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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Laws.

You can't make it open bolt. Making it closed bolt changes the fundemental operation of the firearm and how reliable or durable it was would be based on that entirely new action.
So it would only superficially look like a grease gun.
Open bolt firearms, especially full auto with even fewer required moving parts than semi, can be both crude and reliable. The bolt in many such guns does the role of several things in closed bolt actions. The trigger merely holds the bolt back against spring pressure. The bolt when released strips the round, chambers it, and fired it with a fixed firing pin. With recoil pushing the bolt back against spring pressure and the process repeating until the bolt was caught by the trigger mechanism being released. So its just a tube with a piece of metal bouncing back and forth in it. The most complicated part of the entire firearm is the magazine to insure reliable feeding.
Change it to closed bolt and the refinement required to be as reliable is much higher.


Second you can't make subguns thier realistic sizes that the market would actually buy and the ballistics of a pistol caliber are ideal for.
This is due to SBR laws that shrink the market to a much more limited NFA crowd, and also add a $200 tax to something which is a lot if you are making something to meet a low price point.
Most of the market looking at low price point substitutes and willing to deal with a lot less refinement to reach it does not overlap with the market willing to pay at least $200 extra, wait months, and go through the hassle of the NFA.
As for the barrel length: Pistol calibers using fast pistol powders excel in shorter barrels.
The point of diminishing returns where additional length is worth the gains varies by caliber and load, but I recall in .45ACP the Thompson barrel length was actually created with that in mind, and was 10.5".
Subguns even in semi auto would be quite handy and a good ballistic, weight, and size, compromise with such length barrels. With modern improvements like telescoping or collapsing stocks you could have something compact and easily maneuvered when deployed and little bigger than a handgun when stored.
But toss in NFA restrictions mandating a 16"+ barrel for most of the market and a rifle in a rifle caliber of the same size makes more sense.
If it has to be rifle sized with a rifle length barrel that could benefit from more powder and longer burn times it might as well be a rifle cartridge.

Another area pistol caliber carbines offer consideration is with suppression, where they can perform almost normal ballistically and be highly suppressed compared to rifles that rely on supersonic velocities for the majority of thier energy. But that again involves the NFA, and reduces the market size.


Third crude subguns were made for volumes of fire. Without fully automatic capability they lose thier primary role. If you can't have volumes of fire then precision becomes more important and more precision requires more refinement and that typically involves a more stable action and higher price point.

So for civilians I would say the laws play a huge role.
 
Last edited:
The original WWII grease gun was made, (are you ready?, General Motors Headlight Division! Why? They had the sheet metal stamping system already set up to stamp headlights when they were not integrated into the fender, buy sat atop the fender. They could stamp tin cans, they could make machine guns!!!

Best.
 
Other than the desire to have a semi-auto clone of a historical gun, I don't know what any of these guns would do that can't be done better by another PCC already on the market or an AR converted to run on the pistol caliber of your choice.

I do know, that at least at one point, Century Arms made some Sterling semi-auto carbines.
 
I'd enjoy having one in SBR trim for my "pseudo WW-II" collection.

I'd enjoy having a real one that much more, but not in this state. And not at that cost. :(
 
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?
A German company, Sport-Systeme Dittrich, manufactures semi-only MP-40's and STG44's for the European civilian market. They cost around $3000 each, even for a relatively simple open bolt MP-40 (which is both not importable to the U.S. and would be illegal anyways because it fires from an open bolt). Building replica WWII SMG's in a semi only configuration that meets current requirements such as firing from a closed bolt is complicated, costly, and does not result in an affordable firearm as the scale of production that made them cheap in the first place doesn't exist. There is also the fact to consider that these would likely not be assembled from parts kits, so all the components would have to be newly manufactured.
 
Building replica WWII SMG's in a semi only configuration that meets current requirements such as firing from a closed bolt is complicated, costly, and does not result in an affordable firearm as the scale of production that made them cheap in the first place doesn't exist. There is also the fact to consider that these would likely not be assembled from parts kits, so all the components would have to be newly manufactured.

Yeah the Sten kits I have still haven't been built, because you can't get a design approved that uses the original diameter tube, you have to manufacture a new bolt with a smaller ID, so the original bolt can't fit. Which changes everything. Makes it more of a "tec 9" semiauto than a Sten at that point.. and (owning a Tec 9 semi) .. they suck. Really, really bad. Most worthless POS I own.

The problem with some of those old guns is they are just so damn simple, it's very difficult to convert them to a semi-auto - you are really designing a whole new firearm at that point, with all the inherent problems of designing, testing, re-designing, testing, RE-RE-designing, testing, etc.

The "tube guns" (sten, sterling, etc) have tubes, with bolts that are simply a solid metal cylinder with a nub on the front and a catch on the bottom, that is held back by a lever. Slot in the side of the bolt for a fixed place ejector to slide through. Pull the trigger/release the lever and the big heavy bolt slides forward, strips a round off the magazine, shoves it in the barrel, nub hits primer, bang, recoil overcomes inertia and bolt mass, pushes bolt back past ejector, which kicks round out. If the trigger is still down it goes "BOING", bounces off the spring, does it again. release the trigger, the catch engages the bolt and stops the process.

I mean.. it just don't get any simpler than that.

Brilliant design for a bullet hose.

But damn hard to convert to semi-auto. You have to change it to a two-part bolt. Which introduces all sorts of nastiness - second springs, long brittle firing pins affixed to the newly manufactured back striker, etc.
 
well,to carry enough ammo at 230 grains each bullet is kind of heavy.limits you to 5 or 6 mags.same problem with the mac 10.the reason the grease gun was produced over the thompson,was speed in production and cost.less machining,lighter weight,more compact.for their time,they were great weapons,but logistically now,hard to feed. you can carry way more 223 than 45.
 
The M3 Grease Gun was one of the better submachine guns of World War II, and continued to be issued to tank crews up until the 90s at least. Some of our troops went into the original Gulf War with Grease Guns that dated back to World War II.

They were crude and inexpensive, but they worked, and worked well. And they were ideal for the cramped conditions of a tank. It wasn't the fastest firing, but it could put a short burst into a decent grouping in very short order.
 
Because it makes too much sense. Simple, cheap to make, easy to operate. Too much power for mere citizens.
 
One interesting off shoot of the M3/M3A1 SMG is the Ruger .22 pistol. The SMG gave Bill Ruger the idea of making a handgun grip piece from two stamped halves welded together. Up to that time, pistols had been milled from stock or forgings, much more expensive production methods.

Another off shoot was the AR-18, with a bolt carrier that rides on rods like the M3/M3A1 SMG; dirt and crud are not resisted, they are simply ignored.

Jim
 
Simple, cheap, easy to operate...yes. Reliable too.

But also heavy. An M3 or M3A1 with a loaded 30 rd. mag is a brick. Plus spares. Heavy!

Also not especially safe. When cocked, the safety is the prong sticking out of the dust cover. Iffy at best. And it's an open bolt gun, which has a lot of drawbacks. It's also not a tack driver. Bullet hose is an apt description.

An M4 is a far better choice in any application I can think of.

I had the M3 and the M3A1 in Vietnam. It met my needs for compactness, which was more important to me than weight. The forerunner of the M4 was the GAU-5 A/A and I'd have taken it but they were like unobtainium.
 
The grease gun only makes sense as a full auto short barreled gun. If you had to have it in semi auto with a 16" barrel no one would buy it.
 
I own a full-auto M3. This is a good design as a SMG. However, I don't see the logic of a closed-bolt, 16"+ barrel, semiauto clone. (Or even a "pistol" or SBR version.) As a weapon, any AR-15 would be better. The economics of a semi M3 just aren't there.

As a comparison, look at the semiauto BAR made by Ohio Ordnance. This costs nearly $5,000, and there's a long wait to get one. Definitely a niche market, even though a semi BAR is way more usable than a semi greasegun.
 
The M3 Grease Gun was one of the better submachine guns of World War II, and continued to be issued to tank crews up until the 90s at least. Some of our troops went into the original Gulf War with Grease Guns that dated back to World War II.

Last ones I saw were sometime in the mid-90s, if I remember right. Our tank crews had gone to pistols plus one M16 per track, but the Grease Guns were still on the MTOE for the crew of our M88 recovery vehicle. My recollection is they did not even have a qualification course they had to shoot for it, just had to do a yearly familiarization fire where they hosed a mag or two through them to make sure they remembered how to load and fire the things. Always wanted to take one for a spin on the range, but .45 ammo was pretty tight (among other things) in the Clinton years in an armored cav unit and we only got the minimum requirement for the 88 crew for the range.
 
Interesting. Evidently an outfit called Valkyrie Arms makes a semi-auto Grease Gun clone.

http://www.valkyriearms.com/m3a1.html

I'd buy it.

If it were $250-300.

Unfortunately it looks like they're selling for $1,000.

Which.. umm, no thanks.

http://www.gunauction.com/search/displayitem.cfm?itemnum=8084819

Those BAR's, same thing. If they were $1500 - MAYBE I could see picking up a semi auto (brings it in to M14 cost territory there). But there's been one sitting on the shelf at a local gun shop now for well over a year with a $4800 price tag on it, collecting dust. I keep telling them "$2k", and they keep telling me "no way".

Let it collect dust then.
 
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
========================================================================================================================
The above is close, but not absolute.

I don't view 5.56mm as very effective in terms of close quarter fighting, but it can get the job done from my experience with using this caliber again people, and would rather use the M4 (preferably the M4A1) for this purpose than an M3. ( Also prefer extra grenades over a handgun for operations involving direct contacts, but that's just me.)

( FWIW.... I'm carreer Army Infantry with 15 plus yrs serving, and multiple combat tours in Iraq, Somalia, and Afghanistan. Light, Airborne, Air Assault, and Mech. In addition, have also served with other friendly Infantry forces in same areas plus a few others.

The closest weapon in current U.S. Army inventory to the old M3 by design = the M231 submachine gun, whose sole purpose in life is as a fire port weapon for the M2 Bradley IFV.
About useless for anything else....lol

my .02
 
Last edited:
45acp carbines are real dogs.

In semi auto only, they are of very limited use. They gain very little velocity over a pistol - much less even than the 9mm and 40S&W carbines, so there is really no ballistic advantage.

They are no more a bullet hose than a 1911, so there goes that little CQB advantage.

Better make use of that extra sight radius ... cuz you will need it when you are aiming for the moon on those far targets.

Throw in that MOST 45acp carbines are either heavy as all heck, or totally unwieldy, and the practicallity of them flies totally out the window.

The best one was probably the Beretta PX4 that took Cougar 8045 mags... but there again you are limited to 8 rounds.

They all have some kind of glaring achilies heel.
 
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.)
if all else fails you could use a muffler pipe for the receiver lol. I saw a guy do it with all the sten part kits that were around in the 80's. he traced the cut outs for the receiver from a template and cut them out in his shop. they worked
 
Actually the Sten which served as the model for the M3A1 is a pretty simple blowback design. That design has been the basis for a lot of different sub guns. In addition most of the semi auto open bolt guns made in the 1980s were sten designs before the ATF stopped them. The KG9 was one which eventually became the Tec 9.

I built a legal semi auto Sten gun which used a closed bolt striker fired bolt. It was very, very similar to the Tec 9 bolt. The Tec 9's trigger group/part were just a modified Sten/M3A1 mechanism. I sold the Sten during the last AWB and got rid of the POS Tec 9 I had around the same time. I do however have several Tec 9 bolts/parts kits I intend to someday make into a vertical mag sten carbine on some MkII kits I have.

In regard to pistol caliber carbines. I built an Uzi carbine from parts and it is pretty fun and accurate to shoot. I have a Mech Tech CCU (carbine conversion unit) for my 1911 .45 and it too is fun and accurate. Pretty easy to bang steel with it out to 100 yards. I wouldn't want to be shot with it.

Sten/M3A1 is a simple design and there are lots of plans out there using it to make both semi and full auto guns. The problem of course with the all steel, long barrel semi autos is they tend to be heavy and awkward.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top