Talk:Thompson submachine gun/Archive 1

Archive 1

Original Military Use

" In 1938, Thompson models were adopted by the U.S. military, serving during World War II and later into the Korean War, as well as early stages of the Vietnam War. Modifications to simplify production and reduce cost were commonly carried by both non-commissioned officers and commissioned officers, resulting in the M1 and M1A1 models. "

I always thought the Thompson was first introduced 20 yrs earlier in WWI. I've also seen a picture of a turn-of-the-century Thompson ad in The Social History of the Machine Gun that advertised the weapon as a homeowner solution against prospective burglars. Maybe someone more internet savvy than I can find out?

The Thompson was already in use by police forces and criminals in the 1920s. However, it would only be introduced in the [b]U.S. military[/b] in 1938, and then serve in World War II. It can't have served in WWI because the first model would only be worked in 1918, the final year of the war. --Squalla 05:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain the marines were using them in Nicaragua, and I wouldn't be surprised if they were used in the Spanish Civil War. What I'd like to know is if anyone is STILL using Thompsons. 66.133.180.41 23:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Certianly, they're fairly popular collectors items and thousands of them handed down to US/NATO allies immediately before, during and after the Second World War. If you're asking about current use in a military context, I think the Phillipines still uses them, and they can probably be found in the hands of insurgent groups and third-world militaries in Latin America, the Balkans and Southeast Asia.66.133.180.20 17:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Did the Thompson gun ever see official military service in Central/South American forces? User:JippoJabber 00:34, 30/07/2008 (UTC)

Thompson began development before WWI but first production model was 1921. The Thompson ad showing a cowboy defending a ranch against a gang of banditos on horseback appeared after 1921. After a spate of mail robberies abated, the U.S. Postal Service transferred their Model of 1921 Thompsons to the US Marines who used them in Central America. Also Thompsons were used in small numbers by the U.S. Army before its official adoption of the Model 1928. Official adoption date was 1928. Model of 1928 is also referred to as the "Navy Model". I believe the 1938 above was a typo for 1928. Naaman Brown (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Research shows I was wrong. Small numbers were procured as a nonstandard item dating from the early 1920s. Marine Corps use involved guarding U.S. Mails and "police actions" in Nicaragua and China. U.S. Marines ordered slightly less than 700 between 1926 and 1928. Navy "adoption" was 1928. U.S. Army "Limited Procurement Item" designation was dated 1932. U.S. Army "Standard Procurement Item" date was 1938 which ought to qualify as adoption date. US Army procurement of the M1928A1 was 964 in 1940, 96,900 in 1941 and rose to 540,636 in 1942. Naaman Brown (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Pop Culture

All other arguably popular firearms (ie Mac-10 and Uzi) have large numbers of pop culture refrences, withsubheadings and the like...so i think that the somewhat popular Tommy Gun should have the same...anyone opposed to my just poppin that one in there??Jigsaw Jimmy 23:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm opposed, and you'll find out that several other editors of firearms-related articles are opposed to this as well. The problem with pop culture sections is that they do not add anything related to the weapon itself to the article, and become mere lists of indiscriminate trivia. Therefore, I (as well as these other editors, namely Asams10) am keeping these pop culture references under control by, preferably, only having a couple sentences within the article noting the prominent appearence of said weapons on popular culture, and preferably not having examples at all. Check the FN P90, M4 Carbine, M1 Garand and M16 rifle articles for a few examples of pop culture sections that had lists or extensive examples of pop culture appearences and have been "cleaned up". —Squalla 14:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the fact that a well-known firearm has references in pop culture is all that needs be noted: a listing of every TV show, movie, video game, novel, short story, etc. is tedious and trivial. Only if there is some notable connection (as oo7 and the PPK) does it make sense to mention pop references. Naaman Brown (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

16 Apr 2009 User 97.86.233.121 (first edit) added a category on TSMG movie references; that same day User FlieGerFaUstMe262 deleted the added category without comment. Courteous thing for newbies would be to post a reason in the comments and direct discussion to Talk Pages, Pop Culture subhead. Naaman Brown (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to put in my 2c for at least a mention of Warren Zevon's Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner. First of all, unlike many other works that may just show a Tommy gun or use the phrase, Mr. Zevon's song includes it in the very title of the work and is centered around its use. Secondly, I know that I looked up this article as a direct result of listening to the song, and I doubt I'm alone in this. When a work of art is likely to be a significant driver of people to an article, the work ought to be mentioned. A good example is the article on the Vincent Black Lightning motorcycle, which includes a few sentences on Richard Thompson's song 1952 Vincent Black Lightning. Did the song have anything to do with the production of the motorcycle? No, as it came out 40+ years after it ceased production--but the song is about the bike, and a significant proportion of people looking up that article are doing so because they heard the song. 137.165.240.86 (talk) 06:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Blish lock

The link in the article goes to an author named blish, who had nothing to do with the development of the Thompson.

The Blish lock principle was used in the bolt mechanism of the Thompson Submachine Gun, so the article IS relevant. Blish was also involved in the original group who founded Auto-Ordnance.

• For what it is worth, the current link goes to the proper John Bell Blish. Naaman Brown (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Now that it's been removed...

Is anyone willing to write more on it's history? It was the first SMG in production after all.

It does need some true useful history - the amount on each variant is more detail than worthy - first SMG into production - don't think so. GraemeLeggett 10:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

M1928A1

Hey If the M1928A1 was cheaper than the M1928 Then why is it's rate of fire 100 more rounds? Could someone check into this? Also what is the difference between M1928A1 and the M1928, because it says the vertical hand grip but through my searches I've seen M1928 with vertical handgrips. Can someone clarify this? Thanks alot :)

I thought that one of the changes was in the bolt, from steel to a lighter metal, like aluminum. This made the bolt travel faster, resulting in a rate of fire. However, I can't verify this, so does anyone know for sure? --UNHchabo 04:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If you have seen pictures on the internet of M1928A1s that were labeled M1928 then that is just a label error. Not many people care about specifics, especially on the internet. Nicht Nein! 02:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• The US Navy specified a lower rate of fire for the Model 1928, so a bolt with fewer lightening cuts was used to reduce the rate of fire. Bolts between the 1921 and 1928 models are interchangeable, so a tommy gun may be found with the heavier or the lighter bolt, so different rates of fire may be listed for the "same" model. All Thompson bolts were steel; aluminum is not a good bolt material. The development of the Thompson was from a high rate of fire (900 to 1200 r.p.m.) to a lower rate of fire (700 to 900 r.p.m.). The Vertical and horizontal foregrips are interchangeable, and what grip a gun wears is more a reflection of what was available in the spare parts bin when the gun was refurbished at the arsenal; the horizontal grip was the preferred standard, so many 1921 and 1928 models issued with vertical grips were arsenal reconditioned with horizontal grips. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.7.140.187 (talk) 10:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Original Model 1928 specimens were actually Model 1921 upgraded to Navy soecifications with the "1" overstruck with an "8"; early production of the Model 1928A1 for US and British contracts was subcontracted to Savage so "economy of scale" kicked in: although the Savage made Model 1928A1 were equally as well-made as the Colt Model 1921 and the AutoOrdnance Model 1928, individually they were less expensive as it was a larger production run.Naaman Brown (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

30-round ineffectiveness

I've read in Stephen E. Ambrose's D-Day that the 30-bullet magazine had the tendency to fall out of the weapon (!), but the exact version isn't specified. (Although that can be concluded from the date (D-Day)) Can someone add something about it?

• Ambrose wasn't exactly a terrific historian. He tends to recycle historical urban legends and veteran hearsay as fact and wasn't always very diligent when it came to crediting sources. At any rate, I have asked several Thompson owners if their experience with their guns backed this claim up, and they all emphatically answered in the negative. It was agreed that the only way this might have happened was if the magazine catch, a small metal "nub" that engaged and locked the magazine when it was inserted, was very, very worn down. I expect this myth to be largely the product of verterans' failing memories.

This was "supposedly" on the M1 version as it carried over from the M1928A1 and it was not designed to hold the weight of the 30 round stick. The M1A1 "supposedly" fixed this issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FlieGerFaUstMe262 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

I shot video of a 30 round magazine falling out of place at an MG shoot in NV. I would suspect that user placement was poor. 198.123.50.207 (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• The stick magazine problem was actually that the older XX sticks were a tight fit in the M1 magazine well: the XXX stick "rib" is slightly thinner than the XX stick "rib". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.7.140.187 (talk) 11:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

With the bolt locked open, as happens when the magazine is empty, the magazine catch normally catches the fresh magazine easily. However, with the bolt open, the gun is ripe for a slam fire and safety in a landingcraft would indicate having the bolt forward then inserting the magazine. With the bolt forward and the safety switch "on" (All M1 and M1A1 and British modified 1921 and 1928 models allow the safety to be put "ON" with the bolt closed--the original 1921 and 1928 do not), the top cartridge presses against the bottom of the bolt and the magazine catch might not fully engage its hole in the magazine, allowing the magazine to be jarred loose at the wrong time. This is a problem with loading a full magazine in a firearm with the bolt closed: it takes extra pressure to assure the magazine is properly seated and the magazine catch fully engaged. Stephen E. Ambrose reported something that happened, but it is not a defect in the Type XXX Thompson magazine, although it happened more with users of the Thompson, it happens with all detachable box magazine firearms including M1 carbine and 1911 pistol. Naaman Brown (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Civilian Ownership

I think now with the reference to the NFA, the "needs to cite sources" template can be taken out, so I'm doing that. If you don't agree, feel free to put it back in. --UNHchabo 04:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Clockwork mechanism?

Is it true that the drum magazine Thompson machine gun was driven by clockwork? If so this information could be added to the article (interesting).

actually, the box and the drum magazines use springs to move the next cartridge to the feed position where it is picked up by the bolt. the box magazine uses a coil wire spring. the drum magazine uses a clockwork spring that after loading has to be wound with a built-in key. the drum magazine was driven by clockwork, not the Thompson gun itself. the drum magazines are a niche collector interest with different subcontracts and makers between 1920-1943 with later limited production for police and collectors. Naaman Brown (talk) 01:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

"Chicago Typewriter"

Was this weapon referred to as the Chicago Typewriter anywhere else but Resident Evil 4? That's the only place I've ever heard of it called that. If RE4 is the only place, shouldn't it be referenced to in the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.89.22.218 (talk) 01:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

No, RE4 did not coin the term... Nicht Nein! 02:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I had no idea since I'd never heard it referred to as such anywhere else. If not RE4, then who/what originally referred to the weapon as the Chicago Typewriter?

I was also mondering about that. However when watching the history channel there was a show on about world war II weapons and when talking about the Tommy gun it listed a few other names and I'm pretty sure Chicago Typewriter was one of them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Samuel Vimes (talk • contribs) 14:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

The name Chicago Type writer came form the use of the Thompson SMG early use on the civilian market. Gangsters used the Thompson and noted it moved down bullets like a typewriter. And becuase the St. Valentine's Day Massacre was in Chicago and the famed Mobster Al Capone lived in Chicago AND the Thompson was used in the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, it seems fitting to be called the Chicago typewriter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.121.110.104 (talk) 16:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Use in the 1920s gang wars gave the "Chicago" connection. The "typewriter" came from the fact the rate of fire of the Thompsom was described by news reporters as like the rapid typing rate of a very fast typist. Naaman Brown (talk) 13:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

10MM Auto Version?

I recently saw a 10mm automatic version produced by Auto Ordance. It appears they no longer offer this version. Anyone have any further information & should be posted in the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.17.168 (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Up to Spec

I added spec lists from Bearse, p220. Trekphiler 12:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I restored the deleted specs because, while alike, they are not identical. If somebody wants to try & amalgamate the differences in detail into a single table, go for it. (I'd put it at the end of the article, instead of where the first one is...) Trekphiler 04:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The diference in specs is not encyclopedic. The information is interesting to an ardent historian like myself, however I'd like to read this in a book, not have it clutter up an encyclopedic entry. --Asams10 06:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. First, as often said elsewhere, this isn't a paper encyclopedia, so there's room for "unencyclopedic" information that wouldn't usually be included in paper. Second, for somebody who has seen a published spec with an odd ref (say 9mmP or .351SL), this offers a way to confirm it did exist, but only in certain models/years. Perhaps better split off in a "Thompson specs" page? Or an "infantry weapons specs" page? Trekphiler 07:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The M16 Rifle page has a child page like this, I believe. There is a limit to the type and quantity of information that can and should be in this article. I disagree that there is anything notable about the differences in the various incarnations beyond the obscure academic mind.--Asams10 07:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Then I think we have to agree to disagree, because I can speak for myself as having wondered if, indeed, claims for 9mm & .351 Thompsons were legit. WP doesn't suffer the same limitations as a paper encyclopedia, so including the data someplace is okay, even if it isn't in the article proper. (I don't disagree it's cluttered, I just don't want to see the info gone entirely.) I posted a suggestion for a sep page here. Support it? Trekphiler 14:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Sandinista?

From the article, regarding the use by US Marines of the M1928:

"...countering ambush by Sandinista guerillas."

Should Sandinista be used in this context without disambiguation? I grant, this is the original meaning of Sandinista, (followers of Sandino) but in English, Sandinista is usually meant to refer to an entirely different group of Nicaraguans later in the century. (Who were referencing the same Sandino, but were not his comtemporaries.)

Again, while I recognize that this sense of the word has perhaps a better historical claim to legitimacy than the other, it is not the sense that most Americans (and I imagine English speakers in general) will first assume. I have taken no action on the subject, but merely throw it out there for any parties with a greater knowledge of the time and place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.113.219.44 (talk) 10:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

chigago pionao

Ive never heard of it be refered to as the "chigago piano" can someone direct me toa source.(ForeverDEAD 21:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC))

Frank Iannamico, American Thunder: The Military Thompson Submachine Guns, Moose Lake Publishing, 2000. Shows a cartoon of a military class on "The Thompson Submachine Gun, Caliber .45, Model 1928" with a charcter telling another "Back in de old days in Chicago we called it a piano." Naaman Brown (talk) 13:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Merger of BSA 1926 Thompson

I've put merge tags on the page. There is no reason to have a separate stub article for what is basically a license-built Thompson. --Asams10 (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Trekphiler (talk) 09:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I also agree GuthxMastr7 19:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree.ZH Evers (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Do it, do it. BonesBrigade 02:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Merged per concensus. Tags removed. --Asams10 (talk) 14:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

9mm

I have never heard of a 9mm or conversion kit, the only round the M1A1 fires are .45 ACP, later models in 10mm auto and conversion kits in .22 LR. Maybe you are confused with the Grease Gun which can be both. Sonar610 (talk) 03:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR. You removed properly referenced information because you have 'never heard of it.' The 9mm Thompsons were made for the export possibilities. You're saying I confused the Thompson with the Grease gun? Okay, I'm not going to stomp on you for that one but, c'mon. --Asams10 (talk) 13:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

USMC 1928 USA M1

Why did the USMC prefer the M1928, and the USA prefer the M1? --AtTheAbyss (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

At a guess, 'cause the M28 was available & the Corps will take what it can get (cf the Johnson), while the Army was developing the Garand & didn't feel the need for it til the war. Trekphiler (talk) 08:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Muzzle velocity

What .45 ACP (11.43 × 23 mm) Thompson submachine gun MV <> 280m/s ??

Huyphuc1981 nb (talk) 12:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

American Inst. of Crim. L. 23 (1932-33): 1098. Posted for Educational use only. The printed edition remains canonical. For citational use please visit the local law library or obtain a back issue. THE THOMPSON SUB-MACHINE GUN Philip B. Sharpe http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/PSharpe1.html

According to Sharpe: "This .45 pistol cartridge, in the arm designed for it, delivers about 810 foot seconds velocity. In the 10 1/2-inch barreled Thompson it delivers about 925 f.s." http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/PSharpe1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcumpston (talk • contribs) 13:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

925 foot/seconds = 280m/s. This .45 pistol cartridge, in the arm designed for it, delivers about 810 foot seconds velocity. => 810 foot per second = calculate velocity. In most cases, calculate velocity smaller than MV. ex, M43 (AK-47), calculate velocity=600. MV (AK-47)= 720, RPK=750. Huyphuc1981 nb (talk) 13:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

thank talk. I was post some source, but ????? very conservative Huyphuc1981 nb (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Some users very conservative. Huyphuc1981 nb (talk) 06:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Asams10, very conservative, to do objectionable Huyphuc1981 nb

(talk) 03:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

My God, what did you just say? I have no idea if I should be offended or confused. Yes, I'm very conservative. This is an english language article about an American firearm. It needed a muzzle velocity, I put one in. I'm not friggin FedEx; I'll get around to it in a while. I also write in, read in, speak, and understand the English language. I'm not perfect and do make an occassional mistake, but somebody sought fit to give me a Journalism degree. While I realize that Wikipedia is a worldwide free encyclopedia, this is the ENGLISH LANGUAGE version and English speaking editors should not have to argue semantics with somebody who does not speak, read, write, or understand the English language. I don't jump over to the, uh, whatever language you speak, version of Wikipedia and try to argue. Why? I only speak two languages. Sorry. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 12:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Using the Phil Sharp reference above, it should be possible to cite the approximate muzzle velocity of the 45 ACP ball cartridge fired from the Thompson. The difficulty may come from a lack of exactitute in following the wikipedia format. While some editors enjoy compelling confirmity and thrive on escalating conflict, others are very helpful and and willing to assist with the proper editorial formatting. User .--LWF (talk)has been particularly helpful in resolving such difficulties You might want to try enlisting his aid or that of one of the other interested editors. This Thompson machinegun article has been a magnet for conflict for quite a while and I suspect that if it is not a good article by now it never will be.--Mcumpston (talk) 12:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe you just called me out. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 12:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Time tunnel

Either JTT invented time travel or somebody goofed.

"Coincidentally, this concept was adopted by [[Nazi Germany|German]] troops using their own submachine guns in concert with ''[[infiltration tactics|sturmtruppen]]'' tactics.<ref>Gudmundsson, Bruce, ''Storm trooper Tactics: Innovation in the German Army, 1914-1918'', Praeger Press, 1995</ref>"

Since the Thompson appeared in 1919, it would have been inspired by 1918 stosstruppe ops; Nazi Germany didn't exist in 1918, so had no influence on the Thompson; & Hitler opposed introduction of SMGs (for reasons only he understood, I imagine). Captain Daniels ^killroy 12:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Gen. Thompsom advocated the auto rifle and firepower concepts while he was in the US Army, long before he left the Army in 1914 to work at Remington and later founded AutoOrdnance in 1916. His intent was a rifle caliber weapon. A standard reference on the Thompson (Frank Iannamico, American Thunder (Moose Lake, 2000)) lists the 1915 Villar Perosa gun by Abiel Revelli as first pistol caliber full auto weapon issued and credits the 1918 Imperial German sturmtroopen as the first battlefield application of the overwelming firepower tactic. When the Blish principle proved inadequte for an auto-rifle in .30-06, but worked with .45 ACP, Thompson turned from developing the auto-rifle to developing the submachinegun to implement his firepower concept. When technology and experience reach a certain level, bright minds will develop the same ideas in different places idependently. Naaman Brown (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The Swedish version

In the mention of the Swedish version, the following sentence is a bit misleading:

"A Swedish variant of the M1928A1, called Kulsprutepistol m/40 ("Submachine Gun m/40" [Directly translated "Bullet spurt pistol"]), served in the Swedish Army between 1940 and 1951."

Technically, word by word, it's a correct translation for "kul-sprute-pistol" (although "bullet spray pistol" would be more correct), but the word is to be read as "kulsprute-pistol", which has a literal translation of "machinegun pistol" and makes a lot more sense. The literal translation of "kulspruta", the Swedish word for machinegun, is "bullet sprayer", but I think it's wrong to go that deep in the translation as no one thinks about the word like that, the mental image of that word is a machinegun. 217.31.178.94 (talk) 05:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Reference needed template inappropriate?

In the Reference section, an editor has inserted a Nofootnotes|section template, which I do not understand. How can one footnote a list of references? Either the books and articles exist or they do not. If the template is not explained, I propose deleting it. PKKloeppel (talk) 15:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Computer-Generated Main Image

The main picture for the Thompson appears to be a computer generated model from a Call of Duty game or something. Could we have a photograph or a technical drawing instead? It seems ridiculous to have an image from a video game as the main picture for the Thompson.--66.240.59.225 (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it would be rediculous to have a video game image, however this is not one. This is an image of an actual firearm. The quality sucks, yes, and it's had the background blacked out. If you can find a better free image, please upload it. Thanks. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The riddler

... Is a nickname my Dad says the gun was called back in his day, though we are Irish, so for some reason it may be a regional term. Has anyone else heard of this nickname for the Tommy gun?86.46.249.193 (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The list is certainly not all-inclusinve and is not intended to be that. Since your father uses the term, it's likely that others did as well. Often these things are started in or perpetuated by novels and comic books. At any rate, if you could establish that it is a noteworthy nickname, then it'd probably be appropriate to add. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Unfortunately for me, a quick google search doesn't provide much to back my claim. Oh well, I think it's an fitting name for the gun!86.46.249.193 (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

7.65 Parabellum, 7.63 Mauser, or both?

(Archiving from BSA Thompson (redirected here) Page... --Nukes4Tots (talk) 04:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The main Thompson article states the BSA Thompson was manufactured in 7.65 Parabellum as opposed to 7.63 Mauser. The Danish Wikipedia article states the M29 model was produced in .45ACP, 9 mm Parabellum, 9 mm Bayard, 7.63 mm Mauser, and 7.65 mm Parabellum. Twalls 06:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

There are always differences between prototypes and manufacture runs. (For example, the Marlin UD42 was tested in .45 ACP but all mass production and OSS issue was in 9mm.) In all probability BSA produced at least one Thompson prototype in every major military pistol caliber. In any case, production of the Thompson in caliber other than .45 ACP was small. Naaman Brown (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Gat?

Slang term for a handgun (derived from "Gatling gun" Merriam-Webster); also used genericallly to refer to any firearm. Random House Webster's Unabridged: Older Slang: pistol or revolver (shortened from Gatling Gun, first appeared 1900-1905). Use as a generic term for handgun (or firearm in general) and era of origin (1900-1905) precludes specific reference to Thompson (first commercial model 1921). Tough guys in several film noire and pulp fiction classics refer to pistol or revolver as a "gat". Naaman Brown (talk) 23:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Users?

I don't know if it is just me but I can't find a list that has the users of this weapon. In the service history section it says used by: see users but I can't see a users section in the content. If someone will be kind enough to list the users that will be greatly appreciated. 209.6.17.76 (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Design Credit

Design credit needs to be changed from Thompson to Oscar V. Payne, and to a lesser degree, Theodore H. Eickhoff. The US patents for the various prototype models and feeding devices (belt, drum, and box) are in Payne's name: 1363809, 1349345, 1357208, 1403623, 1347755, 1350619, 1361402, 1347754, and 1352414. The other patents by Theodore H. Eickhoff build off of Payne's designs: 1406546, 1437889, 1403492, 1408276, 1365234, and 1350646. --D.E. Watters (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thompson came up with the idea of an individual full auto small arm; he put together the design team that actually designed the gun. Does this make Thompson the inventor, and Payne and Eickhoff the designers? Naaman Brown (talk) 02:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say so. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

By that logic, Gene Stoner wouldn't be considered the inventor of the AR-10 as he worked for ArmaLite at the time. Likewise, several Browning designs owe themselves to specific requests by Winchester and other companies. Does that make Winchester's T.G. Bennett the inventor of the M1887 shotgun and M1892 rifle? Anyone can come up with a vague idea; it takes an inventor/designer to make that vague idea a working reality.

Thompson's main idea was the general concept of a .30-06 semi-auto infantry rifle using the Blish lock principle. Eickhoff was hired to turn that basic idea into an actual design. After initial testing of the rifle, Eickhoff was the first to suggest a .45 ACP weapon using the same mechanism, as it would not require lubricated cartridges like the rifle. In any case, the Auto-Ordnance semi-auto rifle and SMG were not the first examples of their class to be created or even manufactured. --D.E. Watters (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Shooting off both sides of your mouth

In the same 'graph, the page now says, "General John T. Thompson, who was inspired by the trench warfare of World War I to develop a "one-man, hand-held machine gun", firing a pistol caliber round." & "Thompson's original goal was an automatic rifle." So which is it? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 11:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Several histories of the Thompson deal with the development of the tommy gun. Frank Iannamico, American Thunder: The Military Thompson Submachine Gun 1928, 1928A1, M1, M1A1, Moose Lake Publishing, 2000, has a short history of the development of Thompson's Auto-Ordnance Corp. Page 5-. "While serving in the United States Army John T. Thompson had envisioned a self-loading auto-rifle as a possible replacement for the aging bolt action rifles in use.... Thompson eventually found Thomas Fortune Ryan willing to finance his auto-rifle idea. In August 1916 the Auto-Ordnance Corporation was born."

Thompson recruited Theodore H. Eikoff (U.S. Ordnance Dept.) as chief engineer and Oscar V. Payne as Eickoff's assitant. Thompson believed John Blish's metallic-adhesion-under-pressure principle patented 1915 would make the auto-rifle possible. Eickoff found that the Blish Principle was practical in .30-06 only if lubricated cases were used, and the only practical U.S. military cartridge to use with the Blish Principle was .45ACP. Eickhoff informed Thompson of his findings, he was surprised when Thompson then envisioned developing a hand held machine gun in .45ACP to replace the original goal of a semi-auto .30-06 rifle. Thompson's "trench broom" concept apparently preceeded actual use of the MP18 by the Germans in trench warfare, but the first prototype Thompson guns were publicly demonstrated in 1919 and the production model was 1921. Julian Hatcher, Hatcher's Notebook, shows a few Thompson auto rifle prototypes after 1921, showing Thompson did not completely abandon the original auto rifle goal. There was even an AutoOrdnance prototype in the 1941 competition for the new "light rifle" or .30 carbine.

Yeah, the history section needs a chronological rewrite. Naaman Brown (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of Blish Principle in Julian Hatcher's Notebook p.44 relating to the Thompson Autorifle using Blish Patent #1,131,319 9 Mar 1915 describes it as "adhesion" not friction; p.45 shows a diagram of the breech closure system of the Thompson Autorifle; page 46 continues discussion of the Blish lock as applied to the Autorifle and discusses the different application of the Blish Principle to the Thompson Submachine Gun. Hatcher notes that skeptical engineers doubted Blish's theory that dissimilar metals adhered under pressure with the adhesion "breaking" as pressure dropped. According to Hatcher, they believed the Thompson Autorifle and Submachine Gun operate as retarded blowback, evidenced by the fact that the Autorifle would function reliably only with lubricated cartridges. Hatcher discusses the Autorifle on pages 44-46, 153-156, and 165-166. models included Thompson Autorifle Colt Model 1921, Mod. P.C., Mod. V., Style D; amd the .276 Pedersen caliber Model of 1929. Patent #1,131,319, Hatcher's Notebook, Iannamico, etc all refer to Blish Principle as working by "adhesion" of metal under pressure. The patent model is a single shot pistol (using a 7.65mm Luger barrel) and a wedge-shaped breechblock, self-ejecting, but not an autoloader. The patent covers the principle of two inclined surfaces "adhering" under pressure, then sliding as the pressure drops. Naaman Brown (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I won't dispute that, only say it's usually been described where I've seen it as "friction-delayed". I suspect it's more a matter of semantics than substance. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The early literature about the Blish Principle used "adhesion" so I think it ought to be retained for the history. What it is, is an unlocked "friction-delayed" or a "hesitation" blowback system. The Blish Principle as articulated in the patent theorized actually locking by adhesion under pressure, the adhesion disappearing as pressure dropped, so all the contempraneous discussion called it adhesion locked and it was described as being different from delayed blowback actions like the Pillar Verosa which was designed to use friction not to "lock" the bolt but slow the movement use of a lighter bolt. The current term similar to the Blish Principle is called "stiction" or "static friction" (of course use of "stiction" would be an anachronism.) Naaman Brown (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I did not know that. (Did you guess? ;D) I wouldn't have bothered raising it at all, except I'll bet there's quite a few people like me who think of it as friction-delayed. Any objection to saying "adhesion-delayed (also called 'friction-delayed' or 'hesitation' blowback"? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Double barrelled

I deleted this:

"===Thompson .30 Carbine===

This was the predecessor to the Thompson Light Rifle. This platform was based on the M1921/27 variants and worked well but due to the war effort was found expensive for mass production.

"===Thompson Light Rifle===

"Main Article Thompson Light Rifle

"A contender for the M1 Light Rifle concept during World War 2 was the Thompson Carbine. Its layout was very much the same as the submachine gun but chambered in the .30 Carbine calibre. The only major differences from the SMG were the barrel shroud, introduction of pressed steel components to ease production/reduce weight, and repositioned stock to reduce barrel climb improve accuracy. The Thompson Light Rifle was more reliable and accurate than the M1 Carbine and also came with the capability of select fire, which made it close to the likes of the StG-44."

as off-topic to the SMG. Neither of these were actually variants. Arguably, the .30 is a precursor to the TLR... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Siege of Sarajevo image

Regarding the removal of the image File:Evstafiev-bosnia-sarajevo-serbs-toast.jpg with comments "I find it unlikely that Serb paramilitaries can be so well dressed, and relaxed during a battle." and "Inadequate reason given for re-adding the picture. It hardly seems relevant, and appears to be a bunch of people partying with a gun in the background."

The Siege of Sarajevo lasted four years - it wasn't constant combat. I see no reason to disbelieve the authenticity of the image. It shows the Thompson in recent usage. (Hohum ^@) 15:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

There were daily shelling and sniping in that city. Everything I find on Google seems to say so. Besides, it seems strange that a couple of guys are having drinks, in some nice clothes (the whole country was at war), while a disembodied arm is holding a gun in the background. Infact, I've heard that there were severe shortages throughout the country, bringing into question how are they manage to look so well-shaven. They simply look too well dressed, well groomed, and well fed to possibly be under siege.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/29/newsid_4667000/4667292.stm

Elryacko (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Serbs were besieging the city, they were not the besieged. Also, the date is right at the start. I am sure you are well intentioned, but you are wrong. (Hohum ^@) 17:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, you can see the state of public grooming and life at: Media related to Siege of Sarajevo at Wikimedia Commons (Hohum ^@) 18:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Who controls the city is besides the point. And the link you have given proves nothing. Here's some image captions from the link: "Garbage, too dangerous to collect and anyway impossible to dispose of, accumulates and rots in the streets – this pile is in Kralja Tomislava, a dangerous north-south street parallel to Ðure Ðakovića. Eventually UNPROFOR alleviated the problem." "Typical street scene: garbage, shot-up cars, buildings pockmarked by bullets." "One man gathers branches for firewood, another cradles precious loaves." "Residents of Baščaršija wait to receive rations from a UNHCR humanitarian aid delivery, their first in 40 days: 1 K-ration meal per person, 1 kilo each of powdered milk, rice and flour, ½ kilo each of sugar, 2 200g cans of fish and meat, half a litre of rapeseed oil, 200g of detergent. Interval to next delivery: unknown."

Those captions prove the following things: food is scarce, such luxuries as razors are likely to be scarcer, and the whole city was in a state of fear from snipers. Which proves me right.

Which also proves that the picture is probably just a bunch of guys partying with a gun in the background. Afterall, notice the windows right next to them? Elryacko (talk) 23:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Who controls supply is very much to the point in a siege. In this case it was the Serbs. Even people inside the city appear to be clean shaven. Also this was at the very start of the siege. You are just ignoring the obvious at this point. (Hohum ^@) 13:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You miss what is even more obvious. What kind of paramilitary is dressed like they're upper-middle class? Here's some actual pictures of Serb paramilitaries: [[1]] [2]. Paramilitaries (in Europe) generally look like they are in some kind of army. And I refuse to believe that in the beginning of the siege, the Serbs simply sat outside the city, partying and drinking. Elryacko (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

T-shirts, jeans, and scruffy leather jacket is upper middle class? Contrary to your assumption, soldiers, even paramilitary ones, aren't constantly engaged in combat, especially during a siege. (Hohum ^@) 19:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh come now! You're saying leather jackets, t-shirts (in good condition) are common in Serbia? Former communist bloc aren't exactly rich, especially right after the Communist bloc fell.Elryacko (talk) 03:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

There are better dressed people pictured *within* the seige at the link already provided. You have a strange opinion on the state of dress in Serbia at the time. (Hohum ^@) 12:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

New Picture

The current picture is of bad quality, and is not even a picture of a real Thompson. Surely there are public domain pictures of a real Thompson, seeing as it is a nearly 100 year old design? Rynosaur (talk) 02:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. Favonian (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Thompson submachine gun → Tommy gun – Should be moved to "tommy gun", per WP:COMMONNAME. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 18:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment. I think you will need to provide some supporting evidence to suggest "Tommy gun" is significantly more common than "Thompson machine gun". (Hohum ^@) 20:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

A Google search for "Thompson machine gun" turns up 3,270,000 hits. "Tommy gun" turns up 5,170,000. Also, I have come across far more references to "tommy gun" than "Thompson [sub]machine gun" in books, and a Google Books search for "thompson machine gun" turns up 102,000 hits, as opposed to 199,000 for "tommy gun". A Google Scholar search turns up 2,210 hits for "tommy gun", and just 187 for "thompson machine gun". And finally, Google News turns up 65 hits for "tommy gun", and exactly 3 for "thompson machine gun". Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 20:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Except Thompson is the correct formal name, & Tommy gun the informal one. Don't we have an obligation to use the correct name? Ghits don't govern. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC) (P.S. I can't believe orca redirects to killer whale.... :( :( :( )

....which is for the same reason that "Thompson submachine gun" should redirect to "Tommy gun". See WP:COMMONNAME. UZI redirects to Uzi for the same reason. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 20:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Because ignorance is so common? Not a good argument. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Technical correctness is not a *requirement* of WP:COMMONNAME, but the established name of the article is valid, technically correct, popular, and not arcane, and the searches show that both are in wide use, I don't see a need to rename the article. There is already a redirect. "Tommy gun" vs "Thompson submachine gun" Google books (pages of results of books, the main search number just reflects the numbers of times within the books: 58 vs 44. It's not a scholarly subject, and a general google search would have us renaming articles to the latest fad, and is polluted with people called Tommy Gun, music tracks, and other clearly irrelevant matter . Google news is polluted with results for people called Tommy Gun. (Hohum ^@) 01:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose -- The article will be better at the formal name of the weapon. Tommy gun should redirect to it. If there are other (derivative uses of "Tommy gun" there should be a dab page for them, and a redirects here hatnote on the article page. This is a common solution. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Google Ngram results. Powers ^T 01:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

My support is for using the proper name rather than the slang name. The slang name can simply be a redirect to "Thompson submachinegun". And yes, BTW, properly submachinegun is ONE word. BobbieCharlton (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not. Powers ^T 15:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is. You don't seriously think Wiktionary trumps real world usage, do you? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster spells it with a space, too. If your argument is "real-world" usage, that hardly comports with BobbieCharlton's "properly" assertion. Which is it: official, or colloquial? Powers ^T 18:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Google hits and Ngram may not be good factors here because they are misleading. Tommy gun is often referenced as a toy. Article should be kept with current name which is accurate.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • What do you mean by "a toy"? The Ngram shows that both "Tommy gun" and "tommy gun" peaked in the years after Prohibition, which is a strong indication that they're referring to the gun and not a toy. Powers ^T 16:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
    • The trouble with the ngram search is that there is also a massive spike for the single word tommy at the same time, and you can't insist both words are together, i.e. with quotes - this always gives zero results. [3] - so it may just be reflecting books with the words tommy and gun in them somewhere. Retracted, it is for a phrase, quotes breaks it, and I was having case sensivie issue with testing. (Hohum ^@) 16:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
    • The peak during Prohibition could hardly be used as a valid argument for the common name now. The more recent usage also shows up in toy discussions (like this). Unfortunately, the Ngram viewer doesn't have a way of isolating accurate entries by omitting certain phrases.
      ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

But this turns up only 2,720 hits, far less than the 1,900,000 needed to explain the far greater number of hits for "tommy gun" as opposed to "thompson machine gun". Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 00:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Where did that number come from? It is inconsistent with your presented numbers for Google books above.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, google hits aren't going to be a valid argument here at all because the results are tainted with all kinds of stuff that isn't about the weapon.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen any such false positives yet. Mentions of toy Tommy guns are not false positives here, as we would expect them to be called "toy Thompson submachine guns" if that was the common name. Powers ^T 14:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

30-round box magazine in the Mod. 1919

There were two main experimental models of the Thompson. The Persuader was a belt-fed version developed in 1918, and the Annihilator was fed from a 20 or 30-round box magazine, which was an improved model developed in 1918 and 1919. Additionally, the 50- and 100-round drum magazines were developed.

I never heard about it. -- hmaag (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Red Jacket Firearms Version

Didn't RJF make a more modern version of this gun and debuted it in Sons of Guns? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.198.241 (talk) 03:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

climb off target

Iconic film images of the tommy gun show it sweeping horizontally. Was it commonly held side-down? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.148.53.46 (talk) 03:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

U.S. Marine shooting a Thompson At Okinawa

A retired United States Marshall shooting his privately owned Thompson. Note the empty shell cases

The images to the right show the correct way to fire a Thompson SMG (or any other similarly type weapon). The Thompson is shot from the shoulder like a rifle. The soldier looks through the sights, aims and preferably fires short control bursts. If necessary longer bursts can be fired in the same manner. In either case, it is important to concentrate your fire on the target for maximum effect.

Remember; in the real world, you are fighting for your life and you do not show off or take any unnecessary chances. It is important to kill your opponent as quickly possible using the maximum level of force at your disposal. Shooting a Thompson from the hip and sweeping back and forth is very photogenic, and often used on T.V. and in the movies. However, to do so in real life is foolish to say the least. And, perhaps the last mistake you will ever make.--71.22.156.40 (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

From what I have been told, it would not be possible to fire longer bursts while looking through the sights - looking at your pictures, it appears that when sighting over the top of the gun, the recoil would uncontrollably lift the barrel - wasn't that was normal for all guns sighted that way? And would also have spun you around. I guess that would have left you firing uncontrollably into the air. In any case, I see that for trained soldiers, the solution would be short control bursts, and that the recoil problem would not have been solved by holding the weapon side-down. Presumably holding the gun at your breast would give you better control of long bursts, but not enough control to prevent it sweeping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.148.53.46 (talk) 10:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The recoil isn't as bad as you think. Skilled shooters could write their initials in full auto.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.39.11 (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2013‎ (UTC)

The recoil isn't bad...you have to remember that this is firing a pistol cartridge and the weapon is heavy enough that much of the recoil is absorbed. I think that the 120.xxx IP has confused the power of this weapon with something like the uncontrollable hard-to-control M14 in full-auto. Compare this firing of a Thompson with this firing of a M14.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 05:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Photo Thompson in violin case

I placed a magazine photo to replace the violin Thompson. I think the photo is not a Archetypal gangster image of a Thompson in a violin case, because the gun inside is a wartime 1928A1 and gangsters never took there Thompsons with a pistol grip and a navy forearm in the case. Its a hobbyist handycraft, please kick it out. -- hmaag (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the magazine image - I have moved it to a section where they are discussed in more detail. Is the image of a 20 round and a 30 round box mag, plus a 50 round drum?

Regarding the violin case image - yes it is probably a reconstruction - however, it is the only image we have of a Thompson in a violin case, is of adequate quality, and imo illustrates the concept until we get a better one. (Hohum ^@) 18:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Serious Question. What is this concept the picture illustrates? I mean, what is the necessity and relation of the idea of a gun fitting in a violin case and is it even connected to the Thompson SMG? Isn't it a myth/urban legend that Mobsters kept their Thompsons in violin cases? The only reference I could find was a french-german co-production movie from 1965 'The Violin Case Murders'. Going by the only two pictures I find online, the gun in the movie is unlikely to be a Thompson since there seems to be a magazine sticking out on the left side (e.g. Sten Gun).93.200.30.193 (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

"Chicago Typewriter" versus "Chicago Piano"

I feel that the nickname "Chicago Piano" for the Thompson is not correct and should be removed.

If you look at contemporary literature, especially detective fiction, and watch the movies made at the time, you do run across the term "Chicago Typewriter" as a nickname for the Thompson; that and "Tommy Gun" seem to be the nicknames most often used. I cannot recall ever seeing the nickname "Chicago Piano" applied to the submachine gun, however. The ONLY times I have run across that nickname have been for an entirely different weapon, a shipboard antiaircraft cannon developed before World War II by the United States Navy. It was also used by gangsters in the 1920s and up.

Here is a Wikipedia link to the aforesaid AA gun: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/1.1%22/75_caliber_gun

The 1.1 inch/75 cannon was a four-barreled stationary mount. It earned a reputation for unreliability and when World War II began was quickly replaced by the reliable twin and quad 40mm Bofors cannon mounts, and by the 20mm Oerlikon dual-purpose cannon, both built under license from their original manufacturers. It is the Navy 1.1 inch/75 caliber AA cannon that acquired the epithet "Chicago Piano," because it was the size of a concert grand and was difficult to "play" because of its constant jamming.

If the nickname "Chicago Piano" is to be retained in the article, I should very much like someone to come up with examples of 1930s newspaper, pulp fiction, and screenwriters using it in their works at the time.

Roy Jaruk (talk) 12:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Tendency of the barrel to climb

This rate of fire, "combined with a rather heavy trigger pull" and a stock with an excessive drop, increases the tendency for the barrel to climb off target in automatic fire. What the heavy trigger pull has to do with the tendency of the barrel climb? -- hmaag (talk) 13:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The line of pull for the trigger is outside of the area of the stock that would rest against the body. Since this line of pull is above this part of the stock, the trigger pull force is such that it imparts an upward angular force on the barrel. The barrel recoil adds to this upward angular force because the line of recoil force is also above the same part of the stock. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Shooting a gun with a pistol grip, the trigger-pull moment is largely compensated by the 3 "lower" fingers and the ball of the thumb. Ever fired a Thompson? -- hmaag (talk) 08:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Number of 'Persuaders'

In the section of the variants section titled Annihilator and Persuader, it says "The first shipment of Persuaders arrived in New York to be shipped overseas on November 11, 1918, the day the Armistice went into effect." since there was at least one shipment I assume the Persuader was made in some numbers, but does anyone know how many? Yolo McSwagginz93 (talk) 04:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

North Vietnam in the first Indochina War?

According to the users list it was used by North Vietnam in the First Indochina War, to put it simply, I don't think there was a North Vietnam in the First Indochina War, just the Viet Mihn, I assume that's what it means? It may have been used by the Viet-Cong in the Vietnam War or Second Indochina War however, as according to the Wikipedia page titled "Weapons of the Vietnam war" it was used by South Vietnamese Soldiers, and in small amounts by US Artillery and Helicopter units, so it could've fallen into the hands of the NVA (North Vietnamese Army) or (More Likely) the Viet-Cong. Yolo McSwagginz93 (talk) 04:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Removed for possible copyvio

The following was removed due to possible incompatibilities between the source's copyright terms and the terms of our licence (GFDL).

When John Thompson set out to build his gun, he knew that the heart of a machinegun lies in the design of it’s breech locking and feeding mechanisms. Thompson was aware of the designs used in other guns of the day, but none was appropriate for his needs.

Recoil actuated systems were popular in the heavy and medium machineguns of the era, but these used many moving parts that were heavy and prone to failure. The Recoil system uses the rearward thrust of a movable barrel to unlock the breech, eject the spent cartridge case, insert a fresh cartridge, re-lock the breech and fire the next round.

The Gas actuated system had the same drawbacks as the Recoil system. The Gas system employs a small vent hole drilled into the barrel that bleeds off some of the high pressure gasses that propel the bullet down the barrel. The vented gas pressure is routed back to the breech area where it drives a piston that performs the same unlocking, ejection, loading re-locking and firing sequence as the Recoil operated guns.

The third system, used mostly in semiautomatic handguns, employed a technique referred to as ‘Blowback’. These guns relied on the propellant gas pressure to literally ‘blow’ the bolt rearward. This action powered the sequence of ejecting and loading the next round. Guns using the Blowback process are simple because they do not have a locking breech. They depend on the forward inertia of a heavy bolt, driven by a recoil spring, to keep the breech closed at the point of peak chamber pressure. The Blowback system would seem to be the ideal choice for use in a lightweight machinegun because of it’s simplicity, lack of heavy moving parts and reliability, but in practice it’s only usable with low powered pistol ammunition. High power rifle ammunition creates much higher chamber pressure. Pressure at this level that would overcome any inertia in the bolt, blowing it back prematurely. This would cause cartridge cases to be ejected during peak pressure; exposing the operator to the hazards of ruptured brass and explosive gasses.

To build his personal machinegun Thompson had to find a way to make a simple but practical breech lock. This one technical problem had him stumped. Finally, after more than a year of research he found the answer to his problem. While searching the United States Patent Office files, he came across patent No. 1,131,319. A “Breech Closure for Firearms”. The patent was granted to a retired Navy Commander named John Bell Blish. The ‘Blish Lock’ was essentially a breech locking mechanism that could be used on a Blowback operated firearm. The lock delayed the Blowback of the bolt until the chamber pressure had diminished to an acceptable level. What this meant to Thompson was that it was now possible for him to build his gun.

Some time in 1915 Thompson contacted Blish. Blish was very excited about Thompson’s idea, and was sure his lock was suitable for the purpose. So Thompson worked out an arrangement where he could use Blish’s breech lock, in exchange for a block of stock in the Arms company that Thompson planned to start. Now, all that remained for Thompson to do was to secure the financial support needed for such a large undertaking.

Thompson found financial backing for his machinegun project from Tobacco tycoon Thomas Fortune Ryan. In 1916 Auto Ordnance Corporation was founded, with Ryan providing all of the development and operating funds. In exchange he was given a controlling interest in the company. Of the 40,000 shares of stock authorized, Ryan was given about 18,000. 1,500 shares were given to John Blish for the use of his patent, and about 10,000 were divided up among Thompson’s family; including his daughter-in-law who was the daughter of Ryan’s friend and business associate, George Harvey. Although this arrangement gave Auto Ordnance Corp. it’s start, it would later lead to the eventual near ruin of the company.

Auto Ordnance Corp. began operations in the spring of 1916 with two employees. Theodore H Eickhoff and George E. Goll. Eickhoff was Thompson’s assistant at the Army Ordnance Dept., and was given the title of Chief Engineer. Goll was an unemployed railroad fireman when Thompson hired him as his chauffeur. Recognizing his intelligence and mechanical aptitude, Thompson offered him the job as Eickhoff’s assistant. Under Thompson’s direction, it was these two men who would become the principle designers of the Tommy Gun. Later on Oscar Payne would join Auto Ordnance Corp. and be responsible for many of the design innovations that made the gun a success; including the self-oiling system and high capacity rotary drum magazine.

At the start, Auto Ordnance Corp. was pretty much a corporation in name only. They had no offices, property or machinery. So all prototypes and machine work had to be contracted out. For help, Thompson turned to his friends, W.R. Warner and Ambrose Swasey; whom Thompson had come to know from the contracts that their Cleveland, Ohio based machine tool business, the Warner & Swasey Co. had with the Army Ordnance Dept. Warner & Swasey were very interested in the project and provided Thompson with several of their best engineers and machinists. They also provided a testing room in the basement of their plant at 5809 Carneige Ave. By 1919, Auto Ordnance Corp. would occupy office space in the Meriam building on Euclid Ave., and move it’s operations to a larger machine shop at the Sabin Machine Company, also on Carneige Ave.

By late spring in 1917, work at the Cleveland plant was going full pace. But it wasn't’t long before a series of problems were discovered with the Blish Lock. First, the lock would work fine for several shots, then jam up. Then it was found that under the pressure of high powered rifle ammunition, in a short time abrasion would wear out the lock. Finally, and worst of all, cartridge cases would not extract reliably unless they were lubricated before being chambered (this was before the advent of the fluted chamber, which largely made lubrication unnecessary in a delayed-blowback firearm). This was an unacceptable requirement for a military firearm that would be expected to function under the most adverse conditions. By September 1917, tests confirmed that the only military service cartridge, currently in use, that would work reliably with the Blish Lock, was the .45 Colt Automatic Pistol Round. Eickhoff dreaded the thought of telling Thompson the bad news.

To Eickhoff’s surprise Thompson took the news very well. Eickhoff remembered Thompson saying “Very well. We shall put aside the rifle for now and instead build a little machine gun. A one-man, hand held machine gun. A trench broom!” Thompson’s comments obviously aimed at the trench warfare being waged in Europe. What Eickhoff didn't know, was that Thompson had already been thinking about the need for such a weapon. The War in Europe was stalled and causalities were mounting. 19th century tactics and 20th century weapons did not mix. The traditional cavalry charge was ineffective against the modern machinegun. But the contemporary machinegun was too large and too heavy to be used offensively. Thompson realized that firepower, and hit and run tactics were what was needed to end the War. He envisioned troops carrying compact machineguns rushing from trench to trench, sweeping the enemy with bullets, while firing at them from the hip. So, under Thompson’s direction, Eickhoff changed the project to work on a class of firearm that never before existed.

By the summer of 1918, all of the major design problems had been resolved. What was left was to address the guns durability and external features. The Annihilator I, as it was code named, was now capable of emptying a 20 rnd magazine in less than a second. Work continued until the fall of 1918, when the final prototypes were completed. Ironically, the first shipment of prototype guns destined for Europe arrived at the docks in New York city on November 11, 1918, the day the War ended. Thompson now faced a huge problem. What do you do with a trench broom, now that the trenches no longer need to be sweeped?

In 1919 Thompson gave Auto Ordnance the task of modifying their new gun for non military use. Eventually the question arose, of what to call it. Thompson wanted something different. Something that would distinguish the weapon from it’s larger bulky machinegun predecessors. They considered the terms “Autogun” and “Machine Pistol”, but finally decided on “Submachine gun” to denote a small, hand-held, fully automatic firearm chambered for pistol ammunition. So, at a meeting of the Auto Ordnance Corp. board of directors, the gun was officially classified as a Submachine gun. And, to honor the man most responsible for it’s creation, the Annihilator was officially named the “Thompson Submachine gun”.

With the War in Europe over, Auto Ordnance Corp. realized that the potential for military sales of their remarkable new gun was limited, but they continued to actively court both the Army and Navy with the hopes that the submachine gun would be accepted as standard issue. This was accomplished through various field trials and demonstrations.

The Thompson Submachine gun had it’s first public demonstration in August 1920 at the National Matches at Camp Perry, Ohio. Everyone who witnessed the gun in action was amazed at it’s compact size and massive firepower. The prototype gun shown, firing at a rate of about 1,500 rounds per minute, could empty a one-hundred round drum in four seconds. At this rate, the sound was described as being like “the loud ripping of a rag”. Everyone agreed that this was the most revolutionary small arm of its day.

Pleased with the guns reception in its public debut, Thompson approached the Colt Firearms Co. with a proposal to manufacture it under contract. Thompson hoped that the prestige of the Colt logo, and the company’s close relationship with the military, would hasten it’s acceptance into U.S. military service. However, after a thorough evaluation of the gun, Colt was so impressed that it instead offered to purchase all rights to the Thompson for an even $1,000,000. This could have earned Auto Ordnance a considerable profit, but Thomas Ryan, AO’s majority stock holder, told Thompson that “if it’s worth a million to them, it’s worth more than a million to us.” So the Colt offer was rejected, and the original contract was signed.

In addition to the Colt contract to make 15,000 basic firing mechanisms for $680,705.85, and another $9,105 for spare parts, Auto Ordnance let contracts with Remington Arms for walnut gun stocks for $65,456; and Lyman Gun Site Corp. for adjustable sites worth $69,063. With the signing of the Colt contract, Auto Ordnance shut down its Cleveland research operation and moved to a rented building on the Colt company grounds in Hartford Connecticut where it would oversee the production of the Thompson.

The first Colt guns came off the assembly line at the end of March 1921. These first guns marked "Model of 1921" were sent to Auto Ordnance salesmen, and the Army and Marines for evaluation. Auto Ordnance salesmen demonstrated the gun to the military throughout Europe. But, in-spite of the enthusiastic response it received wherever it was shown, sales were minimal. The submachine gun was simply a class of firearm that was ahead of its time. This, and the depressed economic conditions of a post War society, left very little money for governments to purchase ‘experimental’ weapons with no battle history. Even the US Army was willing to overlook the Thompson’s bargain price of $225, and pay $650 for the outdated Lewis Gun.

With military purchases almost non-existent, Auto Ordnance decided that it had to beef up submachine gun sales to State and Local Police departments. AO was quick to take advantage of the public’s concern over the new “motorized bandits” that were terrorizing small towns. These were criminals that would rob a bank and quickly leave town in their get-away cars; often exchanging gunfire with the local police who were hot on their trail. But even with sales to the PD’s of New York, Boston and San Francisco, and to the State Police in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, West Virginia, Connecticut and Michigan, sales to law enforcement hadn't materialized in the quantities expected. By 1925 only three thousand Thompsons had been sold. To help boost sales, Auto Ordnance soon resorted to advertising the Thompson Submachine gun as the answer to every possible solution that a firearm could provide. The most notorious being one that depicted a Cowboy blazing away with his Thompson, defending his ranch from Mexican cattle rustlers and bandits.

This sort of advertising may seem incredible today, but in 1925 anyone with $225 ($2400 in 2005) could purchase a Thompson Submachine gun either by mail order, or from the local hardware or sporting goods store. And with military and police sales being flat, Auto Ordnance sold it's machineguns through every legal outlet it could. It wasn't until 1934 that machineguns, and other classes of firearms such as suppressors (silencers) and short barreled rifles and shotguns, were eventually placed under strict Federal Regulation with the passage of the National Firearms Act (NFA).

While Auto Ordnance Corp. was selling the TSMG on the open market in the 1920’s, it was uncomfortably aware of what it’s guns could do if placed in the wrong hands. It relied on its dealers to restrict sales based on an agreement that stated “Thompson Guns are for use by those on the side of law and order, and the Auto-Ordnance Corporation agents and dealers are authorized to make sales to responsible parties only.” Unfortunately not all of its dealers would abide by this agreement.

January 16, 1920 marked a turning point in American history. With the enactment of the Volstead Act, the United States government made it illegal to import, manufacture and sell alcoholic beverages. It wasn’t long before criminals realized that immense profits could be made by providing the public with the alcohol it wanted. So, like a carpenters hammer, the Thompson Submachine gun became a tool of the trade, employed by many of the bootleggers and gangsters of the 1920’s and 30’s.

To John Thompson's distress, his namesake Submachine gun turned out to be the perfect weapon for gangland murders. Being compact and easily hidden, and possessing tremendous firepower, it could easily kill one or more targets without requiring the gunman to get close enough to be exposed to return fire - which usually wasn’t a problem because anyone near the intended victim was either also killed, or diving for cover. Even heavy doors and automobile bodies could not shield a victim from a TSMG firing armor piercing ammunition. It was these fearsome qualities that inspired the nicknames bestowed on it. Chopper, Gat, Chicago Typewriter and Tommy Gun all became popular terms used by criminals and the public at large. Eventually, individuals like Al Capone, John Dillinger and Machine Gun Kelly became permanently associated with the gun.

Interestingly, even though Thompsons could be legally sold to anyone on the open market, in the underworld they commanded exorbitant prices ranging from $1,000 to $2,000 apiece ($10,000 to $20,000 in 2005). This phenomena was attributed to the eventual crackdown on the many dealers who were more than happy to sell machineguns to known gangsters. One dealer in Philadelphia, Edward Goldberg, would oblige his gangland customers by grinding off the serial numbers before delivery.

Ironically, it was during this same time period that the TSMG was finally adopted for service by an official military branch of government. The United States Coast Guard began issuing Thompsons to patrol boats along the eastern seaboard. The guns proved to be very effective for boarding parties inspecting watercraft suspected of rum-running. Shortly after that, another government agency purchased 250 Thompsons. The United States Post Office, responding to attacks and robberies of mail trucks, purchased the guns to be used by United States Marines assigned to guard the mail. In 1927, these same Post Office guns would be used successfully by Marines fighting in the jungles of Nicaragua; prompting the Corps to order 200 more. The popularity of the Thompson with the troops, and it’s successful role in close quarter fighting led the Marines to officially adopt the Thompson in 1930, years ahead of the Army.

In 1928, at the same time the Marines were fighting in Nicaragua, the Navy had re-evaluated the Thompson and decided to adopt it for use on Naval Gunboats. Deciding that the rate of fire was too fast, and that the Tommy Guns trademark vertical foregrip was too delicate, the Navy agreed to adopt the Thompson if these issues would be addressed. Auto Ordnance agreed, and replaced the foregrip with a horizontally mounted one. The rate of fire was reduced by replacing the Thompsons actuator with a much heavier unit. This increased the mass of the bolt, and reduced the cyclic rate down to an acceptable 600 rounds per minute. The new Navy model of the Thompson was released as the “U.S. Navy Model of 1928”. The number 8 being stamped over the number 1 on the Model 1921 guns used to build the order.

In March of 1932, after years of appeals, Auto Ordnance Corp. finally convinced the Army to adopt their submachine gun as a “non-essential limited procurement” weapon for use in armored vehicles in the cavalry. Eventually, in 1936 the cavalry changed it from ‘limited’ to ‘standard’ procurement. However it wasn't until September of 1938 that the TSMG became officially designated: Submachine gun, Caliber .45 M1928A1. Although the Army orders were important to A.O., the number of guns actually sold were small. A.O. still had some 4,000 of the original 15,000 Colt Model 1921 guns in stock. And the A.O. financial books were in trouble.

By 1939, having undergone a power struggle to gain control of the company, and a resulting change in management, combined with years of sluggish Submachine gun sales, the future of the Auto Ordnance Corp. was bleak. Then, on November 1, 1939 everything changed. The French placed an order for 3,000 Thompsons worth a contract price of $750,000. This was soon followed by inquiries from the British for similar large Submachine gun orders. This meant that Auto Ordnance would finally sell off all of their inventory of Colt guns produced nearly 20 years earlier. To fill these new orders, AO had to build more Thompsons.

Auto Ordnance tried to get Colt to build another order of Thompsons, but was turned down flat. Colt was already committed to building other guns, like the Browning B.A.R. for the Army; but more importantly had not forgotten the bad publicity they received from the misdeeds of gangsters using Tommy Guns bearing the Colt Trademark. So instead, A.O. signed a contract with the Savage Arms Company in Utica, NY to build it’s Thompsons.

It wasn't long after the French order, that the Second World War created an enormous demand for submachine guns. Between February 1940 and the end of the year, the British placed a total of thirteen orders for 107,500 Thompsons with contracts totaling $21,502,758. In March the French ordered another 3,000 guns, and in December the US Army ordered 20,450. Unfortunately, France fell to the Germans before it could take delivery of the 6,000 guns it had purchased from Auto Ordnance.

Knowing that as the War progressed demand for submachine guns would increase, in August 1940 Auto Ordnance Corp. leased an old brake relining plant in Bridgeport Connecticut and began converting it to produce Thompsons. The first Bridgeport guns came off the assembly line in August 1941; just in time for the Army’s largest order yet, 319,000 guns. Although A.O. was assembling Thompsons at the Bridgeport plant, they only manufactured upper and lower receivers. All of the other parts used to build their submachine guns came from Savage and other sub contractors.

By February 1942 Auto Ordnance Corp. had delivered it’s 500,000th gun. By summer of the same year, the combined output from the Savage and A.O. production lines reached a rate of 90,000 guns a month. Finally in 1944 when TSMG production ended, a total of 1,750,000 completed guns, and spare parts equivalent to another 250,000 guns had been produced. Most of these guns, some 1,250,000, were made at the Savage plant. Savage guns can be identified by the “S” prefix on the serial number located on the left side of the upper receiver. The remaining guns were made at the Auto Ordnance Bridgeport plant and bear an “A.O.” prefix.

At the start of the Second World War, the Army finally recognized the need for submachine guns. It also recognized that the Thompson was already obsolete. Compared to German submachine guns, the Tommy Gun was heavier, more complex and costlier to produce. But it did have one major advantage that the Army couldn't ignore. The M1928A1 Thompson was the only submachine gun being mass produced in any Allied country. This alone gave it a huge advantage over any would-be competitors.

Throughout the War, the Thompson underwent design changes that would make it faster and cheaper to produce. The first change eliminated the finely machined Lyman rear gun site. It was replaced with a simple stamped “L” shaped battle sight; which would later have protective ears added to prevent the sight from be caught up in a soldiers clothing, belts and slings. Next the fancy checkering on the Fire Selector and Safety switches, and Actuator knob was eliminated. The smoothly finished barrel fins were left square cut, and eventually eliminated entirely. However, these changes were minor compared to the changes introduced by Savage.

Savage produced a completely remodeled gun. They eliminated the Blish lock (which had been proven to be unnecessary in a submachine gun) in favor of a straight Blowback design. This eliminated the separate actuator and “H” piece, and allowed the cocking knob to be mounted directly to the bolt. In this configuration the knob was moved from the top of the receiver to the right side. Other changes were made that: Permanently attached the buttstock to the receiver; Prevented drum magazines from being used; And removed the Cutt’s compensator. The new gun was standardized in April 1942 as Submachine Gun, Caliber .45, M1. In October 1942 the M1 Thompson was replaced with by M1A1. This version being simplified even further by eliminating the firing pin and hammer. Instead, a fixed firing pin was machined into the face of the bolt.

To make up for the inability of the M1A1 to use the 50 rnd drum magazine, a new 30 rnd magazine was created to replace the standard 20 rnd magazine. The M1928A1 would be able to use either the 20 or 30 rnd box magazines, or the 50 rnd drum. The M1A1 was limited to box magazines only.

An M1A1 could be produced in half the time of a M1928A1, and at a much lower cost. In 1939 Thompsons cost the government $209 ($2742 in 2005) apiece. By Spring of 1942 cost reduction design changes had brought this down to $70 ($878 in 2005). In February of 1944 the M1A1 reached a low price of $45($480 in 2005) each, including accessories and spare parts. But by the end of 1944, the M1A1 was replaced with the even lower cost M3 “Grease Gun”.

At the start of the second World War the Thompson submachine gun was already an obsolete design. But it was also the only design available for use by Allied troops. Throughout the War, the government wanted to replace the Thompson with something that was lighter, cheaper, and faster to produce. This led to design submissions from many companies in different countries.

In 1939 the first design submitted for evaluation was the Hyde Model 35. George Hyde designed machineguns for Germany in the first World War. But his Model 35 submachine gun, bearing a close resemblance to the Thompson, proved to be inferior in several ways.

Hyde’s Model 35 was soon followed by the Spanish Star, the Finish Suomi, the Reising (from the Harrington & Richardson Arms Co.), the High Standard (from Gus Swibelius at High Standard Manufacturing Co.), a semi-auto carbine from Smith & Wesson, and the British Mark II STEN (named for its designers; Sheppherd, Turpin, and the Enfield Armory). Interestingly, even though the STEN was ultimately rejected by the Army, in a series of tests where the guns were rated on a scale of 100, the Thompson scored a 57, while the STEN scored an 88, highest of all guns tested.

Even though it was rejected, the British STEN had a profound affect on the U.S. military way of thinking. Unlike traditional military firearms, the STEN was cheap, crudely made, and ugly. It was a simple design of stamped metal welded together and painted. This was in stark contrast to American military firearms that were made from machined steel, blued or parkerized, and adorned with hardwood gunstocks.

The STEN represented a new breed of ‘disposable’ submachine gun designed for the needs of modern warfare; battle at close range with high firepower. The British STEN, patterned after the German Schmeisser, and its sibling the Australian AUSTEN could be produced in vast numbers at the bargain basement price of about $10 ($125 in 2005).

In 1942 the Army Ordnance Dept. took another look at the British STEN (Mark III). But again it was rejected. This time though, the Department told George Hyde, who had developed the unsuccessful M2 (submachine gun, not carbine) while working at the Inland Manufacturing Co. of Dayton Ohio, to design an all metal submachine gun as cheap and capable as the STEN. Amazingly Inland returned one month later with a prototype gun that met all the requirements. It was smaller, lighter, and could be made for under $20 in less than half the time. The gun fired at a much slower 400 rounds per minute, which the Army deemed as more desirable, and would eventually prove to be more reliable than the STEN.

On December 24, 1942, after one month of testing, the new gun was designated U.S. Submachine gun, Caliber .45, M3. The Thompson and Inland M2 were downgraded to limited standard, and six months later the M2 was dropped entirely. In the summer of 1943 the M3 was put into production by the Guide Lamp Division of General Motors. But because of M3 production problems, Tommy Gun sales continued until February 1944. By the end of the War some 600,000 M3 Grease Guns were produced.

(Thanks to http://www.nfatoys.com/tsmg/)

---

The above website has this copyright notice;

"This Internet Web Site, and its Author, are in no way associated with The Auto Ordnance Corporation of West Hurley, NY. or any of its affiliates. Private use of the information and images presented here (except for those in the On-Line Edition of the Thompson Collectors News) is granted with the following conditions: (1) Although much effort has been made to provide information that is as accurate as possible, it is understood that no claim is made as to the accuracy of the information presented within these pages. (2) The information and images may only be used if they portray the private use of firearms, and firearms owners, in a positive manner. Use of these images or information, by any anti-gun oriented organizations or individuals is prohibited."

1) Our NPOV policy states that our articles must show both sides of an issue, therefore views that are critical of firearms must be included. 2) Wikipedia cannot be considered to be private (or for that matter non-commercial) use - our license explicitly allows for these uses. --mav

---

Note:

Concerning 1) No matter the content of the relevant Wikipedia page, the information used, which was taken more or less verbatim, was not used in a manner that would violate the copyright aggreement. The material used portrays only the message that the author intended, and nothing more. As they were presented in the manner desired, and no other manner is possible (unless someone decided to change the article, inserting "evil" and "bad", etc. in front of any reference to firearms), there is no conflict that would prevent the posting of this material. After all, an NPOV would prevent any so-called "anti-gun" spinning of the topic as well as it would the glorification of it.

Concerning 2) I can contact the author of the article to determine if the inclusion here would be offensive. Arguably, this is no different than posting the information on a personal web site, so there should be no difficulty.

In short, contacting the page administrator will clear up any confusion as to whether this is an appropriate usage of his material.

 --Banshee

Yes the page administrator needs to be contacted and made aware of the ramifications of their text being placed under terms of the GFDL. Another thing is that our NPOV policy does require the inclusion of the other side which may be offensive to the original author. There is also the fact that there is nothing, whatsoever wrong with an anti-gun group to copy this Wikipedia article and spin it to their liking (so long as they provide a link back to the version here and abide by terms of the GFDL). So just because we have an NPOV policy which prevents too much spin does not prevent others from spinning the text. In fact the GFDL encourages derivitive works. --mav

Origins of the tommy gun

I Notice that the place of origin is noted as Euclid, Ohio.

I believe the part taken out of the article as "copyright infringement", says it was CLEVELAND, OHIO. and was built in the basement of Warner & Swasey. NOte this site http://www.nfatoys.com/tsmg/web/history.htm

Being a Euclid person and familiar with Cleveland, Warner and Swasey, for whom my father consulted, was indeed in downtown Cleveland.

I suggest the article reflect origin as Cleveland, not Euclid.

Image question

Is File:Thompson in violin case.jpg necessary or instructive for this article? Is it "archetypical"? Can we source that? --John (talk) 12:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

No source for a 1928A1 2nd WW in a violin case, kick it out -- hmaag (talk) 14:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

My expectation is that the average user coming to this page will have only heard/seen a few things about the Thompson. One will be of them being hidden in violin cases by gangsters. I expect it probably is a myth. However, it would be useful if we could find a source either way. The image would still be helpful for the relevant caption debunking/confirming. (Hohum ^@) 23:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Replaced by a Police cased Thompson 1921AC. The Thompson in the violin case is a 1928A 2nd World war model, probably the job of a collector, not a gangster. -- hmaag (talk) 09:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The image was illustrative of the sourced caption. We're still discussing, so I have reverted your unilateral removal. (Hohum ^@) 17:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

You did not revert completly, I did it now -- hmaag (talk) 11:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The Thompson in the violin case is a WW2 Model; the magazine catch lever has a hole as all the WW2 A1 Thompsons; so the image was made after the war. It’s also the image of a “collectors” single-shot Thompson with the FULL-SINGLE selector cut.

If a gangster will do his job in a bank-office, he has a loaded gun in his violin case but there is no place in it for a Thompson loaded with a 20 round magazine, even the shorter 18 round-shot magazine is too long. Another question: does the gangster need a second grip (the 21 Model pistol grip in the violin case), the barrel is equipped with a navy forearm? And an empty drum magazine? And: real photos of so called historic violin cased Thompsons are black & white, not color images.

Sorry for my English, I’m a Swiss. -- hmaag (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't revert completely because the image you added had utility.

Admittedly the picture isn't of an actual gangsters Thompson, it's just meant to be illustrative of the archetype. A way to draw the eye to a mention of something people will have heard of. I'll look for a proper period image to replace it with if possible.

Your English is fine. (Hohum ^@) 18:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me like it's a useful illustration. While it may be a reconstruction, we can say that in the caption. Felsic2 (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Flags

In the user section, the article shows the Red Ensign as the flag of Canada. Unfortunately, this hasn't been the case since 1967. The Maple Leaf is now our flag. I don't know how to edit this error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.253.135 (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Magazine Weight

The article has listed the magazine weights for the Thompson as follows.

20-round stick/box magazine 0.4 lb (0.2 kg) loaded[14]

30-round stick/box magazine 0.5 lb (0.2 kg) loaded[14]

50-round drum magazine 2.6 lb (1.2 kg) loaded[14]

With the source being TM 9 2200. Looking at the source it does not specify whether the magazines are loaded or unloaded but the weights listed are far too light to be loaded. According to that same manuals ammunition section the weight of the .45cal bullet is 322 grain or 20.86 grams. In lbs, 20 rounds is 0.92lbs, 30 rounds is 1.38lbs and 50 rounds is 2.3lbs.

I can only conclude from this that the magazine weights are unloaded and editted the article to state so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.124.54 (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Thompson submachine gun

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Thompson submachine gun's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Jones":

• From Pakistan: Adam Jones (2004). Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction. Routledge. p. 420. ISBN 978-0-415-35384-7.
• From Mosin–Nagant: Jones, Sam (21 February 2014). "US scorns Russia's version of Crimean intervention". Financial Times.
• From AK-47: Richard D. Jones; Leland S. Ness, eds. (27 January 2009). Jane's Infantry Weapons 2009–2010 (35 ed.). Jane's Information Group. ISBN 978-0-7106-2869-5.
• From Malta: Jones, Huw R. (1973). "Modern emigration from Malta". Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. 60 (60): 101–119. doi:10.2307/621508. JSTOR 621508.
• From M1911 pistol: Jones, Richard (2009). Jane's Infantry Weapons 2009–2010. Jane's Information Group. pp. 896, 897, 899. ISBN 978-0-7106-2869-5.
• From PPS submachine gun: Jones, Richard (2009). Jane's Infantry Weapons 2009–2010. Jane's Information Group. p. 902. ISBN 0-7106-2869-2.
• From .38 Special: Jones, Richard (2009). Jane's Infantry Weapons 2009–2010. Jane's Information Group. p. 621. ISBN 978-0-7106-2869-5.
• From M14 rifle: Jones, Richard; Ness, Leland S., eds. (2009). Jane's Infantry Weapons 2009–2010. Jane's Information Group. pp. 893–901. ISBN 978-0710628695.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The usefulness of the Thompson in modern wars

Is it all the things it claims to be? For one, it is heavier than a standard rifle, and fires .45 ACP, and only has 30 rounds Second is that it is friction based or some of them recoil or gas operated, which system is best for modern wars? Third, is it just blatantly outdated? SCP 1174 (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

First, the fact that it is heavy and fires .45 ACP are not exactly drawbacks. The weight increases the controllability which is important for all automatic weapons. Also, magazines for 50, and 100 rounds have been made. But I think most people who have fired a Thompson will tell you that they prefer 30-round stick magazines anyway. The real problem that the Thompson had was how expensive it was. This was the primary reason American began manufacturing the M2 Hyde and M3 Grease gun.

Technically, the Thompson was obsolete before WWII started. But the Americans already had them when the war broke out. The British and Commonwealth forces bought several Thompsons from America, but later switched to more affordable options like the STEN.

Statistically, the Thompson was combat-effective and capable of doing the job it was used for during its use as an SMG in WWII. It might not have been as good as the Suomi K/P, but it definitely was higher quality than Italy's WWII LMG.Blamazon (talk) 17:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

In popular culture

I don't know much about guns, but I remember that Vic Morrow, as Sgt. Saunders in "Combat!" had one of these. I've also seen them in gangster movies. Perhaps a section about their use in fiction and movies would be an improvement. Wastrel Way (talk) 02:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC) Eric

Please remove the photo of the M1A1’s “Hollywood” edition.

The firearm never used a cylindrical barrel. Please change the photo to something more historically accurate. 174.165.213.3 (talk) 03:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Thompson submachine gun

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Thompson submachine gun's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "jones2009":

• From M3 submachine gun: Jones, Richard D.; Ness, Leland S., eds. (January 27, 2009). Jane's Infantry Weapons 2009/2010 (35th ed.). Coulsdon: Jane's Information Group. ISBN 978-0-7106-2869-5.
• From SKS: Jones, Richard D. Jane's Infantry Weapons 2009/2010. Jane's Information Group; 35th edition (27 January 2009). ISBN 978-0-7106-2869-5.
• From Nagant M1895: Jones, Richard D. Jane's Infantry Weapons 2009/2010. Jane's Information Group; 35 edition (January 27, 2009). ISBN 978-0-7106-2869-5.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

No action needs to be taken here. This ref was mass-inserted by an IP in a copy-paste action, across multiple articles, without regard for whether it was accurate, or reflective of the information in the article; I've reverted all instances of it's addition by that IP. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)