Best WWII Submachine Gun

[FutureMarine]

What do you think is the best WWII submachine gun?

what about the Sterling ? :uzi:

This submachine gun had been developed in the 1940s by the Patchett at the Sterling Armament Co., Great Britain, and had been adopted by british Army in 1953. It remained in army service well untill early 1990s, when it was replaced by L85A1 assault rifle.

Sterling is a relatively simple, but wery well made, blowback operated gun. The receiver and the barrel heat shield was made from steel tube, the bolt was machined, with fixed firing pin and four special ribs, designed to gather and remove the dust and fouling from the receiver. The curved magazine is inserted from the left side, spent cases are ejected to the right. The folding butt is made from stamped steel. Silenced version of the Sterling, oficially labelled as L34A1, replaced in service the older STEN Mark 6 silenced.

The Sterling SMG deserved wery high reputation along the troops due to extreme reliability and good accuracy.

Originally Posted by Bulletproof

what about the Sterling ? :uzi:

In 1940, with the Dunkirk evacuation completed, the Royal Air Force decided to adopt some form of submachine gun for airfield defense. With no time to spare for the development of a new weapon it was decided to adopt a direct copy of the German MP28, examples of which were at hand for the necessary copying. The period was so desperate that the Admiralty decided to join the RAF in adopting the new weapon. By a series of convoluted happenings that Admiralty alone actually took the resultant design into service.

The British MP28 copy was given the general designation of Lanchester after George Lanchester who was charged with producing the weapon at the Sterling Armament Company, the same company that went on to produce the Sterling submachine gun that is presently the standard submachine gun of many nations. The Lanchester emerged as a sound, sturdy weapon that in many ways was ideal for the type of operations required of it by boarding and raiding parties. It was a very solid weapon, in many ways the complete opposite of its direct contemporary, the Sten, for the Lanchester was a soundly engineered piece of weaponry with all the trimmings of a former era. The Lanchester had a well machined wooden butt and stock, the blow back mechanism was made of the finest materials, the breech block well machined and the magazine housing was made from solid brass. A few typical British design details were added such as a mounting on the muzzle for use of a long bladed British bayonet and the rifling differed from the German original in details to accommodate the different types of ammunition the Lanchester had to use.

[FutureMarine]

Well, thats why i put the 'other' choice and wrote next to it...''i knowi forgot something'' :nod:

[FutureMarine]

I like the MP44 for these reasons:
-Improved range
-More knockdown power
-Better accuracy

[ducktapehero]

I prefer the Thompson.

[ash]

50 rounds of .45 fired full auto. What more do you need.

[FutureMarine]

They are all good...I should have enabled the thing where you can vote on more than one choice...I would have chosen all

[FutureMarine]

Originally Posted by ash

50 rounds of .45 fired full auto. What more do you need.

I thought the stick mags were 30 rds(31 with one in chamber + full mag:nod: )

When World War II began, the Thompson submachine gun was the standard U.S. submachine gun. However, the Thompson was comparatively expensive in terms of machining and time to manufacture. New Thompson models had much reduced cost (e.g. the M1928 vs. the M1A1), but a brand new design could yield a even lower cost. The basic concept of a new, crude, cheaper mass-produced firearm traces back to the Chauchat of World War I, the most produced machine gun of that war. The .45 caliber M3 was introduced in 1942, designed specifically for simplified production using stamped metal parts. Similar reduced manufacturing costs for a submachine gun design was undertaken by the British (Lancaster to the Sten), Germany (MP34, MP38 to MP40), etc. The Soviet Union, France and Italy would also make cheaper submachine gun designs in the 1940s.

Far easier to manufacture than the Thompson, the M3 incorporated several updated design features. A low cyclical rate of fire made it easier to control than other submachine guns, and the straight line of recoil thrust made it easier to control during automatic fire. In contrast to the relatively well-built Thompson, the M3's simplicity and poor quality made it far more susceptible under the adverse conditions encountered at the fighting front. When the M3 was adopted as a standard weapon, the Thompson was categorized as a "Limited Standard" or "Substitute Standard" submachine gun.

The M3 used the blowback method of operation. It could be fired only in fully-automatic mode, but experienced soldiers could usually get off single shots with it. In its original version, the weapon fired the .45 ACP cartridge (the same one used by the Thompson and the Colt M1911 pistol) from a 30-round detachable box-type magazine. Before firing, the ejection port had to be opened manually by the operator.

[FutureMarine]

OHHHHHHHHHHHHH YAAAAAAAA...how could i forget the M3 Greasegun:full:

[.22guy]

I like the Thompson. My grandpa was in the Marines during WWII. He tells me stories about how you could fire the Thompson full auto and lean forward and the force of the firing would push you back/hold you up. I have no idea if that's true though. Either way, it's a funny story the way he tells it. :assult:

I've fired alot of machineguns..the Thompson was heavy enough to stay on target with the least amount of effort..the mini uzi was really difficult..I enjoyed shooting the PPsH the most though..chalk it up to an intangible..I really like the Sterling too..the H&K MP-5 was hard to keep on target because it climbed up and to the right..light weight and a high cyclic rate

[Calvin]

I've fired a couple of M2 carbines and they were a ton of fun to shoot! Light, compact, and reliable. The .30 carbine round is quite effective when fired full-auto.....

[FutureMarine]

Yes, only the M2 didnt come around until the Korean war

[Calvin]

Nope. The M2 was released in 1943. It has been specualted it was the first "assault rifle", even though it fired a pistol-caliber bullet....

[FutureMarine]

Well, did it see action in WW2? I have never heard any stories about it being used in the second world war

[Calvin]

Yes, but it was towards the end of WW2. I'll have to dig up the info for you, which I'll try to tomorrow night. Like you, I thought it was late for WW2, but I am thinking it did see use on Guadalcanal and Iwo Jima. I'll see if I can find it for you, FM....:right:

[WetKnife]

Of all the weapons listed here I had the pleasure of firing the M3 Greaser back in 1990 in the Army. It was a familiarization as we studied so many weapons during my 16 weeks of Boot and MOS training. You fired it by placing weapon low to the target and as you fired it would rise literally cutting your enemy in half. Since I opened it and cleaned it many times I saw it as something you could make in a basement workshop. Is it my favorite I have no other experiences with other machine guns of the WWII era. I fired the Garand and probably be my weapon of choice if I fought back then.

[Otter]

The M3 Greasegun was also issued to tank crews, made by GM headlight division, it also had another barrel that could be screwed in to use German 9X19mm ammo. the cost of building a Thompson was well over $200 each. You also forgot the Riesing model 50 .45 Submachine gun, with the charging handle in the slot on the bottom of the handguard. Not as popular as the Thompson or Greasegun.

"Life is too important to be taken seriously."