AR15 vs Tommygun

[Alan Fud]

For "social encounters" at relatively short distances (as in hundreds of FEET instead of hundreds of YARDS), would one be better served with thirty rounds of .45ACP in a Tommygun ...

... or thirty rounds of .223 in an AR15 ...



» www.FamilyFriendsFirearms.com «
Alan Fud: Share What You Know & Learn What You Don't.

[Joe Demko]

If we're talking about semiautos, as in your pics, I'll take the AR every time.

[4v50 Gary]

If we're talking about just one bad guy and no lugging all day, I'd go Tommy Gun. If we're talking sprinting one block, up a couple flights of stairs and still get into a fight, we're talking AR.

While I'm slightly overweight, I still regularly bike 15 miles a day (including uphills). However, that the one mile walk (really a jog) with my brother's lab after the bike ride really kicked my butt. I'm not fooling myself to think I'm 20 again.

[Alan Fud]

I'm talking about a period of social unrest where a target more than a couple of hundred feet away could not be identified as friend or foe and therefore would not be engaged.

[Joe Demko]

I don't think I have much serious use for a semi-auto Tommy gun no matter what.

[rock jock]

We had some guy use a Tommy gun for our monthly 3-gun match last year. It jammed repeatedly and weighed a ton. If you want pistol-caliber ammo in a SA, buy a 9mm upper from Rock River Arms and go to town.

[4v50 Gary]

Rock Jock - was that guy's Tommy gun a real one or a GunParts Corp (Numrich) creation?

[Double Naught Spy]

That is a 20 round mag on the AR-15 and I think that is also a 20 round stick on the Tommy.

If the distance were in no more than 10s of feet and the choices were for full auto weapons, then the Tommy gun would be the way to go. Then again, a pistol caliber carbine is very easily defeated with body armor.

With the drop rate that becomes rather substantial after 50 yards on the .45 acp round and still several inches at 50 yards, an engagement at "hundreds of feet" would likely require wasted shots trying to compensate for the drop of the bullet over the distance. That isn't any sort of real problem with the .223 even out a shorter barrel such as the carbine shown.

[BHP9]

The original Tommy guns were noted for being almost 100 per cent reliable. Some of the early Numrich Arms guns were jam-amatics. I have a friend that has one of the later ones and it works flawlessly even with cast bullet loads.

In WWII many brand new Tommy guns were found thrown away in ditches and for two reasons. They were way to heavy to carry all day even for young men and as my father used to say. When in training everyone wanted the Tommy Gun because it was so much fun to shoot but when the situation got serious and someone was actually shooting back at you people only wanted the M1 or the BAR that could reach out and touch someone. Of course the BAR weighed a ton too and most wanted the M1 rifle.

Anyone who has really fired the Tommy full auto finds out real quick that you have to fire much shorter bursts than when shooting a light recoiling gun chambered for the 5.56mm. Even the 9mm sub-guns are a lot more controllable than the Tommy is.

The AR15 is a lot lighter in weight and does a lot of damage at Tommy gun ranges but it even today is not the reliable weapon that many other battle rifles are. Those like the AK or the exotic guns that were mods of the AK like the Gallil and the Swiss Sig500 series are way better battle rifles.

I have personally seen a lot of AR's jam up on the pristine, sterile envirnoment of the target range when dirty or firing in the rain or when wind blown sand was a problem. The Ak's contrary to popular myth are not immune from jamming up either but it takes more abuse to put them out of commission than the fragile AR15.

IN short the Tommy was a very well made gun for its day and very reliable but way to costly to produce, way to heavy to carry and was not as controllable as the 9mm sub-guns and later invented 5.56mm assault rifles. The sub-guns in all calibers firing pistol ammo just did not have the range or accuracy that is sometimes necessary in combat and that is why they are in little use today on the battle grounds of the world. The 9mm sub-guns still are used when a very small concealable weapon is needed that is to be silenced but when compared to the 5.56 mm guns on a battlefield one wonders why they still exist outside of war museums.

[dfariswheel]

Since the current interest in "The Greatest Generation" and WWII, there have been a number of books written or reprinted about combat in the war.

In reading these, one fact stands out: The Thompson SMG was the most sought after weapon of the war, with the possible exception of the 1911 pistol.
The stories about ditches full of discarded Thompson's are "urban legend" material.

From Audie Murphy's "To hell and Back", to "Band of Brothers", actual vets make it clear the Thompson was prized and coveted. The SMG was considered"community property". Any Thompson's user who became a casualty quickly had his gun taken by whoever got there first.
Any GI tossing his SMG into a ditch, would have had it snatched in mid air by the closest man.

However, the SMG has fallen from favor due to the superior capabilities of the modern assault weapon.
In this case, the AR is lighter, "handier", more accurate, has better sights, more power, faster reloads, less recoil, and higher hit probability.

In a closer range situation, the AR will permit faster hits on multiple targets, so I think it would be preferred.

]The Thompson is a great weapon, but like the Single Action Army and the Winchester 1873, it's day as a viable combat weapon has passed.

[Gordon]

There was a good underground market for Thompsons in Vietnam. They went for $400 or so (a lot of $ then) to officers who wanted one with them in Jeep. I bought a Swedish K for $200 with 6 mags. I sold it to a Helicopter crew chief in Da Nang for $300 and booze. I bought a grease gun for $50 before I left and sent it home in pieces in a stereo system !!!! I went overseas again and a wayward wife(while I was gone) threw it off a bridge into river before I came home (a wise decision ).

[rock jock]

Gary,

It was a reproduction from the same company as the original I think. Aren't they making them once again?

[Alan Fud]

Yes, they are being made again. Kahr is now the maker of the Tommygun.

[CWL]

An AR system is exactly that, a system. You can tailor & configure your AR into whatever use carbine you want it to be. Even calibers are available. You can also add on some useful (and more junk) things like lights, optics, etc.

A Thompson can have it's stock removed and you have choice of drum or stick mag. .45ACP is great, but they go in my pistol.

I once was offered a Tommygun for trade, but I kept my AR.

[guy sajer]

I have owned a WWII Savage M1 Thompson .45 for about 10 years . I have fired it many times and it is extremely reliable with any ball ammo including Wolf as well as lead reloads . If you are familiar with the M1 , you know it does not have compensator on the barrel . It doesn't need one . It is very easy to keep it on target . It is also easy to squeeze off single shots even while it's set on full auto . It's a fine weapon . Is it heavy ? I guess if you compare it to an M1 Carbine , yes . However , it weighs the same as an M1 Garand or 20" M16 HBAR .

I also own a Colt M16 Commando 11.5" .223 . It is also easy to shoot and reliable . With the telescoping stock and shorter barrel make it easier to handle . Also very lightweight .

My opinion only and from accounts of veterans , not from personal experience . In an urban house to house fight , the Thompson is a pretty good choice . It was popular in that role . But , with the knowledge and experience with both . I like the M16 for it's close and longer range effectiveness . I would also carry it with soft or hollow point rounds .

I would not trust my life to the new semi auto Tommy guns . They are not trustworthy imo .

Mitch

[labgrade]

"Hundreds of feet" can easily equate to a couple hundred yards rather quickly.

.223 any day.

[chieftain]

Like Gordon,

I had a Thompson and later a Swedish K in Nam. I much prefered the K for serious work.

The Thompson was reliable, but the Ammo weighed a ton! I had an ammo bag slung with 10 of the 30 round stick mags and those loaded 300 rounds were heavy and I was walking around with a port list!

Now the K's Ammo was a reasonable weight.

I could carry as more 30-06/7.62 Nato as I could 45acp loaded.

In Korea the Chinese used alot of Thompsons! And our M1's and even the M1 Carbines out shot them!

I like both guns, Thompson and the Swedish K, the Thompson is fun, but given a choice and all else equal I would take the K!

[Blain]

Interesting question....


However, I think an even more interesting question would be....

"Which would you rather have in battle? An M1 Carbine, an M1 Thompson, or an MP5????????"


Since all those deal with pistol caliber carbines, it would be interesting to note which of those three are most prefered.... The M1 Carbine has light ammo, with as much or more power than the .45 ACP!

....Looks as if I will have to post such a topic after all!

[BHP9]

The stories about ditches full of discarded Thompson's are "urban legend" material

I grew up in the early 50's and at family get togetherss there where many WWII veterns. Mostly I sat and listened but being fasinated with weapons I asked questions of those who really used them in combat.

More than one WWII veteren including my own father attested to the fact that they did indeed thrown Tompsons away into ditches because of both the weight of the gun and the limited range of the piece. All veterens I have talked to said it was a great close range street fighter and quite deadly but they all ended up getting rid of the Thompson in favor of the M1 rifle.

[BHP9]

. Is it heavy ? I guess if you compare it to an M1 Carbine , yes . However , it weighs the same as an M1 Garand or 20" M16 HBAR .

M1's varied quite a bit in weight due to the fact that they came with both walnut or beech stocks.

M1 weighs anywhere from 8 3/4lbs to 9 1/2 lbs.

Thompson 1928a1 10 3/4 lbs.

Late war Thompson M1 & M1a 10 1/2lbs

So the Thompson could in some cases weigh almost 2 lbs more than the M1 and although 2 lbs does not seem like much try carrying both weapons up hill and down dale all day and see which one you would rather carry.

One must also weigh the ammo carried in the gun. Not even speaking of the 50 round drum even the 30 round stick mag weighed more than the 8 round en block M1 clip.

In short the Tommy was a great gun in its day but by the beginning of WWII it was already obsolete due to cost, weight, controllablilty and range. Its slow moving .45 caliber bullet had way less range and penetration than even the hot German 9mm fired out of their much cheaper to produce MP40 which by the way only weiged 8.8 lbs.

[seeker_two]

.45ACP = great combat pistol round
.223 = great combat SMG round
.308 = great battle rifle round

Let's keep this in perspective...

[Jim Keenan]

A couple of notes. IIRC, infantry units were not armed with the Thompson, most of them going to the armor, so few were "carried over hill and dale". The full-auto TSMG can be fired quite accurately with bit of practice at the sort of range envisioned in the original question.

The magazine in the pictured semi-auto Thompson carbine is 30 round, not 20.

The semi-auto Thompson is longer and more awkward than the SMG, plus its closed bolt means that it lacks advance primer ignition (API) so its spring is very strong. In addition, the semi-auto versions (the original open bolt Model 1927 excepted) have not been very reliable.

The question was apparently in regard to semi autos, AR-15 vs Thompson carbine. My choice would be the AR-15, whether full or semi. The .45 is a good pistol round, but the 5.56 is just as mean at short range, and can reach out where the .45 can't.

Jim

[4v50 Gary]

rock jock - I too would take an AR over a GunParts Corp (or whatever the name of that NY firm that was owned by the parent corp) made Tommy Gun. GunParts Corp was never noted for quality guns and their 1911s were good for paperweight, intimidation, movie props but not as a basis for building comp guns or self defense guns.

I know a filipino who had one and prior to joining the USN, he greased it up and buried it and placed small banana tree atop of it. His cousin dug it up during the Marcos overthrow ('86?) and he doesn't know where it's at now.

[444]

For me there is no question that I would take the AR15. I have fired several variations of the Thompson SMG and own a half dozen AR15s. For one thing the Thompson dosn't feel comfortable or natural in my hands. The AR seems to be a natural extension of my arms. For me, the AR is much easier to control; more rounds on target. I realize that it is very possible to "get good" with a Thompson and have seen a guy that can fire a full mag into a group smaller than the black of a 25 yard pistol target in one burst, but I can't. The 5.56 round produces more trauma to the target than the .45 ACP round. It has been my experience that the .45 ACP round punches a nice hole through the target while the .223 (or most any rifle round) blows a big hole in the target.
As was mentioned, the AR is a weapons system. For close range encounters I would much prefer my flat top AR with an Aimpoint ML2, Surefire 500A light system, and a tac sling. I would also much prefer this set up to any "battle rifle" for the situation you describe. Your senario doesn't call for extreme range shots, it calls for a short, handy carbine rather than a long, heavy, big recoil battle rifle. Not to mention your specification of a 30 round mag.

[MP-44]

I read ( Stephen Ambrose I believe) that fully loaded Thompson 30rd mags were so heavy that they had a bad tendency of falling out of the gun.