New Grease Gun... opinions/ experience?

[Dionysusigma]

Now, we all know how the original USGI M3 "Grease Guns" were/ are about as reliable as a toaster in a rainstorm. But recently, I came across an ad in the new Guns 'n Stuff catalog for a recreation of it. The description is as follows:

U.S. M3-A1 "GREASE GUN"
.45 cal Semi auto
A faithful recreation of the venerable M3-A1, using several original parts. Each gun comes with one original 30 round magazine. Includes a new 16.5" barrel, and wire stock (welded open for compliance with gun laws.) A dead ringer for the original size and shape. FFL required.

Has anyone heard about these? Are they any more reliable than the originals? Is $650.00 (before shipping and transfer fees) a good price? I've wanted one ever since the 2nd Grade and now this opportunity comes up... And hey, even if it isn't all that reliable, at least the Winchester 1911 SL has a friend.

Maybe I'll start a collection of the most hated weapons of wars (by their operators)

 

[Ohen Cepel]

Made by Valkyrie.

I read about them some. Just didn't thrill me with that long barrel and welded wire stock. The review was pretty good.

www.valkyriearms.com

I see that they have added the Sten also. Could be nice.

Just hate those long barrels!

Let us know how they are if you get one!

 

[Vern Humphrey]

We used to keep a Grease Gun in the jeep when I was an Adviser my first tour in Viet Nam. They are fairly reliable, but why we kept it is beyond me -- an M1 rifle was far better for any task you can imagine.

 

[DMK]

Hmm, it actually doesn't look that bad with the 16" barrel.

 

[Chipperman]

You could always SBR it anyway, if you wanted.

 

[Badger Arms]

Vern:

We kept it because we had nothing else like it. Tank crews were the last to use the gun. It was short and powerful. Cheaper and more effective than a 1911, shorter and more powerful than a Carbine, more maneuverable than a Garand. It's not a gun I have personal experience with. My father carried it during the Korean conflict and had nothing but good things to say about it.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I participated in the "Magic Tank" fight at Sui Cat in '68. The tank in question, an M48 travelling with a platoon from another troop of the 11th Cavalry, was in the killzone, was hit repeatedly by RPGs and recoilless rifles, ran off the road, and stalled.

The loader was mortally wounded -- he was riding exposed when the ambush popped.

The crew buttoned up, and then cracked the hatch and tried spraying around with a grease gun. That attracted more fire.

The sight lenses were crazed, but the gun switch lights were still on. The crew tried lining up through a cracked hatch and using the main gun. That attracted more fire.

After the ambush, when the crew were evacuated, a mechanic climbed inside the tank and tried the ignition -- it started and he drove it off!!

Just running over NVA would have been far more effective than the grease tun.

 

[Pheonix]

Didn't it cost the Gov. about two bucks a piece to make these?

 

[moxie]

Don't know where you heard the M3A1 is unreliable. Quite the contrary. It only has two moving parts! I don't like the long barrel either, but otherwise the Valkyrie looks good. That wire stock looks to be stock (sorry). I had two of these in Vietnam and they were a comfort. Perfect for close in work, which happily I never had to test. I mean if you accept the virtues of the .45 ACP out of a 1911, you get about 200+ fps more out of an M3. And 30 rds. out of a small, easy to handle weapon is, like I said, just the ticket for close in. The trick setup was the M3A1 and two full mags in an M-60 spare barrel case. The M-1 carbine is nice, but the round isn't as effective, and it isn't quite as handy. The full-auto M2 version is more desireable than the M1, but not as controllable or as reliable as the M3A1.

 

[dfariswheel]

I had a write-up on the Valkyrie Grease gun, (which, of course, I can't find now).

According to the article, this version actually uses a milled steel upper/lower type receiver.
This was made necessary to meet BATF's concerns about a stamped gun, like the original.

One criticism of the Valkyrie's milled steel receivers, was that the edges were more squared off than a stamped gun would be, and this gave the gun a slightly odd look to those familiar with the original M3.

It does use some M3 parts, but barrel won't interchange.
The stock isn't welded on, it just doesn't have the guides for the original sliding assembly, so it can't close.

According to the article, reliability was excellent, as long as good magazines were used, and accuracy was excellent.....BUT the sights weren't aligned very well with the actual point of impact.

Like the semi-auto UZI and the Thompson gun, this should be considered as what it is: A legal, shooting historical firearm, somewhat along the same lines as the Single Action and the replicas of the Henry and Winchester rifles.

What they aren't are modern assault, target, or home defense weapons.
Taken in that light, these things are just plain FUN to shoot.

 

[Selfdfenz]

I used to know the names of the contractors for the M3 but have forgotten.
I do seem to recall that the unit was produced for very little $. Something crazy like 3 dollars IIRC. Or...was that the Liberator pistol??

The WWII paratroopers also carried M3s to an extent, my father being one example at least for a while according to him. I think he really was a bigger fan of the BAR.

Anywho, they look funny with the long barrel but the Sten has got to look even more strange.

I'd kind of like to have both

S-

 

[Correia]

My gunsmith was an Army Ranger during Viet Nam. He loved the M3. It was his favorite weapon.

 

[DMK]

The full-auto M2 version is more desireable than the M1, but not as controllable or as reliable as the M3A1.

Not doubting you, but I find it surprising that the stubby M3 is more controllable than the M2. Is it because of the lower pressure round?

 

[Dionysusigma]

Don't know where you heard the M3A1 is unreliable.

Prior anecodtal evidence. That, and one day a guy brought both a Thompson and a Grease Gun to the range. Both original USGI full-auto. The Thompson was fun to watch, went bang every time, etc. The M3, however, was more of a BLAM-BLAM-BLAM-BLAM *thunk* *crunch*

That was my prior experience with them, anyhow. From the sound of it, not a model to go by.

DMK: Hmm, it actually doesn't look that bad with the 16" barrel.
Chipperman: You could always SBR it anyway, if you wanted.

Or just do what I do and say that the 16" barrel just makes it all that more accurate

 

[moxie]

Well, re the case where an M3 went bang, bang, thunk, or whatever. One data point, and you don't know what had been done or not to make that gun that way. Means absolutely nothing. If the M3 is set up right and lubed right it should perk like mad. If the extractor isn't cleaned/lubed properly on the bolt face, it will fail to eject and quit, just like any auto. If the mag isn't clean or has a bad spring, or the feed lips are messed up, it will quit, just like any auto. The mag on the M3, by the way, is in my opinion the most robust magazine for an automatic weapon in existence. It is hell for stout and could probably be used to hammer tent pegs in a pinch without damage. But that doesn't mean it is perfect.

Re the M3 vs. M2 carbine in full auto. Yes the M3 is more controllable, partly because it's a low pressure round, but also because it has that big, huge, bolt chugging back and forth damping things out. Getting that first shot placed right can be a challenge, as it fires from an open bolt. Of course BARs, many UZIs, and lots of other fine weapons do too. "Lock time" isn't really pertinent in this context. It is stipulated to be a problem, and requires lots of concentration to overcome.

 

[grendelbane]

Just off the top of my head, without checking any reference, I will say that the Guide Lamp division of General Motors was a major producer.

This is because I can remember my father saying he carried one in WWII. He always referred to it as a "Guide Lamp" gun.

He liked it because he could remove the bolt, and with an empty magazine, it was very light.

Don't worry, it is not genetic. Or, if it is, I inherited my hoplophilia from my mother's side of the family.

 

[MeekandMild]

It only has two moving parts!

Hate to quible, but:

bolt=1
recoil spring=2
trigger=3
trigger spring =4

That would be the minimum. I don't know if it had a separate sear but if so the sear and its spring would have been 5 and 6.

 

[Chindo18Z]

The suppressed version would chug those slugs pretty accurately (considering the BB rifle sights) what with all the added weight up front. Just a soft clacking sound as that big bolt cycled. Plus you could beat someone to death with the huge steel can if you ran dry...

Not in the same league with HK MP5 but much cheaper to produce, easier to maintain, and much more robust.

Reliable, lethal, simple...also ugly and heavy.

 

[modifiedbrowning]

I believe that the Guide Lamp division of GM was in fact the original designer of the Grease Gun as well the largest manufacturer.

 

[DrDremel]

Springs are not usually counted in moving parts count when guns are the topic.

 

[Gordon]

Well in one tour of the 'Nam I actually got my hands on one, (Never could afford a Thompson and the Swedish K -well that was a funny story thats on internet and ammo was scarce!) it was a like new M-3a1 . I had 6 mags for it and they got pretty heavy to carry around loaded! Senior field grade officers would puke on me quite a bit when they saw it so I had to stay out of their way with it! I was issued a 1911a1 so ammo was not a problem. During this time I was flying around I corp(northern south VN near DMZ) alot and it was convenient to hop in and out of Loachs and planes. I used to shoot it for fun (thank G-d never got into a fire fight with it) around the ARVN and ROK troops , they liked this sort of recreation and were pretty loose about it. I never had a MALF in several thousand rounds, kept it clean. I could hit pretty good a man sized target at 100yds or less with first couple rounds, a long burst was more 'area suppression fire' . I sold it for $200 (paid $150) when I left to a Birddog pilot.

 

[Johnny Guest]

grease gun prices - - -

Lotsa different figures being batted around here, and I DO NOT have any authoritative references, but - - -

Seems to me that I read somewhere that the US Govt paid something like $17.00 each for the M3A1 gun with one magazine, sling, and oiler. On one episode of The History Channel's series, "Tales of the Gun," they gave a slightly different figure, but still inthe same ballark.

To put it in context, though, immediately pre-war, a 1928 Thompson SMG with Cutts Comp and one Type XX mag went for $225. I think the M1 and M1A1 modifications got the price down to around $165. Easy to see why the M3 series was less expensive, not to mention using less war critical raw material.

I have a couple of pouches marked, "magazine M3," which hold SIX mags, not in separate cells. I've put that many loaded 30-round Thompson mags in one, and it weighs a short TON! And the M3 mag is substantially heaver than that for the TSMG.

I want an M3, but I can't afford a live one, so . . . .

Best,
Johnny

 

[moxie]

Springs are not moving parts.

There is no separate sear.

Gordon's experience parallels mine, although I got both mine for free and left them to Vietnamese friends when I left on Mar. 29, 1973.

Yes, the mags are hell for stout. And very heavy when loaded.

 

[Kodiak AK]

My friend has one . The wire stock feels cheesy. The 16"barrel looks real bad in person.And we discovered it uses an ar-15 hammer when his hammer sheared in half on the first mag of use .

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Fired my first real grease gun (M3A1) right after I had just dumped a mag or two through an MP5. The M3 cycled so slow in comparison, I thought it had malfunctioned and released the trigger after firing only one shot.

Fun from a historical sense; but $650 is way overpriced for the quality of work in the original grease gun. The only reason I can see spending that on a semi-auto replica is if you have a collector's interest. From a shooting standpoint, there are many guns that do a better job at a more affordable or comparable price.