"The M3 “Grease Gun” on Full-Auto" Topic

"An American .45-caliber submachine gun on full-auto. I think most people would think of the Thompson M1A1 submachine gun, except this one came in service from 1943, and was much cheaper to produce. The M3 submachine gun (a.k.a. Grease Gun).

I can appreciate a collection of historic firearms, but I am more of a modern guy. The LWRCI Sub Machine Gun 45 would be my contemporary choice…."

Main page
link

Which would be your choice between the M3, Thompson or the LWRCI?

My vote goes for the Thompson….we have many of this in 1982… we call them "La Batata"… or "Dead weapon" because mostly of the time didn't work…

Amicalement
Armand

The Thompson. With the drum magazine & foregrip, it just reeks of menace… ;-)

The M1 Thompson looks 'cooler' but the M3 Grease Gun worked better. According to 'Gun Jesus' of Forgotten Weapons anyway.

It seems the US Paratroops tended to adopt the M1 rifle in preference to SMGs as the war went on. M1 carbines being retained by troops who had another job, like mortar crew or similar.

The Soviet SMGs had longer range, due to the smaller calibre rounds, so were probably more useful in combat.

The 9mm vs .45 ACP argument has been going on since the US adopted the 9mm back in the 70's. The .45 has better stopping power but you can carry more 9mm rounds. I don't think there's a right answer. As far as the Thompson vs the Grease gun, the Thompson was complex and difficult to manufacture, the M3 drastically less so. Thompsons are like Harleys, the legend affects everyone's perception of the object.

My Dad carried a .45 pistol and the "grease gun" in Vietnam as an Army Caribou pilot. This way he only had to carry one type of ammunition. I also think he mentioned that the M3 was pretty rugged; dropped in mud or water and it would still fire. My 2 cents.

As late as 1973 when I was in the Armor Officer Basic Course, we did familiarization firing with the M3 "Grease Gun." I remember it as being a fun weapon to shoot.

Jim

In the mid-1980's when I was stationed in Germany, we were issued the M3 Grease Gun for our M60A3 tanks. I remember training with it and disappointed with the slow rate of fire: I could squeeze off rounds quicker with my issued .45 pistol rather than the Grease Gun! Plus, the Grease Gun was highly inaccurate. We tankers joked that we were trained to disassemble the M3 in under ten seconds, then throw the pieces at the enemy. One time at Grafenwohr gunnery, I was heading to the armory from my tank with our Grease Guns and was stopped by a group of British soldiers who wanted to see the Greasers. One of them asked, how accurate was it? I told him that if I fired point blank at him (two feet away from me), the bullets would strike the soldier at his three o'clock!

In the '80s are Armored Recovery Vehicles crews had M3 Grease guns.

Bottom line SMGs have limited range and accuracy. But do have their uses.

Say you're one of the very rare "ace" riflemen not affected by combat stress ( or not bothered by killing, if you like Grossman ).
The right training and some fancy gadgets help but that'd be post ww2.

That guy can use a rifle shoots hundreds of metres accurately. Maybe they can even find a spot where they can see hundreds of metres.

Everyone else might as well have a smoothbore really.
The rifleman of ww2 was really really bad at hitting anyone at range.
So much so that standing orders in most armies were they only opened fire when ordered.

That "short" range of an smg wasn't really so short by comparison.
Smg armed units were actually quite successful.

Always liked the look of the grease-gun.

Rugged, no nonsense functionality.

Buck215… totally agree.

Amicalement
Armand

I shot one when I was 14. Sadly the Guard unit did not have good protective ear plugs.
It was fun.

Say you're one of the very rare "ace" riflemen not affected by combat stress ( or not bothered by killing, if you like Grossman ).

No but I do know a rifle is more accurate and has a longer range than an SMG. And I yes I liked LTC Grossman's book, "On Killing". If that is what you are referring to.

And yes I qualified Expert with the M14, M16, M1911 .45 and M9 9mm Barretta pistol …

We were taught most firefights occur at 250m or less. We were trained to engage human sized targets out to about 300m.

An SMG can't do that …

E.g. the IDF Paras in '56 had problems with their Uzi 9mm SMGs when engaging Egyptian Infantry with AK-47s in the Negev … The problem the AK-47 Assault Rifle has a much longer range than the Uzi SMG.

Again that is what I was taught at the US Army Infantry School. As well as based on experience with SAs and Infantry Tactics.

The right training and some fancy gadgets help but that'd be post ww2.

Yes I was talking post WWII … the Soldier in photo is in current US Military camo uniform.

From what I've read, just about anything was better/safer than an EARLY Sten!
Later variants did improve and the Stirling was quite 'good'…although not a lot of use unless as a guard weapon.
Lol…I remember watching footage if Italian Police lacing into Football Hooligans with wooden stocked Berettas…couldn't do that with an M3 or a Sten!

And generally speaking rifles/assault rifles and SMGs tend to have "barrel rise" when fired on full auto. And generally only used at closer ranges, closed terrain, etc., on full auto. E.g. a trench, room, bunker, jungles, etc.

The rifleman of ww2 was really really bad at hitting anyone at range.

Yes, that is why after WWII/Korea we trained soldiers to fire at human shaped targets not round circles.

So much so that standing orders in most armies were they only opened fire when ordered.

Called "Fire Disciple", only fire at will when ordered or in a hot firefight, etc Saves on ammo as well. IIRC in WWII even in a pitched battle only about 15% actually fired their weapon. But in some cases when one fires many/all fire.

Smg armed units were actually quite successful.

Yes both the Germans and USSR had SMG Plts/Cos. And those units also had some MMGs too to support the troops like in a Rifle unit. But WWII was a different era and the mass use of the Assault rifle after WWII/Korea change that paradigm, etc.

Fairly certain my FiL as a combat engineer in WWII European theater was issued a M-3.

Fire Discipline not Disciple. I suspect it was the spell check. Lol.

Yes, when ever that happens … I blame Auto Correct/Spell Check. If I'm typing and the word does not get a red wave line under it. I'm taking it as it's a go !

But yes I meant to spell "Discipline" …

When I was in Korea, our Combat Engineer Vehicle (CEV) crewmen were still being issued M3's. They later ditched those for M9 pistols. But we all got to fire the M3 during the weapons familiarization course (we fired all common US and North Korean weapons), and that was a blast! The M3s were so inaccurate that they didn't even bother with a rear sight, just a front sight post. We got to fire two full magazines each.

The wire stocks were so flimsy that they taught us not to use them, but instead to loop the sling behind our shoulder and then push against the gun as hard as we could. The safety was the dust cover over the bolt, and to charge the weapon, you literally had to stick your finger into the ejection port and pull the bolt back with your fingertip.

The gun was less of a weapon and more of a deterrent. After the first round, the rest of the burst was certain to spray over a wide area, which would keep the bad guys' heads down long enough for you to run away!

Yes as I said so were our Tracked Recovery Vehicle crews were issues the M3. And everything you said about it's performance is true.