Few firearms are as instantly recognizable as the Thompson submachine gun. From its early days in Prohibition-era America to its legendary use in World War II, the Thompson has been immortalized in history books, movies, and the minds of military collectors. It’s a firearm that exudes style, power, and a kind of old-school ruggedness that makes it a standout piece in any collection.
But strip away the Hollywood flair, the nostalgic admiration, and the olive-drab romance of World War II, and a different picture begins to emerge. The M1 Thompson – while undoubtedly a symbol of American military might – was far from perfect. In fact, by the time it saw widespread use in World War II, it was already outdated, overly complicated, and, in many ways, impractical for the battlefield.
The Weight Problem: Heavier Than a Battle Rifle?
One of the most immediate drawbacks of the M1 Thompson was its weight. At nearly 11 pounds when loaded, it was heavier than the M1 Garand – a full-sized battle rifle chambered in .30-06. That’s a problem. Submachine guns are supposed to be light, maneuverable, and easy to carry in close-quarters combat. Instead, soldiers found themselves lugging around a gun that felt more like a brick than a rapid-fire weapon.
Compounding the issue was the Thompson’s center of gravity, which was awkwardly positioned far from the shooter. This forced soldiers to exert extra effort just to keep the gun steady, making it feel even heavier than it actually was. In a static shooting range, the weight might not seem like a big deal. But on a battlefield – where every extra pound slows you down – it was a major disadvantage.
Ergonomics: A Gun That Fights the Shooter
Despite its elegant wooden furniture and sleek curves, the Thompson wasn’t exactly user-friendly. The stock design was particularly questionable. Unlike most firearms, which have stocks designed to rest comfortably on the shooter’s shoulder, the Thompson’s stock had an odd downward angle that made it prone to slipping. If held high, it jabbed awkwardly into the shooter’s shoulder. If held low, it became difficult to control during rapid fire.
The length of pull – the distance between the trigger and the butt plate – was another strange feature. At 17 inches, it forced soldiers to stretch their arms out unnaturally far just to maintain a proper firing grip. Compared to other World War II firearms, it felt oversized, unwieldy, and difficult to handle in high-stress combat situations.
A Complicated and Expensive Design
The Thompson’s original design dated back to the final days of World War I. By the time World War II erupted, firearm technology had advanced significantly, making the Thompson look like a relic from a bygone era.
At the start of the war, a single Thompson cost around $200 to produce – equivalent to roughly $4,500 today. Even with cost-cutting measures introduced in later models like the M1 and M1A1, it remained an expensive and resource-intensive weapon to manufacture. By contrast, other nations were producing submachine guns like the British Sten or the German MP40 for a fraction of the cost, using far simpler stamped-metal designs.
An Immediate Replacement
The U.S. military recognized this issue early on and began working on replacements as soon as the war began. By 1942, only months after America entered the conflict, the Army was already testing alternatives, including the M2 Hyde submachine gun, which was ultimately scrapped in favor of the even cheaper and simpler M3 “Grease Gun.”
Selective Fire: A Questionable Feature
One of the Thompson’s features that may seem like a benefit at first glance was its ability to switch between semi-automatic and fully automatic fire. However, in practice, this added unnecessary complexity to an already over-engineered firearm.
Most other submachine guns of the era, like the MP40, the PPSh-41, or the Grease Gun, were full-auto only. This made sense – submachine guns were meant for close-quarters suppression fire, not precision shooting. The ability to fire in semi-auto was largely redundant, considering that the M1 Carbine existed as a lightweight alternative for troops who wanted a semi-auto weapon with more power.
By removing the semi-auto feature, the Thompson could have been made cheaper, lighter, and more efficient. But for reasons unknown, the military stuck with the select-fire option, adding more cost and complexity to an already expensive weapon.
Could the Thompson Have Been Improved?
Looking back, there were several design changes that could have made the Thompson a more practical weapon for the battlefield.
For starters, replacing the heavy wooden stock with a folding or retractable metal stock could have reduced weight and improved handling. Many submachine guns – like the later M3 Grease Gun – adopted this approach successfully.
Additionally, eliminating the bulky forward grip could have shaved off more unnecessary weight. Most soldiers already preferred gripping the weapon near the magazine well, a technique that worked just fine for other submachine guns of the time.
Finally, shortening the barrel even further might have been an option. While the standard World War II Thompsons already had a shorter barrel than earlier models, reducing it even more – perhaps to around 8 inches – could have made it a better fit for urban and jungle warfare.
A Gun That Was Outdated from the Start
It’s important to remember that the Thompson was originally designed for a different kind of war. When it was first conceived in 1918, the world was still fighting in trenches, where short, rapid-firing weapons had an advantage. But by the time World War II began, the nature of combat had changed. Long-range engagements, mechanized warfare, and mass-produced firearms were the new reality, and the Thompson struggled to keep up.
Despite its flaws, the Thompson remained in service throughout World War II, largely because there weren’t enough alternatives available early on. But as soon as more practical weapons like the Grease Gun became available, the Thompson was quickly phased out.
The Cool Factor Still Matters
For all of its drawbacks, there’s no denying that the Thompson is one of the most visually striking and historically significant guns of all time. Even with its weight, awkward handling, and high production costs, it remains a collector’s dream. The very things that made it impractical in combat – its hefty construction, detailed woodwork, and classic design – are what make it so desirable today.
Shooting it Is Fun
Shooting a Thompson is undeniably fun. The distinct chugging sound of .45 ACP rounds flying downrange, the satisfying feel of a solid metal firearm in your hands, and the sheer history behind it make it a unique experience. If given the choice of which World War II firearm to take into battle, most soldiers probably wouldn’t pick the Thompson. But if asked which one they’d like to own today? The answer would likely be very different.
Legacy vs. Reality
At the end of the day, the Thompson occupies a strange place in military history. It’s a gun that never truly fit into the modern battlefield yet remains one of the most beloved firearms of all time. The legend of the Thompson lives on in movies, books, and video games, where it continues to be seen as the definitive World War II submachine gun.
But history tells a different story – one of an outdated, expensive, and impractical weapon that was eventually replaced by cheaper, simpler alternatives. That doesn’t take away from its status as an icon, but it does remind us that sometimes, the myth of a firearm is far more enduring than the reality.
Raised in a small Arizona town, Kevin grew up surrounded by rugged desert landscapes and a family of hunters. His background in competitive shooting and firearms training has made him an authority on self-defense and gun safety. A certified firearms instructor, Kevin teaches others how to properly handle and maintain their weapons, whether for hunting, home defense, or survival situations. His writing focuses on responsible gun ownership, marksmanship, and the role of firearms in personal preparedness.