[Sped Man]

If I had to chose between the two I would chose the AK-47. Wait I meant to say the Thompson ;-) I love milled weapons. Which one would you chose and why?

 

[independence]

I would pick a rifle before picking a pistol carbine. The Thompson is heavy, really heavy, has a pistol round that doesn't go very fast or far over 200m, doesn't have a place to put optics, is slow to reload either stick or drum, and is also heavy.

A M-16 with optics comes under the Thompson by a few pounds, which means I can carry more ammo, tactical bacon, deodorant, armor, and water.

 

[Uncle Bob]

Ask that after you have shot them.

 

[arnoldrew]

The M-16 is the arguably superior weapon, and the 5.56mm is inarguably the superior round. M-16 for me.

 

[stevetexas]

Not only is 5.56 a far superior round, 100 rds of 230gr .45 weighs over 4.5 lbs and 5.56 weighs 2.5 lb.

The Thompson is a nice antique.

 

[sarge912]

The 1927A1 is a civilian semi-auto only look alike for a 'real' tommy. Not my cup of tea.

Now if you are talking a 1921 or an 1928A1, I would love to be able to a afford one. I have fired a 1928A1 with a Douglas/Cutts barrel, especially made for LE in the 60's. CMP sold them to police departments around the country in the early 60s but the barrels were trashed so they had to be re-barreled. It would cycle regular .45 ACP ammunition but preferred a more powerful .45 ACP sub-machine gun round, pretty much a +P .45 ACP. My firearms instructor in the police academy, (back in the dark ages) brought one out the last day of class. We had to buy the ammo but it was well worth it. It is a gas to shoot.

 

[Gunfan762]

M16 will reach out farther, Has the ability to use optics, and is lighter.

 

[*Paladin*]

Range, weight, accuracy all go to the M16 series rifle/carbine. The Thompson is fun tho! When I was stationed in Montana, the FBI brought out an old Thomson that they took apart (detailed) and couldn't get it back together. So they brought it to me in pieces. I cleaned, inspected and reassembled, and they brought a full can of .45 out in appreciation for me to "test-fire" the gun. I ran probably 500 rds through it in a very short period of time. A lot of fun, and very controllable (due to the weight and compensator). I'd love to have one, but I still believe the M16 is superior...

 

[Roaver]

I will always prefer old fashioned milled steel and walnut to modern Tupperware. In a survival situation, if you're living in some little camp somewhere running away, and some little gasket or something blows, or the bolt cracks, or some garbage, then you're pretty much screwed. There's a reason militaries once refused to use plastic and stamped sheet metal in their standard issue rifles.

 

[whirlibird]

I can file parts for the Thompson if need be, it's extremely robust and reliable.

I prefer metal, it's easier to fix, outlasts plastic and shares ammo with my 1911's.

I'll take the Thompson.

And having used the real ones before, I have definitely gained my respect for what the weapon will do in real life.

 

[robbiec]

I've fired a thompson. They are extremely heavy, awkward to shoot, have terrible triggers, and are just generally an inferior weapon for combat compared to just about ANY modern military rifle or carbine. I love them and think they are a lot of fun to play with... but I would never choose one over an AR or AK as a main weapon.

 

[recklessdriver]

m16 duh....

 

[passin thru]

I think the M16 out performs the Tommy all the way around.

Having said that, I would love to have a 1928 Tommy.

 

[recklessdriver]

I think the M16 out performs the Tommy all the way around.

Having said that, I would love to have a 1928 Tommy.

nope the army is going back to the tommy gun... nothing like a short range and spray and pray weapon

 

[mike in pa]

I can file parts for the Thompson if need be, it's extremely robust and reliable.

I prefer metal, it's easier to fix, outlasts plastic and shares ammo with my 1911's.

I'll take the Thompson.

And having used the real ones before, I have definitely gained my respect for what the weapon will do in real life.

You can't beat the old warhorse, especially for CQB duty, that 230gr ball is a great close range stopper. I am happy to own a 1928 West Hurley and a M1 SBR.

 

[blue123]

m-16 hands down, the thompson it's magazines and ammo make it a pig to lug around for extended periods not to mention it's short range arc like trajectory.

 

[Sped Man]

The first time I saw the M16. I thought it was a toy. It was so generic. I couldn't believe they were passing this off as an alternative to the Thompson. Thompson is built like a tank. You can crack someone's head with it. The ammo is the same used in the 1911 pistol. No need to carry two different types of ammo (like 9mm for M9 and .223 for the M16). Excellent stopping power.

 

[*Paladin*]

It is interesting to see proponents on both sides of the fence on this one. It's really an apples to oranges comparison tho: one is a rifle and one is a SMG. One cannot effectively replace the other's role.

 

[arnoldrew]

It is interesting to see proponents on both sides of the fence on this one. It's really an apples to oranges comparison tho: one is a rifle and one is a SMG. One cannot effectively replace the other's role.

Well, technically it's just a pistol-caliber carbine, since it's semi-auto. I would think the M-16 is undoubtedly the superior weapon. .45 has good "stopping power," I guess-within 50 meters. I don't know the actual numbers for the ballistics of .45 ACP versus 5.56x45mm, but I would guess 5.56 does better at any range. It's also lighter (both the round and the weapon) and has more range. I'm not sure why this is even a question...

 

[TXSWFAN]

I've got a West Hurley FA Thompson. It's bulky, heavy and uses a pistol caliber. It's also the funnest gun to shoot I own. It's sexy as all get out and keeps a smile on my face.