In what world is he in the same league as browning? The metalurgy and understanding of pressures was not new in any way. People had been making guns for centuries at that point. The blish lock he used is also more or less based on a misunderstanding of materials science, proving you dont actually have to understand all that much to make a gun work if you allow for some to blow up while you tweak it.

The Thompson was ahead of its own time. It's superior to literally all other SMGs of the era, but hey, simps are gonna simps, and the grass somehow is greener on the enemies' side.

The Tommy gun is a brilliant design, but the StG 44 was light years ahead of its time imo.

They realized the over-complicated Bliss locking system didn't do much, which resulted in the simplified M1 and M1A1 Thompson blowback-only variants being produced after 1943. Production time was cut in have, and cost for each gun went from $210 to $70.

@@kovona Blish

@@kovona Prior to this video, I was only familiar with the M1A1 variant - the "Slam Fire" model. I was very surprised to learn how its predecessor was constructed and operated!

@@kovona Actually they got the price down to $ 45/unit late in the war. Still not cheap compared to stamped metal SMG's, but reasonable.

They didn't have the technology we have nowadays. Today, a CNC machine operation isn't that expensive, 7075 aluminum is cheaper than heavy steel, and thus, if a Thompson was to be mass-produced today, it would probably be as cheap as an M4 carbine.

Onyx - No kidding ! When I was in the Army I had the opportunity to fire a Thompson. My normal weapons were the M-14, or the M-60 machine gun in the field. I was surprised by the weight of the Thompson (heavy) for as small as it was. Not only that it felt solid, more than a bunch of parts put together. This was done at the FBI range under their HQ in Washington, which they had allowed us to use for our .45 qualification (back then machine gunners carried .45's too). The armorer brought out a rolling cart full of various weapons and some ammo, and we had a blast trying them out. My favorite was the Thompson. The BAR kicked ass too. It was definitely one of the funnest days I spent in the Army.

Sam Percy It offers no safety at all.

inevitable tragedy make a non auto look alike only way to get on

That's not true the M3 didn't replace it

I think the M3 was created since it was cheaper

@@darnit1944 correct.

+webtoedman there is some debate whether the Blish principle even exists. The fact that the M1/M1A1 functions without it clearly points in that direction, at least with the standard service 45ACP cartridge. I read reading an article of an informal experiment where a 1921 or 1928 Thompson was made to function with its Blish lock deactivated. They simply milled the ears off and re-inserted it, all to no ill effect.

Some British armorers removed the lock completely and held the bolt and actuator together with a screw and hex nut and the guns functioned flawlessly

No need for it the British sten gun didn’t use one

@@bottomshot It's actually since been proven that the Blish system doesn't work at all at the chamber pressures you get from small-arms ammo (artillery, which inspired Blish in the first place, is another matter entirely). The lock on the M1921/M1928/M1928A1 did delay the opening of the bolt slightly, but this was solely due to the mechanical disadvantage from forcing the lock ears up that steep ramp, and didn't involve any sort of stiction.

HecklerRommel I mean it's lighter than a .50 cal or a BAR

Eric Sales I won't argue that, but I do believe it's an older design. I think

Heckler tfbtv

Lite power- pistol caliber 45 APC. Remember that the 30 Caliber MG.was also called lite. Witch ment it could be carried by hand.

On the flip side, that extra weight reduces felt recoil substantially. Watch how little that shooter moves when the gun is fired. In full auto, it helps reduce muzzle climb thus keeping the gun on target. There is an advantage there.

This is why they came up with the M-3

No soldier wants to hear "HEAVY, HARD AND DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND"

+webtoedman it was essentially a glorified delayed blowback

Really makes one wonder about the necessity of this complicated part of the gun! The Sten and many other SMGs including the M1A1 Thompson that replaced the M1928 did not have any locking devices such as the Blish lock and performed quite well. Sounds like the Blish lock in this application was simply a lot of “hype” and included because it simply was a principle looking for some kind of application that was really not needed. Would be interesting to talk to people who used both the M1928 and the M1A1 and find out if they experienced any noticeable difference in gas blowback with the M1A1 version.

@@geodes4762 the M1A1 can definitely jerk itself around a lot when fired, whereas the earlier versions were reported to be very smooth shooting, no matter the amount of rounds. The compensator also lessened the recoil significantly. M1921 can even achieve up to 900 rounds per minute rate of fire.

its completely unloaded and for demonstration purposes, chill out an unloaded gun can't shoot.

It was also the way things were in that time period. Finger off the trigger wasn't a rule then.

Mark Roe especially when you're neighbor's a commie you gotta be ready at all times

@@markroe9529 Oh no, trigger discipline and muzzle courtesy was still super high those days. Remember when Gunny Haney tossed a chunk of coral at the derp butter bar in Eugene Sledge's account of his time in the Pacific theater? It's just these guys are actors and don't know shit about guns. You think these are real GIs?

It does have that "Buck Rogers" feel doesn't it?

🥰

Yeah! I was surprised at how they used a property of dissimilar metals there.

@@grantmartin1852 This is the M1928A1, I believe the M1 and M1A1 thompson did away with the blish lock since it didn't really do much

Bronze; about 90% copper and About 10% tin; Brass; about 90% copper and about 10% zinc.

no there is a ejector that is screwed into the left side of the receiver over the mag slightly behind

The ejector is in the side of the receiver. It is not shown in the diagram. That mark shows where it is.

That part made stop quite a while. Maybe I didn't understand. I even turned on the caption. I was really confused by this nonsense.

with a 50 rd drum this gun doesn't move...you could even write your name with it!

@@frankpienkosky5688 I'm reading everyone saying it but by the time was not in comparison with other submachine guns?

I've made three full auto rubber band thompsons, which are almost exactly like the real one. You don't really need measurements.

The frames are nearly identical, some small differences in exterior shape. The M1/M1A1 does not have a blish lock. Otherwise they operate in the same manner

@@markroe9529 the M1 still has an internal hammer and spring-loaded firing pin, which is less prone to breakage under higher round count than the M1A1, and if did break, would be easier to replace and less wasting than replacing the whole bolt body assembly.

@@seijiroukikuoka5975 I know it does.

M1A1 doesn't have the blish lock and cant accept the drum mag either, main thing is the M1A1 has a fixed firing pin though

Important to note that the later M1A1 thompson doesn't have the hammer like that, instead it has a fixed firing pin on the bolt face. It also doesn't have the blish lock

It depends on your purpose. The m1a1 is much more easy to make, cheaper, and for practical purposes works just as well. So, the m1a1 is better if your purpose is to get as many into the hands of people as possible. The m1928a1 is much more elegant and has fancier features. So if your goal is to have it look nice and shoot smooth/ accurate as possible then it's the better pick.

@@wesleyroberts7119 No, the M1A1 is even dumber in that the firing pin is simply machined into the bolt face. The M1 still has a hammer and spring-loaded firing pin, at least, which you can replace with less wastage, and even then, under heavy firing schedule, is less likely to break.