Thompson sub machine gun costs

X

x westie

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Location
East Central Alberta
I’m not sure if this is accurate information, I got this online with “WarHistoryOnline” , but they had a short piece about the price of the Thompson Submachine gun, at the beginning of the war , the British, not having a SMG, ordered 107,000 Thompson smg’s , with contracts totaling $21 million , making a single Thompson $200 dollars a gun, cost reduction was pursued through simplified design, with the 1942 design down to $70/gun, and by 1944 , $45/gun, This was still a costly gun, and the Brits and Canada started manufacturing the Sten gun,as early as 1941 , I read , a Sten cost $25 to make in Canada, the US designed the M3 Grease gun, using stamped materials, as was the Sten
 
Last edited:
The sad part about the 1921 and 1928 guns that were sent to Europe
is, most of them are on the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean because of
U Boats
 
I was told, many years ago, that the actual production coat of a Sten in Canada was got down to under $10 a unit. That was not counting building the factory, tooling, equipment amortisation or anything else: just the cost of pulling 1 gun from the assembly line.

Canada built mostly the tube-framed Mark II Sten, which remains in service in some places. The Mark III had a stamped frame and was CHEAP to make!

Just wondering if anyone else has encountered a 1940 Thompson. I encountered one down at the dump, many years ago, busily massacring rats. It looked like an M-1, had the internal 'hammer' for the firing pin, but it was marked "Thompson Sub-machine Gun Model of 1940". Never saw another, never saw one mentioned in an article or book. It shot real nice.
 
Had a chance to shoot a friends 1928. They are a solid chunk of equipment and the reciprocating rear sight took some getting used to. I would certainly love to own one if the 12.X nonsense was ever eliminated.......especially at $200/gun.

858-A5-A28-0-BE4-450-D-A327-785-C67-A07-CA4.jpg
 
x westie said:
I’m not sure if this is accurate information, I got this online with “WarHistoryOnline” , but they had a short piece about the price of the Thompson Submachine gun, at the beginning of the war , the British, not having a SMG, ordered 107,000 Thompson smg’s , with contracts totaling $21 million , making a single Thompson $200 dollars a gun, cost reduction was pursued through simplified design, with the 1942 design down to $70/gun, and by 1944 , $45/gun, This was still a costly gun, and the Brits and Canada started manufacturing the Sten gun,as early as 1941 , I read , a Sten cost $25 to make in Canada, the US designed the M3 Grease gun, using stamped materials, as was the Sten
Click to expand...

x westie,

The Thompson was certainly always priced high. When the British made their first order the cost was $175 per gun plus $25 per compensator. If I recall correctly by November of 1940 they were down to $120 per gun including compensator. These were for Savage produced Model of 1928's that were cash and carry guns not to be confused with the lend lease US Model of 1928A1.

When Canada put in their initial order they were quoted $139.67 per gun plus $16.66 per compensator. A drum was $14.00 and a box magazine (20 round) was $1.65. This was also for the Model of 1928. Of course the M1 came later and was cheaper but not as cheap as the Sten.

An excellent book to learn the details of the Thompson prices (among other things) is "Great Britain - The Tommy Gun Story" by Tom Davis Jr. You can probably find it on Amazon. It is a very well researched and I'd recommend it. Another excellent book is American Thunder by Frank Iannamico. He wrote the original book then revised it with American Thunder II. American Thunder III is now out (and it is in hardback). I have all three and they are now sometimes hard to find. I find I use American Thunder II for reference more than the others but if you got a copy of III you wouldn't go wrong.

Cheers
 
passengerseven said:
Had a chance to shoot a friends 1928. They are a solid chunk of equipment and the reciprocating rear sight took some getting used to. I would certainly love to own one if the 12.X nonsense was ever eliminated.......especially at $200/gun.

858-A5-A28-0-BE4-450-D-A327-785-C67-A07-CA4.jpg
Click to expand...

you were using the charging handle as a rear sight? what was in between those little protective wings on the rear of the receiver?
 
i believe i have read that the sten was produced around the four to five dollar mark. you have to realize that the dollar went a lot further in those days. i have handled a thompson but have never had the opportunity to fire one. as passengerseven says they have some weight to them
 
Some years back I attended an annual shoot which was held in Brandon, Man., a sort of "single-burst machine-gun championship". I got some great photos and published them in my newspaper, including a nice shot of a pretty girl with a 1928A1, seven empties in the air and a gigantic grin on her face. For a caption, all I used was "Pukka-pukka-pukka", although the cutline beneath gave a little more information.

I had the opportunity to shoot the '28 myself but had no ammo, so I handed over my 1911 Steyr (Chilean contract, made in 1912) and a charger of homemade rounds to a very prominent IPSC shooter and asked him to let me know how the old girl did. In return, I bummed a mag of .45s from him.

The course was supposed to be shot in a single burst, but when you have only a single mag, that seems a bit wasteful. Besides, I wanted to know how good you COULD shoot with a Tommy. The course was half a dozen 8-inch plates and a pair of Poppers, all set out at about 30 yards. I found that the Thompson performed most creditably if I used the sights: aim directly at the target and fire a short burst, 3 or 4 rounds. The first round tends to shoot low and off the mark, due to the weight of the bolt as it slams forward, but then recoil raises the muzzle nicely and your second and third rounds are right on-target. I am really no great marksman, but I did clear the course with a single mag and actually had a round left over. It certainly gave me a respect for what a Tommy CAN do!

As to my Steyr, it was handed back to me with the comment, "It's competitive!". Our IPSC champ had had a clear miss with his first round, then had cleared the six plates with 6 rounds..... and did it in about 3 seconds, leaving him with a single souvenir round also!

Clearly, some folks CAN shoot.... while the rest of us have to work at it.
 
passengerseven said:
There was nothing in between the protective wings, the actual rear sight had been removed/was missing. The vertical slot cut into the charging handle was the defacto rear sight.
Click to expand...

I really like the looks of the original Thompsons with the actuator on top of the receiver but I did occasionally find it distracting while shooting. An older former GI I know always uses the peep sight (but passengerseven didn't have one). I like the M1 with a 30 round magazine for shooting best but nothing says "Thompson" better than a drum.
 
passengerseven said:
Had a chance to shoot a friends 1928. They are a solid chunk of equipment and the reciprocating rear sight took some getting used to. I would certainly love to own one if the 12.X nonsense was ever eliminated.......especially at $200/gun.
Click to expand...

You can still shoot the FA version at a Vegas range, for a price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom