Re: m2 hyde inland from scratch in semi

Status
Not open for further replies.

snidervolley

Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2011
Messages
298
Location
western washington where cowboys still ride
I am taking on a most ambitious task .
in ww2 the us decided to replace the Thompson smg with something better and cheaper ,there first choice was the m2 Hyde inland as produced by marlin firearms co.
it was sent to Aberdeen in 1942 and proved itself better in every category and accepted with an order for 164,000 .
after first 400 where built it was canceled for the far inferior gun the pos m3 grease gun .
I will replicate this gun as close as possible in semiauto and maybe a post dealer sample or two in full.
 
TtJEwVCOeIU
 

Attachments

  • bolt.jpg
    bolt.jpg
    110.5 KB · Views: 35
Last edited:
I will replicate this gun as close as possible in semiauto and maybe a post dealer sample or two in full
I hate to ask.
But are you fully versed in the ATF laws concerning manufacture of full auto, or 'easily converted' open bolt weapons??

rc
 
According to Wiki and other sources, the M2 was difficult to manufacture, and required skilled machinist labor. The war effort required a product that was cheap, required no skilled labor, and used the least material.

The M3 Grease gun was designed by the same team of Hyde and an engineer from GM's Inland division to get around the M2's problems.

Here's a quote from Wiki: "The M2 is a simple blowback operated design, although it was difficult to make. The receiver was built from a steel forging and a seamless tubular section, which took extra time and effort to machine and finish, causing the US Army to adopt the M3, instead. The bolt was shaped unusually, having a large diameter at the rear, and being slender in the front. Unlike the M3 it had a fixed wooden stock, and wooden furniture."

Here's another article about them with an exploded drawing: http://www.historicalfirearms.info/...e-inland-m2-submachine-gun-the-hyde-m2-is-the

In this last article, they mention that during testing it was twice as accurate in full auto fire as the Thompson it was to replace. They scored 99 hits out of 100 at 50 yards, full auto, into a 6"x6" square. Obviously, someone who knew how to shoot well.
 
I hate to ask.
But are you fully versed in the ATF laws concerning manufacture of full auto, or 'easily converted' open bolt weapons??

rc

Not laws. Rulings. They do not have the force of law. Not that it matters. If they can take the gun, remove the trigger and sear , pull back the bolt and let it rip they are going to call it a machine gun whether the rule/law makes any difference.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top