Caleb Hu: Yep, the MP40 without a doubt matches the fire rate of the Tommy Gun. This is definitely clear in the test, where the MP40 definitely shot the same rate as the M1928.
Ry Cullen: the thompson was the best in reliability
Curran Hyde: I love these military made videos. Is there a name for this type of film?
Der Matthes: Americans say: the grease gun is crap, and the Thompson is the best gun Everybody else says: the grease gun is crap, and the MP40 is the best gun
and please don't call the MP40 schmeißer....
David Rozbořil: 16 people complain about PPSH-41 not being included in video
迪胡: Are these test results accurate? Three shooters' capability in shooting are different. Different shooting results here really mean nothing. An unbiased test should let 3 sub-machine guns to be shot by the same shooter.
Christopher Bennett: Having shot two of the three I can say that the gun I would want in battle would be the MP-40. I loved shooting the M1A1 thompson but did not like the sights and reloading takes practice to get fast at, also it tends to rise alot more then the MP-40 in full auto. MP-40 was smooth and very controllable in full auto.It is a breeze to reload even in the dark, also it uses classic iron sights. But both weapons are a part of history and great fun to shoot.
NOVA: Yeah so the M3 is more controllable because of it's slow rate of fire, but what if you just need fire superiority to quickly overcome an enemy at close quarters? Imagine 5 soldiers with M3s shooting 450 rpm with 30 rnd mags, that suddenly are faced with 5 communist soldiers with PPSHs shooting 1,000 rpm with 71 round mags. If the firefight ends very quickly, doesn't the side that can put more bullets down range have an advantage?
Simon Watts: freak, what bullcrap! Thompson has higher rate of fire and climbs more than MP40.
Bat Guano: Yes, yes, we know the MP-40 was designed in 1938 by Heinrich Vollmer with inspiration from its predecessor the MP 38, and it was often erroneously called the "Schmeisser" by the Allies, despite Hugo Schmeisser's non-involvement in the weapon's design and production. Yeah, and all the gunners are "chicken-winging", but that was not frowned up then in the time before infantry body armor.
faffaflunkie: Yeah- but the 9mm- unlike the .45- still can penetrate when it gets there at 75 yards.
Rahleyboy: Being very familiar with all three weapons, SMGs are limited by their pistol cartridge to close-range, urban and heavily-wooded fighting. In open, rural areas, the rifle cartridge dominates because if it's longer range. Unfortunately, the GI couldn't pick and choose the weapon that he was issued when going into different combat zones.
eogg25: That's pretty good shooting with the grease gun. they should have included the BAR
Great laker: My father fought in France and Germany in WW2, he told me that if any of the soldiers somehow ended up with a Thompson they traded it off for a Garand because "they wanted something they could aim and hit something".
The Exile: I'd say go with the grease gun. I recall hearing that it could swap between 45 and 9 with a kit but with that slow rate of fire you can shoot longer and more accurately if your just vaguely shooting towards the enemy. Might hurt if your clearing trenches or buildings but no guns perfect.
cameron sturgess: All 3 guns have different strengths and weaknesses so they should have built the M1A1 Thompson, The M3 and either copied or captured as many MP40s as possible.
Steve Lempitski: The MP40 was the best of them - reason was the bolt was so heavy in it the recoil was minimal for a fully auto firearm. Thompsons were replaced as the Government was paying 225 bucks apiece, 5 times the cost of a Garand.
R J Macready: The thompson is an early model judging by the compensator ans location of the bolt. Its rate of fire was like 800 rpm if i remember right. Later in the war the thompsons were turned down to like 400 or 500 rpm that matched the grease gun. They were phased out and the m3 grease gun took their place because they were more expensive to make. Thompson is a much finer smg.
Jeremy VetTech: Lots of childish anti-American anger in these comments. LOL. Insecure much? Nobody needs to point out the clip was propaganda - everybody already knew that. I'm no expert, so my opinion on which is best is worthless (like 90% of yours are), so just put on your big boy pants and get over the fact that not all SMGs are created equal.
Schmeisser vs. Thompson vs. Grease Gun -- WW2 Submachine Gun Shootoff5
out of 5