It’s probably even cheaper to make a grease gun today too

Shit Auto Ordnance makes reproduction M1A1 Thompsons and 1927A1 Thompsons. They charge about $1800 to start. I wish they were still $800.

Their M1918A3 BAR costs about $7.5k each. I'd love to get one but sheeesh that pricetag is hot.

@@averylocke6860 That’s Ohio Ordnance. Yeah though I’m with you on that one. Love to get one but $7k? I’d rather buy an MG-42 at that point.

​@@PsychopathicV2 The modern ones are probably more complicated than the wartime ones due to being closed bolt semis.

Even the math would add up. M1 + M1 = M2, obviously.

feel like the carbine would be a better fit over the garand

@@cabtaxi Oh, Yeah. You're right

More like an M1 carbine though

No its like someone from the future came back with a m14 and mix it with the Thompson

Of course he does, the legend

Of course, Gun Jesus would video.

Is there a gun the Gun Jesus hasn't fired yet?

@@B3RyL a matchlock arquebus? I’d actually love to see that.

@@B3RyL Certainly not anything French.

Heard an old story (keyword) that the first runs of the Grease Gun had a 90% failure to fire. Supposedly, a shipment was delivered for testing. They tested 6-7 of them, none firing a round. Then, a disappointed soldier obtained a new Thompson, which of course fired as reliably as they all do. But because the M3 could be mostly made with stamped metal and was overwhelmingly cheaper and faster to produce, the initial failures were inconsequential.

Basically a us equivalent of the sten gun

This is basically the same thing as the Sherman tank. Not the best tank out there, but they were cheap and the US made tons of them. As an engineer myself, chasing after "good enough" is what makes an engineer better than someone who strives for the "best." Best usually means complicated, expensive, and slow to produce. If it gets the job done and production is optimized, that's good engineering.

And ironically, something that built just well enough ended up being built extremely well enough to the point where it was the standard weapon for US tank crewmen up until the 2000s

@@ChrisMiles94 You gave me a good chuckle to that Engineers are all about “good enough”. I couldn’t agree more haha!

Marines were quoted as saying "it wasn't even a good club"

@@ericolsen5592 Damn! That's not good. I sure wouldn't want to be in a foxhole at night when the Japanese banzi charge my position and my gun wasn't even useful as a blunt force object. Well the same can be said agaisnt the AR15/ M16 type rifles because they have plastic butt stocks.

@Garrison Nichols The fixed buttstocks on M16s were honestly still decent for a club, I don't think you can say the same for collapsible stocks on the M4 pattern carbines.

​@@garrisonnichols807 Don't know about the M16 but the C8 makes a fair enough blunt object. Though the handguards can crack with repeated use as such. Which frankly always surprised me that the thing at the other end of the stress is what usually gives.

@@ericolsen5592 Its because it was a bitch and a half to field strip as it was originally a civilian weapon and wasn't made for dismantling in field conditions.

huh

Lmao

@@MBP1918 I can’t believe 80+ people got this joke

I DID not expect this joke to be made

Kyiv*

Only problem being they used the sten single stack single feed sten mag.

No.

No it's totally different

My grandpa served in S Italy and he said that would throw out their stens as soon as the could. They were known for jamming. I haven't heard that about the grease gun.

Their

Brandon Harrera but yeah

@@wertugavw I put the question mark there because I dont remember how to spell his last name

@@nickmills8906 yes, and that's why i corrected you

@@wertugavw herrara

He didn't make it up but yup. It is so true too and looking back... How the hell did it mean anything else!?

Maybe it's something to do with the giant American flag behind him

He's very beautiful. He'd be a great subject for a classic painting, like the inspirational/idealist ones you saw around WWII (speaking as an artist).

Yea, and if it was that cheap today I’d buy 12 of them just cause

​@@jaybutton3004its a couple hundos in today's money, so yeah it is pretty cheap

We need a time machine

@@oooshafiqooo we need deflation

@@elijahaitaok8624 yeah

Go to a military surplus store

Depends on the item, I’d say insignia like rank patches and so on is a cool cheap way to start collecting

@@derhistorien5295 I second this

Insignia, Coins, bayonets, cartridge casings, helmets (depending on the type and country of origin).

Small items. Some knives, a mess kit, hygiene products, maybe insignia, coins can be easy, or cartridge belts are relatively inexpensive.

great gun in bf v

@@severedwings6515 facts I have it all gold plated, but I’m trying to use a different gun bc all my friends said the M2 carbine is trash and annoying🤷‍♂️

The M1 Carbine was meant to be fully automatic from the start, but because they had to hurry with production they dropped the requirement and produced the M1 as was originaly designed. Only after feedback from soldiers asking for the gun to be fully automatic did they revisit the proposal and make the M2. Only a small number of M2 Carbines were actualy produced in a factory. The majority of them were made by fitting a conversion kits to a M1 Carbine in the field. Converting a M1 Carbine into a M2 is actualy extremely simple. All you have to do is put a single mechanical pice into it, which adds a selector switch (for selecting between semi and full auto) next to the ejector which extends into the trigger houseing which prevents the bolt from stopping to cycle after every shot, aswell as 30 round magazines as on full auto the old 15 round mags would not last very long. It's a great gun, just sad that it only saw service at the very end of the war given how it could have been produced alot sooner.

Or the even rarer M3

​@@quanboi420 have you tried telling them: skill issues lol

I mean, all types of people fought in ww2. Mostly white and black people for Americans, white people for European nations and Asian people for the Chinese and Japanese that fought. It's called ww2 for a reason, so everyone technically looks like ww2 soldier

​@CD-BVL yeah but their tanks were overengineered and a big part of why they lost. In ww2 it was about quantity and they barely had any spare parts or reserve tanks

​@@derth9230​ I wouldn't say a 'big part' but certainly didn't help. Had they just focused on Panzer III's, and IV's, they still would have lost without a doubt. Their industrial capacity just couldn't match the allies, regardless of what they built.

@@arthurfisher1857they had plenty of tanks. German army even stated it. They lacked oil to run the tanks they already had. Look up TIK talking about German tank production

@@derth9230read below comment of mine

@@armyaj Sherman's and T-34's alone amounted to over 100,000 tanks, more than twice the total number of all German tanks. I don't know why the German Army would suggest they had "plenty" of tanks, but they were very, very wrong in that assessment.

Wartime requirements be hitting different

It wasn't so much economics in that case as it was "BLODDY HELL THE GERMANS ARE GOING TO INVADE AND WE LEFT EVERYTHING AT DUNKIRK WE NEED 20 TRILLION TONNES OF NEW SHIT RIGHT FUCKING NOW"

The m3 is still used by special forces to this day which is pretty neat, I’ve shot one too myself!

Cheap production of inferior, unreliable weapons which might fail in combat.

@@reynaldoflores4522 Careful, cheap in sense of low cost per unit, not cheap in using low-grade material or fabrication methods. Yes, often that comes together, but not necessarily, and for warfare the production needs to have a HIGH ENOUGH level of quality. That often means there is better stuff, but also worse.

No, and no.

@@aregulargenericname8794 care to elaborate?

They did indeed have some production issues, but if the M3 weren’t around, I think they would have solved those problems. There was no need to keep refining production though once the M3 rolled around.

​@@WorldWarWisdomyep, they were essentially using a precursor to what today is called MIM. George Hyde, designed both the M2 and M3, and started the M3 design because of his frustration with how the major cost saving factor of the M2 wasn't working out at scale. So instead made a new design around the better understood and widely used metal stampings. Ironically MIM is now used extensively as a cost saving method for making complex parts in the gun industry, with a so-so reputation.

Probably the m2 carbine

The Marines’ M50 looked similar but no pistol grip

But the M3 was a good weapon

Having more guns, tanks, planes, troops on the field is better than not having any at all

A better weapon doesn't always make the difference in the battlefield, specially when it has no notorious advantage over your enemy's weapon, particularly on range, accuracy, and reliability. Given that this was a gun for close combat, accuracy at long distances was irrelevant, and it was rather reliable

This is true, but it was production that won the war.

Minor differences in combat effectiveness are generally worth a cheaper and simpler solution. The removal of wood eliminates the possibility of warping and splintering due to stress or moisture. A collapsible stock means lower profile and storage size, which can be a big deal for paratroopers or infantry that generally carry a submachine gun for a sidearm like artillery, sappers, or logistics.

That's gotta be the M1 helmet

@@yourlocaldoomer =/ ...FICHT DICHT

@@yourlocaldoomer The M1 helmet is better

@@bornwithsauce Naw naw m1 is even better than that piece of shit

@@bornwithsauce I personally prefer the M1 Helmet.

Inflation

that's like 370 for an m3 if my math is correct

sadly, it's capitalism. deal with it.

@@thatonelightbulb474 account for inflation

@@thatonelightbulb474 Shush, discuss money somewhere else.

I disagree. The M3 was pretty reliable, pretty accurate, and pretty durable despite looking like shit.

Issued to Marines and quickly they went " This thing sucks. " - because it jammed up from the tropical weather, dirt and grit of fighting in battle. For a gun in the US, though? Would be fine for homeland defense so the remaining models were given to Home Guard units.

@@Khornecussion and the finger actuated charging handle (action bar) under the foregrip wasn't exactly ideal.

It's an M14 used to launch lines to other ships. There, done.

@@jfangm Well it's basically a line attached to a giant rubber projectile that you pull in to attach a larger line, then an even larger line to refuel on the ocean. I actually got shot by one before. Hurts like hell lol

@@jfangm Well, I was a little more in depth about it, but yeah. Didn't have to be a dick about it, jeez. Were you a Gunners Mate, or just a know-it-all? I was a GM.

That was the M 2 CARBINE, not the rifle, or the Smg.

that['s a CARBINE

It cost $350, inflation adjusted

@@Danny15877 Jesus Christ that's expensive (note that I said "costed," so that meant that it used to cost that. Anyways, that would be a LOT more to spend today than before to produce.

that's literally every gun before 1960

Ugly and effective at erasing your enemies

it looks just like few pipes connected together but i think its still pretty nice firearm

US government: "Welp, who cares about how cheap and fast manufacturing M3 is. It's ugly and we decide to reject it only because of that. Thanks for the feedback, random citizen"

For some reason I _feel_ like the fire rate and the looks of the M3 match together perfectly.

Thank for the pun! Sharing a pun helps many better remember the fact shared. Cheers!

You couldn't wait 5 seconds?

Wow…

Yeah, but we made it a LOT more reliable.