Why isn't the M3A1 "grease gun" still manufactured?

[CoyoteSix]

Hey all, I was wondering why guns like the M3 "Grease Gun", Sten MK series, and MP 40 series guns aren't being produced and sold to civilians in some kind of non NFA Pistol Caliber Carbine (PCC) format?

I believe there's a market for a all American made, high value, crude but efficient PCC like the M3.

Any thoughts gentlemen?

 

[InkEd]

Open bolt for starters.

 

[Killermonkey21]

I would venture the guess that the market can only bear so many reproductions. I know there is a Sten copy that is made (closed bolt, semi only) but I think the price tag makes it out of reach for most, plus it's kind of esoteric if you ask me.

I think also there would have to be a pretty big redesign for an M3 to be made semi-only, considering it was designed to be a cheap, easy to mass produce sub-gun. Just my say.

 

[tactikel]

Open bolt firearms can rather easily be converted to FA. They are restricted :banghead:
The M3 needed a heavy bolt to handle the .45 acp, consequently, when the trigger is pulled the mass of the bolt running to battery pulls the gun off target. It was a cheap, inaccurate, reliable, bullet hose .

 

[Carl N. Brown]

I have seen over the past decade a few companies offer semi auto "grease gun" pistols (sliding stock welded closed), as similar PPS43 semi auto pistol replicas, as well as semi-auto Sten, Suomi and Sterling carbines (which look funny with 16" barrels), as well as a relative's semi-auto UZI with a 16" real barrel and a "normal" size dummy barrel for display purposes.

There just is not that much demand, small production numbers, relative high price. Years back when I had more money free at the end of the month, I did buy a used AutoOrdnance M1 Thompson replica, semi-auto carbine. The interest is there, but it is a small collector's niche, not enough to drive huge numbers of production.

 

[MattShlock]

It Was

But too late...

Valkyrie Arms went out of business AGAIN in the middle of the biggest run on guns and ammo since the US Civil War!

 

[JShirley]

What the M3 could do is better done by an M4, and more.
M4:
>standard military round
>common operating controls and sights to general-issue rifle
>very effective at close range, and accurate enough to hit targets beyond the range most troops are skilled enough to shoot
>same magazines as general-issue rifle

The M3's sole advantage vs. the modern short carbine is cost.

John

 

[Carl N. Brown]

M3 is cheap only if one has access to the kind of sheet metal stamping machinery possessed by General Motors's Inland Division, used to stamp out car parts from heavy gauge sheet metal, and used to make M3s in WWII.

Small manufacturers can make Sten receivers from 1.5" steel tubing, or MAC10 or AK47 receivers from 90° folding flat sheet metal, but precisely pressing two M3 receiver halves from sheet metal and welding them together would be beyond the small workshop. The US military ordered 600,000 M3s in WWII, but I doubt if there is that much interest in semi-auto collector replicas to justify GM size sheet metal handling machinery.

For serious security or defense work, the MP5 submachinegun or M4 carbine would be a better choice. I suspect the only market for the M3 is military history buffs and gun collectors with interest in WWII/Korean War.

(As I recall, the Valkerie M3 replica was in the price range of a M4gery.)

 

[parsimonious_instead]

I fired an M3 Grease Gun at a machine gun rental store last year. I was pleasantly surprised at how solid, controllable and accurate it was. I'd pay a fair amount for a semi-auto reproduction.

 

[Hangingrock]

I had a M3A1 that I acquired. It supplemented my 1911A1 that was standard issue. I thought its accuracy to be acceptable under the circumstances and its rate of fire made it rather controllable. At the end of my tour I passed it of to another individual.

 

[Averageman]

I was issued and M3 and it really wouldnt be my first choice.
Although simple to maintain, the learning curve to be accurate with the weapon was pretty steep.
Because of the tendancy to pull up and off of the target with sustained fire, ( I believe it would walk up and right.) trigger control was essential to M3 Marksmanship.
Being able to fire three round bursts was the key to accuracy and with the trigger on the M3 that could be somewhat tricky.
The trigger was pretty much poorly designed and sluggish. With a weapon such as the M3, I would want the trigger to reset with a bit more positive controllable force.
The recoil worked against you as you tried to conrol it, we had a tendancy as the weapon fired to grip the pistol grip even tighter, which leads to less trigger control as your just trying to keep the dang thing pointed in the right direction and pray the magazine empties soon.
I knew only one guy who had a lot of control with his M3 and he could deliver ten or more 2 to 3 round bursts with great accuracy. He wasn't the typical shooter though, he had many years experiance as a firearms instructor in the Army.
Great gun for a fight in a phone booth though.

 

[MikeJackmin]

I'd say that the Hi-Point Carbine fills the niche now. It's not make of sheet metal, but it's a very inexpensive, reasonably reliable, semi-auto pistol-caliber carbine.

 

[Sam1911]

We have a thread running right now on SIG getting into the pistol caliber sub-gun and carbine market. Mentions also of Taurus and Beretta's offerings there as well.

Marlin and Ruger both tried to make simple pistol caliber carbines to fill the enormous demand from American shooters who howled for them in such numbers.

Except they don't really. "Hey, neat idea..." just doesn't seem to translate to lots of folks buying them. PCCs don't really fill any niche excellently -- except fun plinking -- and every other "serious" use is better handled by several other VERY common, VERY popular options.

Everyone wants one, very few people ever bother to buy one.

One as crude as an M3, for the price it would cost to make? Heck no.

That will fit the same niche as Kahr/AutoOrd.'s Thomspon reproductions and some of the other WWII sub-gun repros. Lots of people say they want them. A few people actually buy one. See one at the range about once a year if you're lucky.

It's an idea that (today) is MUCH better in theory than in practice.

 

[Mp7]

i shot

a M3 when i was a guest in KY.

Off a porch.

Into the forest. Full auto.


And man. Did i hit that forest!





It felt crude.

 

[Queen_of_Thunder]

Open bolt firearms can rather easily be converted to FA. They are restricted :banghead:
The M3 needed a heavy bolt to handle the .45 acp, consequently, when the trigger is pulled the mass of the bolt running to battery pulls the gun off target. It was a cheap, inaccurate, reliable, bullet hose .

Yes, but it was extremely fun to shoot.

 

[Hangingrock]

Ok with out being overly argumentative I've fired the Reising, Thompson, and Grease Gun (M3A1). The M3A1 of the three has the lowest cyclic fire rate. Thru my personal experience I am not buying into that the M3A1 is problematic to control in firing.

 

[Officers'Wife]

Two reasons, the first although somewhat known the unit is not an icon of military use or WWII as is the Garand, the Thompson, the Lugar or the Smessier.

Second, it's ugly, too ugly for commercial success without reason 1 to drive up demand.

 

[goon]

The M3 did it's job during WWII. But in today's market, even an FA version wouldn't be as useful to me as a semi-auto M-4 clone. The fact is that you probably couldn't sell me one unless you priced it in line with a Hi-Point carbine. Even then, just because Hi-Point carbines are cheap, that hasn't motivated me to buy one.

 

[AK103K]

Thru my personal experience I am not buying into that the M3A1 is problematic to control in firing.

I dont buy into it either. The M3 was the first SMG I fired, and I was 8 at the time. I was given a few minutes instruction, and allowed to fire a couple of single rounds, to get the feel of the gun down, then a couple of mags loaded with three rounds, and then it was full mags and big smiles. I never had any troubles keeping rounds on target, even right off.

From that point on, I was hooked, and have been lucky enough to get to shoot all sorts of cool stuff over the years.

What I am really amazed at is, how little instruction most people in the military were (are now?) given, if they were given any at all. 95% of former military people Ive known and/or let shoot my guns, seemed to have no idea as to how to shoot and control the guns. The usual complaints of control and rising up and off target, just show they had no training in how to shoot them properly. Its a simple technique, easily learned and used, and full mag dumps on target are very easy. Not that thats the correct use of the gun, but it shows that shooting them isnt difficult.

As far as SA versions of any of them, sure, they would probably be fun, and Im sure a lot of reenactors would like to see them avaialble, especially the WWII stuff, but to be close to "real", they'd still be in the NFA, as they are to "short" by rifle standards with the correct barrels, and working stocks, and would need to be "taxed" as a "short barreled rifle".

 

[akodo]

We have a thread running right now on SIG getting into the pistol caliber sub-gun and carbine market. Mentions also of Taurus and Beretta's offerings there as well.

Marlin and Ruger both tried to make simple pistol caliber carbines to fill the enormous demand from American shooters who howled for them in such numbers.

Except they don't really. "Hey, neat idea..." just doesn't seem to translate to lots of folks buying them. PCCs don't really fill any niche excellently -- except fun plinking -- and every other "serious" use is better handled by several other VERY common, VERY popular options.

Everyone wants one, very few people ever bother to buy one.

One as crude as an M3, for the price it would cost to make? Heck no.

That will fit the same niche as Kahr/AutoOrd.'s Thomspon reproductions and some of the other WWII sub-gun repros. Lots of people say they want them. A few people actually buy one. See one at the range about once a year if you're lucky.

It's an idea that (today) is MUCH better in theory than in practice.

I think a lot of what happens is there are unspoken expectations with pistol caliber rifles, namely price. If PC Carbines could be made to sit in price half way between what a 22 and a regular rifle runs, they'd have a market. But they don't. And when faced with the option of buying a PC-Carbine for $800 or a rifle-rifle for $800, people don't buy the PC.

This can be seen in how many people choose to NOT buy a 9mm upper for the AR-15.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

There are some generally recognized pro's and con's of the M3A1 that come from people who have handled them a lot. First, the slow rate of fire is disappointing, until you find you can fire them very effectively. When I first fired one, I felt I could probably shoot my 1911 just as fast and effectively. After shooting the M3A1 more, it became evident that it's looks and performance are deceiving. The weight, balance, and slow rate of fire lend well to controlling the gun, just the same as the German MP40. Both were economical, stamped metal guns that perform WAY beyond their production cost would indicate. The M3A1 is a bit heavy, but nothing like the Thompson SMG, and is better balanced. The suppressed version of the M3A1 was even used on the failed Iranian Embassy raid, if I remember correctly. M3A1's were in a local inventory at an Army Nat. Guard near me up until 5-6 years ago (they have and overhaul heavy military vehicles and tanks). Some greaseguns have a reputation of erratic functioning, but that is usually traced to magazines, or the lockup of the magazine. When bad mags are removed from the equation, and guns are properly fitted at the mag catch, etc, they tend to run like slow typewriters. One or two hits from a .45 round usually gets the enemy's attention. http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...&mid=9320B768E5470CF589839320B768E5470CF58983 and ......... http://www.americanspecialops.com/delta-force/weapons/m3-grease-gun.php

 

[HOWARD J]

I had an UZI made by IMI with a 16" & a 3" barrel ( picked up the 3" from a cop)
If you pulled the trigger as fast as you could it dumped 32 rds. out in 4 seconds--about 3/4's of them shooting at the moon.
As a semi-auto it was only good for a show piece.
MI put in place things you had to do to the gun that destroyed the value if you wanted to use it--I sold it before they took effect.
My kids were mad as hell that I sold it but I was tired of reloading thousands of 9MM rds. every week

 

[Nickel Plated]

M3 is cheap only if one has access to the kind of sheet metal stamping machinery possessed by General Motors's Inland Division, used to stamp out car parts from heavy gauge sheet metal, and used to make M3s in WWII.

Small manufacturers can make Sten receivers from 1.5" steel tubing, or MAC10 or AK47 receivers from 90° folding flat sheet metal, but precisely pressing two M3 receiver halves from sheet metal and welding them together would be beyond the small workshop. The US military ordered 600,000 M3s in WWII, but I doubt if there is that much interest in semi-auto collector replicas to justify GM size sheet metal handling machinery.

For serious security or defense work, the MP5 submachinegun or M4 carbine would be a better choice. I suspect the only market for the M3 is military history buffs and gun collectors with interest in WWII/Korean War.

(As I recall, the Valkerie M3 replica was in the price range of a M4gery.)

That's right. Grease Guns, MP40s and PPSHs are only cheap if you have a whole factory complex dedicated to their production and cranking them out by the container load. They are pretty difficult to make in a small shop. And I doubt there's enough demand to justify making millions of those guns.

The reason there's no demand is, SMGs were made for one specific purpose. Shooting alot of bullets really fast. Their whole reason for existing is their fully automatic fire. Obviously we can't make proper full auto SMGs and are stuck with just semi-only clones. And an SMG limited to semi only becomes pretty pointless. It's just a bulky, heavy oversized and underpowered pistol.

As for pistol caliber carbines. The ergonomics and form of those old SMG designs just makes for a kind of crappy carbine. If you want to make a PCC then you're better off just designing one from scratch that's actually designed as a carbine, not an SMG trying to be one.
The basic design of those old guns is...well, just old. The long stroke non telescopic bolts mean you have a pretty short barrel for that big of a gun.

If you're just interested in old school guns, than there are a few manufacturers who fill that small niche of the market. But otherwise, I doubt anyone would really care for them. Don't get me wrong. I would love to see more pistol caliber carbines on the market. But like I said; ones that wore designed as such. Preferably in semi-automatic .357 magnum flavor.

 

[LeonCarr]

One of my former employees was a retired Army Master Sergeant who served in Desert Shield/Desert Storm in an Armor Unit as a Tank Turret Mechanic. He was issued an M3A1. He qualified Expert with the M3A1. When he retired, he bought one and I got to shoot it .

Very easy to shoot, low cyclic rate, very easy to tap off single shots with one. Roughly half the cyclic rate of a Thompson.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

 

[MattShlock]

Guess I'm Stuck With This Paperweight

Well, now I feel badly about having bought my semi-auto Grease Gun. I even got the short make-believe barrel to go with it like an idiot!

As bad as it must surely be I know now I'm just stuck with it and will never be able to sell it for a fraction of what it presumably cost.

ps: Yeah, I've fired the real things full auto. They're actually not bad outdoors or in. But mine? Darn stock is not collapsible and even with its 16" barrel I don't think I was on paper the one time I fired it.

pps: IT'S NOT FOR SALE