Unknown Chinese Submachine gun circa post WWII?

fat tony

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
111   0   0
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=101&t=177499

14243_1132887_4e9a6.jpg


I love these sorts of things. Very alien and unknown to us here in the western nations.

.45acp the bugger must have really chewed through the ammo.
 
looks like a hack job of a sten copy....wow, a dogs breakfast version of something that was a dogs breakfast to begin with....norinco has come a long way :D least they copy good stuff now!
 
11.43mm!?

Would that be 11.43 x 23mm as in .45 ACP?!

Wonky lol

You should see some of the designs the Brits were experimenting with after WWII.

The EM-1 especially

Apparently in England in the late '40's it was imperative that every new weapon prototype look like a ray gun from a cheesey sci-fi movie lolol
 
11.43mm!?

Would that be 11.43 x 23mm as in .45 ACP?!

Wonky lol

You should see some of the designs the Brits were experimenting with after WWII.

The EM-1 especially

Apparently in England in the late '40's it was imperative that every new weapon prototype look like a ray gun from a cheesey sci-fi movie lolol

That would make sense. Didn't some of the pre-WW2 factions make C96s in .45 ACP because of ammo commonality with their Thompsons?
 
More or less a shop made project, not a real production gun.
Uses a cylindrical slide wrapped around the barrel. Recoils back inside the housing at the rear. The action is more like a large auto pistol.
Yes, .45ACP.
 
Allegedly these submachineguns were supplied to the North Korean forces and / or were turning up in Korea circa 1950-1953. I have often heard about 'Thompson submachinegun copies' being captured in Korea from the enemy. I wonder if these were the same or something else? - I heard of 9mm and .45 copies of the Thompson in Asia during this time period.

Also have read some US Army intelligence briefs circa 1950-1953, the wording is confusing, because they refer to: "Lewis guns" being captured - could these actually have been DP 28s?
 
Allegedly these submachineguns were supplied to the North Korean forces and / or were turning up in Korea circa 1950-1953. I have often heard about 'Thompson submachinegun copies' being captured in Korea from the enemy. I wonder if these were the same or something else? - I heard of 9mm and .45 copies of the Thompson in Asia during this time period.

Also have read some US Army intelligence briefs circa 1950-1953, the wording is confusing, because they refer to: "Lewis guns" being captured - could these actually have been DP 28s?

Some 20,00 Lewis guns were contracted in 7.62x54 for Imperial Russia. I've seen the drums clearly marked for that cartridge. I'm pretty sure Russia shipped any odd guns they had in standard Soviet calibres to N. Korea.
 
@ Travius:
My friend, you will sing entirely a different song as regards Brit developments if ever you get to play with an MCEM-6.

9x19 Para, 16-round mag in the grip, wraparound bolt, 3 position fire switch/safety, cyclic around 700. Larger mags were made also.

Whole thing was like a really big and chunky Steyr GB.

You caried the critter in a stiffened-webbing shoulder-holster which became a Butt when you needed it.

Yeah, a pocket-sized machine-gun...... and long before the Uzi.

British development on a Polish design. One I got to play with was BSA.

I REALLY wish they had made a couple million........
.
.
 
Smellie do you have any pics of the McEM-6?Never heard of it (but again I'm no expert on SMGs).

I had an opportunity to buy a Steyr GB at S.I.R. but didn't know what it was. By the time I found out - it was too late. Sold!
 
When you think of many of the wars of the last century, you can't think of country versus country; you have to think of political philosophy versus political philosophy.

The Korean War of 1950 - 1953 was "held in" Korea but the "teams playing" were very much Western-oriented on the one side and Communist on the other side. As well, East Asia had been a dumping-ground for weapons from everywhere for a long time. In China, the Kuomintang (Parliamentary) Government had fought a very long war against the Warlords and then against the Communists and then against the Japanese AND the Communists and finally against the Communists again. That one they lost. China originally had settled on weapons of American type, including Remington Rolling Blocks and Lee turnbolts. When smokeless powders came in, China plumped for the Mauser system. In WW2, China fought the Japanese and became the recipient o huge amounts of American and British equipment: Stens, Brens, Hi-Powers, Number 4s, Tommies, Brownings and so forth, all of which was used to SUPPLEMENT their existing supplies of Gew 88s, 98s and so forth. They TRIED to fight the Japs but found themselves ALSO fighting the Reds, who also were receiving Western supplies on the pretext that they fight the Japs. The Reds husbanded their strength as much as possible, let the Kuomintang war itself out fighting the Japs and then pushed the Kuomintang Army off the Mainland and onto Formosa (Taiwan). Now the Communists want that, too. Nixon and Trudeau cozied up to the Reds, betraying our Taiwanese allies and now those friendly Chinese (who are well known to be planning our demise: ask any military intelligence officer anywhere) are our bosom buddies, best trading partners and hold a horrific chunk of our debt and an even bigger percentage of the US debt. But when the Communists came to power, they ALSO had a huge amount of Russian equipment: Moisin-Nagants, Tokarevs, Degtyarevs and Sudayvs and Shpagins and all the rest..... which was offered as aid by Uncle Joe to his political comrades while the West was confronting the Soviets in Europe in a very tense standoff. In the end, China adopted the Russian equipment, party because of resupply, partly because it was more suited to their level of technology for manufacture, partly out of "solidarity" with their Proletarian Comrades In The World Revolution. That left ALLLLLLLLLLL of that older equipment available for starting proxy wars with, disguising genuine political intervention as happenstance. Korea is divided between North and South NOW, with Northern and Southern Armies glaring at each other, but the Korean War of the early 1950s was fought initially by Koreans and then, when they did not succeed and the assistance started arriving for the democratic forces, the Chinese Army walked in, CALLING itself Korean, BACKED heavily by the USSR. They faced the United Nations in theory, but he UN has no troops AND the Permanent Head of the UN Military Commission is a RUSSIAN and, at that time, firmly under control by Stalin. ALL UN battle plans had to be cleared with him before approval, so, naturally, they were communicated to Moscow (and then to Peking and Panmunjom) before the troops in the field had their orders. So, naturally, our trops were getting CREAMED in the field until the Americans stopped playing silly UN games and took control. The Chinese Army, with Soviet artillery support and continual resupply, aided by the Soviet Air Force flying brand-new MiG-15s (and speaking Russian over the air) ripped up our P-51s and P-80s and B-25s and B-26s until they faced the new F-86D with Western pilots. Canada, USA, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Turkey and many other nations sent troops to help the South Koreans: a total of 22 nations were involved on the one side. Even Holland sent nearly 4000 men and ETHIOPIA sent 3100, tiny Luxenbourg sent better than half a company and so forth. So there is apt to be ANYTHING in that part of the world...... and it ALL became available, with heaps more Soviet-designed stuff, for Viet-Nam and for the Emergency. And another dozen Asian "revolutions" and "insurgencies" and "uprisings" and "simple agrarian reformations" and outright wars. And Grenada. And half a dozen small wars in Central America. No even thinking about a dozen or so wars in Africa.

Problem today is that nobody studies HISTORY. Dr. Lightbody's definition is the best I have encountered, for it is the only one which takes in ALL occurrances and events. KNOW that definition, UNDERSTAND it, FEEL it in your soul..... and you will BEGIN to understand and you will BECOME a Student of History, a real one, if you have the desire to understand what and how and who made this mess of a world we live in today.

End of rant.

But, yeah, you can expect anything out there, anything at all. Just 4 months ago, I saw a BRASS 1928 Thompson. THAT's one that Auto Ordnance never built! Likely turned up out of Cyprus.
.
 
Thanks Smellie, I see you have taken a break from the sock closet again. :D I will always appreciate your experience and viewpoints, and the 'hey wait a minute'(s) of history have always fascinated me - truth is indeed stranger than fiction, and for that I am forever grateful to whatever gods may be. :)
 
"War does not decide who is right, only who is left."

Since the foundation of the United Nations ('48?) and the elongated Cold War encompassing other outright conflicts, we would have seen a diaspora of all different firearms across both sides of the Iron Curtain. The reason that the two great wars had a concentration of firearm-types (i.e. Mauser vs. SMLE) was the short time either side had to design, approve, build and ship competitive firearms - 5 years womb to tomb doesn't allow a lot of wiggle room for variance in make/model, let alone calibre. But if you give gunnutz (of all stripes) 50 years to determine what they would like to use to rout an imaginary invasion, I think we would find some pretty interesting pockets of all sorts of funny little, large, heavy and light artillery. In the last 20 years or so I have noticed (complete conjecture, for sure) the arming of our nation includes a hodgepodge of all different types. If the firearms that exist in Canadians' cabinets and closets were to be sold ( or dusted off for use!) in a hundred years, do you think this same discussion could take place re: the Mare's Leg, or the .17 hmr ? "Sure, grandpa, but why did you bother with a lever action when it was already a hundred years old?"

(imo)
 
Back
Top Bottom