why the hell don't you own a thompson?

[KBintheSLC]

I chose "other" because...
It seems like the TG is little more than a novelty in this day and age. This is not to say that I would not want to have one. It is just very low on my "must have" list. With AR's, AK's, and modern 9mm subs, the Thompson is, to say the least, a "niche market". They sure have a nice "wow" factor though.

 

[SteyrAUG]

AndyC

Doesn't matter to me what the feds use or why - I have used full-auto MP5s and other SMGs operationally and a semi-auto version is still just a big, heavy, unwieldy pistol - it's a solution looking for a problem. Full-auto has its uses, but to most of us that's irrelevant unless we're part of the rich and shameless. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the merits of neutered SMGs.

Well I have owned 4 of them for about 10 years. And a couple semi auto HK 94s.

So what part of this do you find to be in error?

"Lighter than most rifle/carbine platforms with greater suppression characteristics, virtually zero felt recoil so greater target acquisition for follow up shots. And despite the FBI materials tests, less real world penetration of building materials."

 

[MCgunner]

Other than magnum lever guns, I really don't feel the need to own a pistol caliber carbine. The Thompson is a classic, but what would I use it for? I've got too many range shooters as it is.

 

[ScottsGT]

Too expensive with a tax stamp to get the short barrel. Heard too many bad things about newer production Thompsons not functioning properly. Just not the same romantic appeal in semi auto.

 

[milspecwrench]

Why would I?

True, the Thompson SMG is a pretty cool looking weapon, But I could (If I could afford to) own 2 or 3 each AR15's in 9 or .45, or even a few MP5's, Or If I wanted to do full auto how about 10 Sten guns for the same price,
But in all honesty, I hate spray and pray..........
Gunfights are won by the rounds put on target, Not by the rounds put down range........

 

[AndyC]

Well I have owned 4 of them for about 10 years. And a couple semi auto HK 94s.

So what part of this do you find to be in error?

"Lighter than most rifle/carbine platforms with greater suppression characteristics, virtually zero felt recoil so greater target acquisition for follow up shots. And despite the FBI materials tests, less real world penetration of building materials."

How are your points even relevant? Lighter than most rifles - so what? virtually zero felt recoil - so what? Less real world penetration of building materials - so what? What are you comparing it to?

The fact that no matter how you want to spin it, it's still just a large, heavy and bulky semi-auto in a handgun caliber. Kindly point out the benefits to we amateurs.

 

[nwilliams]

Let's see: Hi-Point, Beretta and others do the same thing for much less money, without the ridiculously long barrel, in a package that is much more lightweight and easy to handle.

IMO neither the Hi-Point or Beretta appeal to me, they both look like they are straight out of a sci-fi movie Sure they are lighter, but I have no trouble handling the Thompson. Of course in a combat situation I wouldn't want to use it, but on the fun factor it ranks way up there and that's why I bought it.

Like I said the barrel length does bother me, I wish it was about four or five inches shorter, but it doesn't bother me to the point of not wanting to own one. The fact is I'd rather own a Thompson with a long barrel than no Thompson at all, its just another gun that the anti's would love to see us loose the ability to own.

 

[Rexster]

WEIGHT. If I am going to tote that much weight, and want it to be a historical weapon, I will carry a Garand, which will allow me to accomplish much more, at longer range. If I want to go to the trouble of owning full auto, there is the BAR.

 

[wcwhitey]

I did not get a chance to read all the posts but my reasoning is: Expensive, heavy, limited purpose (novelty). They are cool guns, maybe I would consider if they were cheaper and came with a short barrel like the originals. Bill

 

[SteyrAUG]

AndyC

How are your points even relevant? Lighter than most rifles - so what? virtually zero felt recoil - so what? Less real world penetration of building materials - so what? What are you comparing it to?

The fact that no matter how you want to spin it, it's still just a large, heavy and bulky semi-auto in a handgun caliber. Kindly point out the benefits to we amateurs.

Wow, somebody wants to argue.

My pointes were relevant to your dismissal that they are nothing but a "large, heavy and bulky semi-auto handgun." That is simply not the case.

Compared to most rifles and carbines they are lighter. To answer your "so what?" this makes them a bit handier, especially for things like home defense. Compared to a handgun they are a more stable platform with a longer sight radius, greater magazine capacity and more options for things such as weapon lights and various accessories.

But back to the merits of something like a HK94.

Zero felt recoil. So what? Well I did cover this. Zero felt recoil means rapid target acqusition and greater ability to engage mutliple targets faster. This isn't all that important at the range but if you have 3 armed crack heads in your home it gets to be sorta important.

Less real world penetration of building materials. And since I guess you missed it, I'm comparing it to rifle/carbine calibers such as .223 (which is why I specifically cited the FBI materials test). As for the "so what" this means fired rounds are less likely to pass through multiple walls and as such pose a less significant risk than most rifle/carbine calibers to those in adjoining rooms or even neighbors. This is an important consideration for those who live in apartments, condos or town houses.

None of this is "spin", just the actual difference between semi auto pistol caliber carbines and actual pistols. To suggest they are identical is simply not true. The only thing they have in common is the round itself and generally the performance of that round, although carbine tend to produce a more accurate shot due to being a more stable platform with a longer sight radius.

 

[Molasses]

Used to have a semiauto M1927A1, made shortly after Kahr took over the operation. Big, heavy and a major league yawn in terms of downrange results. Just a turkey, IMO.

 

[smee781]

thompson

16' barrel = Looks Gay
High cap mags = way to much $$$ for a mag, almost as much for the dam gun!

 

[madcratebuilder]

I never thought I would own one, but this fell into my lap. I couldn't walk away from it for $700, nib, three mags and case. Full auto would be more fun, but this goes through ammo plenty fast.

U.S. made 50rd drums are $200 and a tax stamp gives you a short barrel if your so inclined.

 

[Zach S]

High cap mags = way to much $$$ for a mag, almost as much for the dam gun!

Huh? the most I ever paid for a thompson mag was 20 bucks during the ban. The only reason they were that much is because they were 20s instead of 30s, and 20s are harder to find. I can find surplus 30s for ten to twelve bucks (same price they were during the ban), new production mags are $20. The last time I got thompson mags was during the AWB.

 

[bmwguy]

Besides the $..

The weight! SOB is what 10 ~ 12 lbs?

That's a lot for a subgun.

 

[Lamb of Gun]

I would already own one if I could (or had the balls) to get a full-auto Thompson.

Since I can't, it's really the last gun I'd want to buy.

45 ACP was never ever meant to be shot out of a semi-automatic rifle. That pretty much limits you to target shooting at the range. Give me a rifle that shoots a rifle round for that any day.

It was meant to stop 200lb men in their tracks (1911) or obliterate everything in front of you very quickly(Thompson).

 

[TIMC]

I have a semi version, fun gun but I wouldn't get all worked up about it. They are heavy, crappy sights and trigger. Would I buy another? I don't think so but I do own one.
My Commando version...

 

[EdLaver]

In all honesty, I prefer more modern firearms. The few classics that I own I either got them at a good price or I liked the design. I can think of many other .45 shooting SMG's that I prefer than a Thompson. HK UMP for one.

 

[strat81]

The darn thing just doesn't fit me. I know someone who has one and, aside from the weight, I can't shoulder it properly. You could give me one for free and I probably would never shoot it.

Lotsa history though, might be fun for Dick Tracy reenactments!

 

[CoRoMo]

Well, after reading how unenthusiastic many of the owners seem to be with theirs, I guess I'll never own one. I also agree that the price just makes them unappealing... thanks National Firearms Act!! :banghead:

 

[peacemaker45]

Because I can't afford to play the NFA game. Even if I could, there are much better sub- guns out there. The semi-s? What's the point? the ergonomics are terrible, they're heavy, clunky, and expensive. I like pistol caliber carbines, but prefer the ones that have levers on the bottom and shoot cartridges that actually take advantage of the extra barrel. Marlin 1894 in .44 Mag being the ultimate example.

~~~Mat

 

[Justin]

I find it amusing that the person who started this thread hasn't chimed back in on it.

 

[John917]

Personally, I love the Tommy, especially the ones the type the Military used, with the straight foregrips. I don't really like the ones with the front pistol-grip. It would be awesome to own such a piece of Military history.

 

[Hokkmike]

Prefer an AK, to be honest.

 

[Correia]

Having a Thompson in semi to me is pointless, if I had 20 grand I might get one but I would probably get a mp5 instead (sorry Correia).

Gunner, no apology neccesary. My company owns a couple of MP5s.

I still want a Tommy Gun though.