It was a piece of junk

It was a piece of junk.

Attached: 567446.jpg (1280x444, 113K)

it became a piece of junk, it was pretty typical of early submachine guns.

Why did the US army insist on using it by WW2?

Because the army was, and still is, retarded about dropping old shit? They have sunk cost fallacy on everything because of logistical concerns.

It was- the Blish Lock system is a mechanical oddity in small arms, but it was expensive and not necessary. Even when the military models came around and they were straight blow back, it was still a fairly expensive gun compared to more expedient designs that appeared during the war. Hell, the grease gun was more accurate for a fraction of the cost.

>the Blish Lock system is a mechanical oddity in small arms
How is it an oddity? You mean the pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo?

An expensive piece of junk

if it killed right wing nut jobs aka fucking Nazi SHITS, it's the best gun ever made

ur a fucking asshole

.45 acp is the calibur of all free men. what more could you need in a 26 lb rifle. fuck you

The Army needed SMGs and didn't have any of their own. Meanwhile, there was a fuckload of Thompsons which had already been produced sitting unsold in warehouses....so it seemed like an obvious choice to use them when they needed SMGs NOW. They redesigned it to make it cheaper to produce.

I'm not that poster, but I assume they meant it was an oddity because it appeared in no other firearm, ever.

And while Blish was wrong about how his lock was supposed to work, it turns out that it did retard the firing rate a bit simply because of friction. It certainly was needlessly complex, but thompsons with the blish lock have a more controllable ROF than the later models that were straight blowback.

What the fuck is going on with that foregrip? How does it stay attached and not snap off at the slightest bump?

Everyone knows it was. You didn’t need to make a thread about it

its held on by a quarter inch thick steel plate. that shit aint goin' anywhere.

The grip attaches directly to an extension on the front of the receiver. It's a thick piece of steel.

The Nazis were leftist.

>TFW learning about the Blish Lock
>The Thompson was originally supposed to be some kinda super-slick friction-locking SMG
>Turns out the Blish Lock was bullshit and it was really operating as a direct blowback SMG with some stupid little brass widget on the bolt

Attached: paint.jpg (600x656, 71K)

Hey, cool, retards are here

Attached: 9r9moj0h6e621.jpg (1080x1548, 138K)

no, they were not.

What's sadder, this faggy bait, or the two fags that got baited by it?

Having held one, I agree.
SUPER heavy and bulky to fire a damn pistol round. Controls and mag changes are a PITA compared to more modern guns. Stick mags aren't so bad though.

>later models that were straight blowback.
Do you have a picture of the mechanism? I thought all Thompsons had the blish lock.

"Blish lock" is just straight blowback

By the time the army standardized the thompson for mass production under the m1a1- when they switched to the side charging handle instead of the top- the blish lock was gone because it was retarded.

Attached: blish-lock-bolt-actuator2.jpg (528x300, 25K)

Would have been a cool parade weapon

That's well understood. That user was under the impression that all thompson SMG's had the blish lock, not that the blish lock did a damned thing.

you fell for it bud

I stand corrected. The blish lock was removed in the M1 Thompson, not the M1A1.

Getaloadofthisguy.jpeg

Chuckled, here is the [you] you wanted.

Attached: 1550775786672.jpg (640x706, 29K)

>Do you have a picture of the mechanism?
No, go watch the Gun Jesus videos on the Thompson, there is a series of them that explains all the variations between the different models.

>socialists
>not left wing

Attached: hvypk8atlgo11.jpg (640x640, 36K)

Are you trying to apply definitions of left/right from modern American politics to German politics from nearly 80 years ago?

Actually it isn't.....Take a '21/'28 Thompson with a functioning blish lock, and using a rod/dowel inserted thru the muzzle ,record the force required to push the bolt rearward. Do the same thing with a gun where the blish lock is installed, but the ears that engage the receiver have been milled away.....the amount of hesitation provided by the lock is substantial.
A company called "Gunmachines" sold earless blish locks in the 90's, and the guns they were installed in had a 3-400 rpm increase in the ROF and started fracturing receivers.

>the amount of hesitation provided by the lock is substantial.

It does add friction, but it does not add any kind of "locking" in the true sense of the word, and it does not work in the way Blish thought it did. It's semantics.

Let's all just ask questions that have been answer a million times.

Why do you suck dicks?

Correct, Blish's primary mistake was the over-calculation of the force required to overcome static friction.
It's unfortunate that Ian presented the Blish lock as doing absolutely nothing, which is misleading, as it has lead to some confusion.

It was a gun made for the first world war, like the BAR. Then that war ended. Like most of the full auto stuff that came at the end of the great war, it was stupid expensive to make and heavy.

Because I'm a faggot and dicks taste nice. Next question.

i'm not a yank, you thick cunt. commies are commies, no matter what they call themselves, they all bleed red.

Overrated but defiantly not a piece of junk

Blish thought that friction behaved quadratically rather than linearly with respect to force.

I agree that Ian's original video seemed a bit unclear on that, but the later videos he did (one focused on each model of Thompson) did explain that the models with the Blish lock had a lower ROF and thus were more controllable than the M1 and the M1A1.

There really wasn't any other submachine gun made in the US and was also in production.

It's the same reason why so many countries bought Thompsons. France and Britain both bought thousands leading up to WWII and both continued to during WWII. It's not like they wanted to spend $200 a gun for one, but where else where they going to buy submachine guns in quantity quickly?

>I am frightened and confused by words with more than one syllable

By that rationale North Korea is the most democratic place on Earth. Just because your country allows you to quit your formal education at 14, that doesn't mean you should.

No, some other poster is attempting to do that, but disregarding the policies of national socialists completely so that they can call them right wing and troll people.

He's saying that they were actually socialists, with socialist policies. Not leaning on their political party's name, suspiciously called the national socialist workers party.

So it appears that it is in fact you who did not complete your education, and also suffers from long term jenkem abuse.

>fascists and national socialists, if there is even a difference between them, are still pretending to not be socialist
>idiots go along with this and insist they're not socialists
>all the impressionable idiots love socialism
I mean, I don't want them to win, because they're faggots and would destroy gun rights, as well as our other rights- but why are they so stupid? Cashing in on the socialism trend is the only way they would get anything resembling a chance of winning elections.

What, you never seen an SMG with a freefloat barrel before?

I bet you think “real communism” has never been tried

The US wasn't too big on SMG development at the time (>muh bench accuracee). So, it was either this or the Reising until the Grease gun came along.

Nah, that was the Sten

NSDAP policies aside from remove bagel:
>compulsory free education for children
>youth camps to imprint morals and values on children
>welfare for the disadvantaged
>massive public works to guarantee 100% employment
>living wage
>fuck bankers, take their stuff
>dictate to business owners what they make and at what price they can sell it
>nationalising of industry

The nazis were basically today's Democrat party if you swap loving faggotry for hating jews
>somehow not socialist
Mmmm grayons

Attached: f67334bc58f2468bad15312669d5edaa0afe4c44de4eb56039994a47f00d296b.jpg (625x625, 78K)

By the 80 years ago definitions, fascists were explicitly centrist. They weren't called '3rd way' in the 30s for nothing. A hard right winger back then would be a monarchist.

Attached: 1513562937799.jpg (800x600, 25K)

Because failure makes it not socialism by definition, didn't you know? In 1945, nazism became not real socialism, followed by stalinism in in 1956 when Khrushchev decided to trash Uncle Joe. Every form of socialism eventually becomes not socialism, it's the standard leftist lifecycle.

Attached: 1541300638306.gif (918x918, 3.86M)

Before WW2 was even over the US designed the grease gun to save shitloads of money. You use the best of what you have for the time being until something better comes along

Plus they were hippy faggots, all about naturalism and saving the animals.

Expensive and heavy was probably the biggest downside. But it stilled killed nips and krauts like a champ.

The thing was made in fucking ww1 give it a break.