you wouldn't be able to keep them in stock. They would literally fly out the door, they would sell so fast. I would prefer that the weapon NOT be an exact copy of the original Greasegun though. I would like an integral accessory rail on top, a very comfortable and stout cocking handle and a provision for a vertical foregrip. This is something I would buy. Right now.
Anyone else?


Michael in Sandy,Oregon/Owner of IronWolf Industries

BluesBear
December 10, 2003, 07:59 PM
During WWII the Submachine Gun, .45 caliber, M3, cost Guide Lamp Division of GM $15 to produce.
By contrast the 1928 Thompson cost $350. :what:

The Submachine Gun, .45 caliber, M3A1 cost slightly less since it eliminated the cocking lever.


Ironfist, the barrel is already very easy and fast to change.

Werewolf, Yes the original barrels were only 8" and I believe it had twin parallel recoil springs.


If it were made today with no provision for a stock it could probably be produced with an 8" barrel an considered to be a pistol similar to the AO 1927A5 Thompson.

Since the overall length with the stock folded is almost 30" it is a shame that it can't be produced NFA exempt. (A 16" barrel just makes it look sillier than a legal Uzi.)

Mad Man
December 10, 2003, 08:35 PM
During WWII the Submachine Gun, .45 caliber, M3, cost Guide Lamp Division of GM $15 to produce.
By contrast the 1928 Thompson cost $350.


from http://www.westegg.com/inflation/


What cost $15 in 1940 would cost $187.00 in 2002.

Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2002 and 1940,
they would cost you $15 and $1.20 respectively.


What cost $350 in 1940 would cost $4,363.26 in 2002.

Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2002 and 1940,
they would cost you $350 and $28.08 respectively.

Bainx
December 10, 2003, 08:51 PM
It's totally freakin' ridiculous for it to cost that. Someone else needs to make them and sell them for a more reasonable $200 or under...

KELTEC!........KELTEC!.......KELTEC! ;)

Benjamin
December 10, 2003, 08:52 PM
The Valkyrie arms carbine has been out for a few years.

Part of the reason it costs upwards of $700 is that the current manufacturer had to re-engineer it for use with the closed bolt, as well as manufacturing paperwork. I'd be willing to bet Valkyrie arms doesn't have quite as much manufacturing capacity as most of the WWII manufacturers, either.

IIRC the 16" tube is so that it's NFA compliant.


I guess if you're looking for a .45 acp longarm, an AR 15 conversion wouldn't be too much more expensive, likely have comparable accuracy, and be readily converted to other calibers. Still, the grease gun has a certain attraction.

dfariswheel
December 10, 2003, 09:13 PM
One reason the Valkyrie costs so much is, it's not made of stamped steel, and uses almost no original M3 parts.

The gun has a "upper/lower" receiver arrangement, with the main receiver being made of solid milled steel, not a cheap stamping.

Almost no M3 parts are used, or can be fitted to the gun.
The barrels will not interchange between the Valkyrie and the M3.

So, milled steel, new made parts, and low production = High cost.

Dionysusigma
December 10, 2003, 09:26 PM
So what's the word on the Valkyrie's reliability? My SAR-1 needs another ex-military friend :D

BluesBear
December 10, 2003, 09:30 PM
dfariswheel, where did you get your info?


From the Valkyrie website
A faithful re-creation of the venerable M3-A1, using many original USGI parts.

dfariswheel
December 10, 2003, 09:47 PM
Last winter I read a review someone posted online.
Sorry, I can't remember where I saw it.

General verdict was, the Valkyrie was a reliable, sturdy historical shooting gun "reminiscent" of the M3.

Some things were a little "off", including the milled receiver and some areas that didn't look like the original, including too-sharp corners and edges on the lower receiver that just didn't look like a stamped gun.

As I recall, the stock is pinned in the open position and the receiver doesn't have the guides for a sliding stock.
I seem to remember that the M3 safety/ejection port hatch doesn't function as a safety, and there is no oiler in the grip like the M3A1, or a clip for one like the M3.

Some of this may have been changed by now, but the article stated that not that many original M3 parts COULD be used per the BATF.

As is common with these type of guns, it's about as close as the BATF will let you come to a SMG and still be in compliance with the law. There just isn't much that could be done to stay legal with a true stamped receiver M3, so Valkyrie went the milled upper/lower route.

As is also common, these type guns are intended to be shooting historical pieces, not the latest word in a HD, target, or hunting gun.

Norm357
December 10, 2003, 10:03 PM
Half way serious question. What would it take to start producing these? Equipment and money wise? I have long thought that you could make a mint making guns that are no longer in production. Things like the Luger, S&W or Colt 1917, things like that.

Norm

BluesBear
December 10, 2003, 11:11 PM
Half way serious question. What would it take to start producing these?
For the Grease Gun not much.

They were all made by Guide Lamp Division of General Motors. This was the division that stamped out headlight assemblies for automobiles.

The bolt & barrel were the only machined parts. Everything else, except for the "wire" stock, was stamped.

The other guns you mentioned would be fairly labor intensive to produce since they are nearly 100% machined.

However, Colt thought there was enough of a market for them so they made the WWI and WWII reissues.

If you enjoyed reading about "When will someone start making "Grease gun" .45's?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!