Tommy gun vs AR-15

O

old_yout

New member
Just for fun I ask this, but if you don't intend ever to use either one for self-defense and will most likely very rarely take it out to the range (and if your regular range doesn't allow .223; to shoot that you'd have to truck it out 40 minutes) which would you buy?

I'm thinking Tommy Gun since I'm more of a classic kind of guy but there is something quite appealing about the AR-15.

I'm looking more for personal preference rather than purely logical responses.
Any thoughts?
 
5

5ptdeerhunter

New member
I would have to say tommy gun. I love the way they look and I just have to have one. I don't have the money now but one day I will have one.
 
C

C.R.Sam

New member
In 66 we received M16s to replace our Thompsons.
M16 seemed to be a superior close work tool.
But the Thompson definately has more charactor.
Charactor doesn't get the job done tho.

For play gun....I will take the Thompson.

Sam
 
F

FPrice

New member
There is only ONE answer...

Two different guns, two different purposes, two different uses.

You need both. I have two AR-15s (semi versions of course) but I have always wanted a Thompson in full-automatic. Part of my retirement fund is for such a purchase.
 
M

Monkeyleg

New member
I've had both in full auto versions. The Thompson is easier to keep on target when you're emptying the full mag/drum. The weight makes it more controllable.

The weight also makes the Thompson a real pain in the shoulder to carry for any extended length of time. At nearly fifteen pounds fully loaded, it's one heavy gun.

In semi-auto configuration, I'd give the nod to the AR15. The Thompson was never very accurate, and the .45 ACP round doesn't seem to have much range.

I still wish I had my 1928 Thompson, though. Selling it was one of my biggest mistakes in life.
 
1

12-34hom

New member
Ar-15 vs. Thompson sub gun.

I would have to go with the Thompson for close [urban- 75 yards or less] type combat. esp, with 45 "hardball" or a "JHP".

I have known two combat vets [WW2 era] who carried this weapon. Both had nothing but good comments about this weapon. The Germans also held this weapon in high regards, there were more than one found in the hands of German infantry.

A carbine version of the AR-15 would also be a great weapon to carry. The police department i work for got a M-14 from the goverment [full auto version]. A short barreled AR-15 carbine would be a overall better weapon, 233 vs 308, handling properties of the AR would be much better. Easier to shoot and operate properly and in safe manner.

The Thompson is a relic, but i have seen one Sheriffs office who had one in thier armory.... now that would be the weapon of choice on a drug raid!!!

12-34hom.
 
O

orlando5

New member
On the issue of urban combat. The sub-machinegun is dead IMHO. There is really no compelling reasons to use a sub-machinegun in urban combat. The M-4 (or other carbin) do a much better job then the sub-machinegun.

With that said, get the firearm you want the most. In your case that would be the Tommy Gun.
 
D

Double Naught Spy

New member
I don't know that I would go as far as calling the Tommy gun a relic as its performance really has not been beaten by much with our more 'modern' guns like the M-16.

The M-16 and Tommy gun both have advantages and disadvantages. The Tommy will not do well against soft body armor, had a real limited effective range because of the fast drop rate of the .45 after about 50-75 yards, and the ammo and magazines are quite bulky. At some 16 lbs, it is not a light gun.

The M-16 will penetrate soft body armor, is better at longer ranges, and the ammo is less bulky. It is a light gun compared tot he Tommy.

In short, both guns really fill different niches.

Now transfer the information to the question above about a Tommy gun versus an AR-15. I would take full auto over semi-auto just about any time. If you are talking about getting a semi-auto Tommy gun, then you are buying a neat looking weapon that loses 90% of its shooting appeal if it isn't full auto. At that weight and limited range, a semi-auto Tommy gun isn't a great weapon. Most semi-auto pistol ammo carbines really don't add much to what can be done with the ammo in just a pistol.
 
S

Steve Smith

New member
If the gangsters in the mob era had their coice of M-16s and Thompsons, I think I know what they would have chosen. As romantic as the Tommy is with the gangster era, the gangsters themselves weren't trying to be romantic themselves.

They'd take an M4 with a drum mag. So would I.
 
M

Mute

New member
In your situation, I'd get an AR and a pistol caliber upper to go along with it. That way you can have both.
 
J

Johnny Guest

Moderator in Memoriam
This is one of those questions - - -

- - - where the choice is simply one of which you prefer at the moment, because the two TYPES are so different.

"Had you rather have a large, full-dress, 4x4 SUV in your garage, or a classic Corvette Sting Ray?"

"Would you prefer a Perrazzi trap shotgun or a Remington 700 .30-06?"

old_yout stipulates, "if you don't intend ever to use either one for self-defense and will most likely very rarely take it out to the range . . . ." so this pretty much takes both out of the realm of original design intent. It also negates a discussion of the efficacy of high velocity,small bore, precision fire vs. low velocity, large bore, area fire (with great sound effects.)

An AR15 can be used for match shooting and close-to-medium-range varmint work. Parts and accessories are common and reasonably priced.

The Thompson is a classic--A piece of firearms art work, if you will.

From the standpoint of value alone, I'd keep my '28 TSMG, if forced to a choice. I'll probably never be able to afford another one. I'll PROBABLY be able to buy an AR15 or clone for some years to come.

One man's opinion.

Best,
Johnny Guest
 
J

James K

Member In Memoriam
If talking full auto, and given that choice, I would go with the AR-15/M16. The TSMG is a lot of fun to shoot, but essentially short range, even in SA fire. A good AR-15/M16 in SA can be much more accurate. (Note I am talking practical use, not shooting fun and the romance of collecting; on those scores, the nod definitely goes to the Thompson.)

In SA, the choice is even more definite. The SA only Thompson, as currently sold, is a poor gun, hard to cock, with a 10 round magazine, and still in a pistol caliber; the looks and the Thompson "romance" are its only virtues. The SA AR-15, on the other hand is still a capable rifle, maybe better than the FA in the right hands.

Jim
 
J

Johnny Guest

Moderator in Memoriam
Now, Jim, there you go, confusing pratciality with RO-mance.

:D
No question about it--

The Semi-only Thompson is a far cry away from a practical combat arm. As I've mentioned before, the only use I would have for one would be to get the papers (FIRST!) and then have it converted to a "short-barrelled rifle," for display and possible re-enactment use. Either one--I'd probably prefer the M1 version for THAT.

As stated above, the AR15 (semi-only, or course, though there WERE some full auto versions made and marked AR15) has a lot of utility on its own. And, since you've brought practicality into the discussion, I really believe it is a better "lethal intent" weapon than the TSMG.

I truly LIKE full auto guns. They are fun to shoot. But, try as I might, I can't figure a time in non-military scenarios when a machine gun would be BETTER to have than a semi. Okay, I'd take the MP5, from the standpoint of compactness, in certain indoor applications. Oh, yes--The sound effects. Can't forget them.;)

But, as one who HAS HAD the choice, I opt for an AR15 over a TSMG. When every cop in Texas was on the lookout for a group of TDCJ escapees a while back, I put some extra water and loaded magazines in the car. The CAR15 was already there. My Thompson stayed in the safe.

Best,
Johnny Guest
 
4

444

New member
That is a tough question assuming I could afford either an M16 or a Thompson. I have an AR15.
I have fired Thompsons on a number of occasions, including a couple different variations. I have also fired the M16 extensively in the military. However, I have not fired either one without extensive supervision and under extremly controlled conditions.
I think if I owned both, I would almost never fire the M16 on full auto and would have much more fun with the Thompson.
You actually ask about the AR15. If for some reason I could only own one, it would be the AR15. It is much more practical. I enjoy shooting it for accuracy. I enjoy varmint hunting with it. And I can use it in three gun matches.
I am not interested in combat senarios. I am interested in what I would really do with one.
All three are readily available, but the AR15 is the only one I could realistically afford to own.
 
B

BluRidgDav

New member
Unless you're willing to spend REAL money (plus do a bit of ATF paperwork),
you're going to be limited to semi-auto-only guns.
TO ME, a semi-auto AR-15 provides about 95% of the shooting effectiveness and satisfaction of a full-auto/burst mode M-16.
While a Thompson is just plain BORING if it can't go RATTA-TAT-TAT !!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top