I never shoot one of them, nor I am an gun expert but I would like to hear your comments about that.
P.S. real life not RO!!
P.S. real life not RO!!
Thompson vs MP40 vs PPSh41
- Thread starter radix
- Start date
Personally, I'll take the Thompson. It had a reputation for being easy to keep on target during a burst. I also prefer .45 ACP over 9mm. I don't really know much about PPSh41. It could be the best of the three for all I know.
Check out this site. It has lots of nice info on WWII weapons. Explore a little bit. It has lots of info on WWII infantry in general. http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/Weapons/submachineguns/sub_machine_guns.htm
Check out this site. It has lots of nice info on WWII weapons. Explore a little bit. It has lots of info on WWII infantry in general. http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/Weapons/submachineguns/sub_machine_guns.htm
Upvote
0
Seriously ragnar the sten is a POS. Maybe the mk5 with wooden stock may fit into this list with it's pistol style rear and forgrips, but the previous models are just unpleasant. You hold one for the first time and it's like..."hey they forgot to put in a hand grip..." you just hold a thin metal tube with finger in trigger guard.
yes it may work well for the purpose it was created, fast to make cheaply in large numbers, and up close great for room clearing. But you'd never want to have one with an alternative.
British troops with thomspon m1928 refused to swap them for stens, and i don't blame them.
As for the others. i'd say the best depends on your requirements. Thomphon has best stopping power and is probably the best built, but i'd imagine is also noticeably heavier than the mp40. For rate of fire the PPSH41 wins. For capacity the Thompson with a drum is up there with ppsh41 but in practice you would more rarely have a drum than with ppsh41.
I think in this case it's personal preference. for me the thomspon wins, the m1928 model
yes it may work well for the purpose it was created, fast to make cheaply in large numbers, and up close great for room clearing. But you'd never want to have one with an alternative.
British troops with thomspon m1928 refused to swap them for stens, and i don't blame them.
As for the others. i'd say the best depends on your requirements. Thomphon has best stopping power and is probably the best built, but i'd imagine is also noticeably heavier than the mp40. For rate of fire the PPSH41 wins. For capacity the Thompson with a drum is up there with ppsh41 but in practice you would more rarely have a drum than with ppsh41.
I think in this case it's personal preference. for me the thomspon wins, the m1928 model
Upvote
0
This thread can't possibly end well. 400 yards!I prefer the Thompson.
you can actually hit things at 400yards.
I seriously hope that you are joking.I would take an mp40 more control than tommy and better range
Also I would like to know if the original poster is talking about wartime variants of these SMGs or all variants it would be best to only consider the wartime models to be fair and all
Upvote
0
Yep, my grandfather was a officer during the attack of Iwo Jima (sp?) and was allowed to bring home a thompson (after a large reduce in pay) after the battle. Now i can't see it (its at my grandmother's house 3 states away) so i'm not sure what model it was, but when i took it to the range with military-issued .45 pistol rounds i got cheap i got very bad groups at 400yards but enough to kill/wound a person. This was shooting downward at a 20degree angle (at least i think so) and later tried shooting upward at the same angle standing and could hit a very big range but 2 out of each 5 rounds shot hit in the grouping small enough to kill to wound enough to die later.
(its at my grandmother's house 3 states away) so i'm not sure what model it was, but when i took it to the range with military-issued .45 pistol rounds i got cheap i got very bad groups at 400yards but enough to kill/wound a person. This was shooting downward at a 20degree angle (at least i think so) and later tried shooting upward at the same angle standing and could hit a very big range but 2 out of each 5 rounds shot hit in the grouping small enough to kill to wound enough to die later.
Upvote
0
God bless the Thompson: Two reasons
1) it fires the holy round- .45ACP, not the pansy 9mm para, nor the commie 7.65 or whatever
2) According to my dad who goofed around with a postwar thompson and heard first hand accounts growing up, you could friggin cut down trees with them
1) it fires the holy round- .45ACP, not the pansy 9mm para, nor the commie 7.65 or whatever
2) According to my dad who goofed around with a postwar thompson and heard first hand accounts growing up, you could friggin cut down trees with them
Upvote
0
Who makes the most faithful replica of the WW2 GI 1911A1 these days anyways? I know Springfield Armory makes the GI Spec but I was told that there were even more correct models out there.
Upvote
0
This thread can't possibly end well. 400 yards!
+1
Lol, the Thompson had many reputations, accuracy wasn't one of them. It was first and foremost a trench broom. 400 yards on a man-size target with a Garand is a tough shot. With anything firing pistol-caliber ammo, it's pretty much not doable.
Then again, the PPSh wasn't exactly known as an accurate shooter, either...
The MP40 was supposedly the more accurate of the three from what I've heard... but it's not all about accuracy. It's a friggin SMG, for pete's sake. If you're trying shots farther than 150 yards, you're using it wrong (not that 9mm is carrying jack **** for energy past 150 anyway...).
I like the Thompson M1 over the MP40 because of .45 caliber, and not trying to do everything (IE: not having sights for 200 meters.) But I like the PPSh over the MP40 for the huge drum capacity and for the high rate of fire. And again, it's not pretending to be half a rifle.
I think I'm going to have to go with the Thompson, even though 7.62x25 is a lovely caliber for a gun.
Upvote
0
I heard good things last year about the rock river ones, although I am spared that cause I have an M1911A1, not a copy
Upvote
0
Buy a Argentine Model 1927. It is a licensed copy of the Colt 1911A1. So you get the same thing for alot less.
There is also another Argentine .45 called the Ballester Molina. They are good pistols, and in some ways (especially when it comes to disassembly) superior to the Colt .45 The only parts that will interchange, however, is the barrel and mag.
Don't bash me for downing the great Colt. It's only better in a few ways if you are a shooter who doesn't do alot of pistol modding. Collectors are much better off with a real Colt .45
As for the main topic. I think it's a toss up between the MP40 and the Thompson. The Sten though was inferior to the MP40. British sub machine gunners were known to ditch the Sten whenever they captured an MP40. After all they shot the same ammo, and the MP40 was a much more comfortable weapon to use overall.
There is also another Argentine .45 called the Ballester Molina. They are good pistols, and in some ways (especially when it comes to disassembly) superior to the Colt .45 The only parts that will interchange, however, is the barrel and mag.
Don't bash me for downing the great Colt. It's only better in a few ways if you are a shooter who doesn't do alot of pistol modding. Collectors are much better off with a real Colt .45
As for the main topic. I think it's a toss up between the MP40 and the Thompson. The Sten though was inferior to the MP40. British sub machine gunners were known to ditch the Sten whenever they captured an MP40. After all they shot the same ammo, and the MP40 was a much more comfortable weapon to use overall.
Upvote
0