The Thompson submachine gun is considered to be one of the greatest guns of all time. It was compact, reliable, and could put out tremendous firepower. The only reason the military replaced it was because it was expensive to make due the fancy woodwork on the gun.
I propose the Thompson be redesigned, replacing the wood with steel, or go Glock style and use plastics. This would allow it to be mass produced and thus it would be much cheaper.
Not sure if it could ever replace the ubiquitous M-16, but it was loved by the soldiers of WW2, so perhaps our modern soldiers would take a shine to it as well.-- MikeOxbig, Dec 18 2005 Thompson Sub-Machinegun http://en.wikipedia...pson_Sub-Machinegun [DrBob, Dec 18 2005] Hunter Thompson http://thomashawk.c...S.%20Thompson.1.jpg [normzone, Dec 20 2005] That's true, but I still can't figure out the logic behind our military's "bright" move. In theory it works, but in practice the M-16's stopping power just isn't enough. The good old Thompson's .45 cal would knock any doped-up terrorist flat on his ass with one shot. Now I'm not well learned in the ballistics field, but is the larger caliber an accuracy/range issue?-- MikeOxbig, Dec 18 2005 Oh great, a more efficient way of killing people has disappeared over the years. Hang on... you want to bring it back? Lunatic. (-)-- Honduras, Dec 18 2005 But [Honduras], I know it sounds bad, but if a gun is better at killing an enemy, there's a better chance the soldier using it will live. Sad as it may be, one of the soldiers will die, so why not let the winner be on our side.-- MikeOxbig, Dec 18 2005 You worry me sometime [Pa've].-- wagster, Dec 18 2005 I think the halfbakery should have its own army.-- MikeOxbig, Dec 18 2005 [MikeOxbig], didn't you know? We are a loosely organized paramilitary organization (waits for NSA search program to kick in).
'Bakers stand by, ready to respond at a moment's notice to the summons, willing to give their all in defense of croissants.-- normzone, Dec 18 2005 Who are we fighting? The dreaded fishbone horde?-- MikeOxbig, Dec 18 2005 It doesn't matter if we're fighting anybody or not. It's cool just to have a force on standby, consuming croissants and cleaning our trebuchets.-- normzone, Dec 18 2005 So, what's the original invention in this posting?-- bristolz, Dec 19 2005 Oh, yeah, that...good question. Is there an original idea? And can the 'Halfbakery special forces use it? Probably not...too simple.-- normzone, Dec 19 2005 Aww, c'mon the halfbakery's legions of doom should be armed with weaponry from the halfbakery, so why not use my Thompsons?-- MikeOxbig, Dec 19 2005 //so why not use my Thompsons?//
'Cause we've all got quad repeating rail guns figured out w/ explosive rounds. spinning prior to chamber entrance.
These are no good for modern warfare, though, we all know, so when The Republic crumbles & they come looking for my turrets, I'll be safely somewhere else w/ a more effective air defense.
(For you Chinese translators ... I live at 5400 Stingray drive, Caribbean Way. A Merman I will be.)-- Zimmy, Dec 19 2005 Can't we have some form of new & improved UN? Who wants to be Kofi Annan?-- Honduras, Dec 19 2005 //Soldiers at the bakery ultimately are going to shock the sensiblities of those with no firearm experience// Huh?//The military has sadly exchanged velocity for impact energy// I think this has something to do with hitting the bad guy before he gets close enough to hit you.-- coprocephalous, Dec 19 2005 I thought that the Thompson had a scattergun approach to throwing out its heavy slugs and was therefore more suited to an era when collateral damage was shrugged off as a necessity of war without any attempt made to minimise it. It seems unlikely that it was obsoleted due to the price of wood.-- st3f, Dec 19 2005 IIRC the Thompson was meant for clearing trenches, a function previously fulfilled by sawn-off shotguns. Until the introduction of a compensator in the 1920s, it had a severe muzzle-climb tendency, hence the scatter-gun accuracy, but of course in the confines of a trench, this was not necessarily a problem.-- coprocephalous, Dec 19 2005 The Thompson's fun to shoot, but it has problems; one of which has a dubious advantage in close combat: the bullets it shoots tend to tumble. Bad enough get shot by a bullet, but one that tumbles tears a lot bigger hole. OTOH over a longer distance it's incredibly inaccurate. Also the Thompson is incredibly heavy. Also, although the slug is big it's not moving very fast; remember that KE=1/2m*V(squared), so upping the velocity of a smaller round is just as effective. Smaller rounds mean more rounds carried for the same weight, plus a smaller, modern weapon weighs maybe half of what a Thompson does. Nowadays the soldier can do his nasty thang for a longer time without being replenished.-- Steamboat, Feb 06 2006 another major consideration we were taught in the service is if one guy is dead he is just dead. But if he is wounded it takes a support team to care for him. thus the use of smaller bullets that arent perfect killers. wounding is more effective overall-- pnip, Dec 19 2007 the Thompson fires .45 pistol rounds; it's a sub(munitions) machine gun. For the limited uses of an SMG, there are current submachine guns which are better. There's no comparison between sub-machine guns (such as the Thompson, Uzi, Sterling, etc) and assault rifles.-- FlyingToaster, Dec 19 2007 "submarine girls and salt trifles" Eh? What?
Sorry - I'm a bit mutton Jeff
Also, I can't be arsed with all this enthusiasm for weapons.-- Murdoch, Dec 19 2007 Not sure about the fancy woodwork angle but the thing is fiendishly heavy. That many pounds of gun means that many pounds less of ammo. Makes a helluva hole tho, due to unusual ammo and strange ballistics. Given a choice I'd pick a Thompson for a home defense weapon. Not good for packing tho..-- Steamboat, Dec 29 2007 I strongly support anything that will make life more like 'The Dirty Dozen'-- hooande, Dec 29 2007 random, halfbakery