Gold & Silver Forum (http://goldismoney.info/forums/index.php)
- Survival Prep (http://goldismoney.info/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=141)
- - *CAUTION* New Thompson Rifles suck ! (http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=188561)

The Argent Dragon | 10-15-2007 10:46 AM
*CAUTION* New Thompson Rifles suck ! Finally got to test out my new Thompson 1927A-1 at the range over the weekend. It's the BIGGEST FREAKIN' DISAPPOINTMENT EVER !!! Sure, the darn thing looks purty and has that 'wow' appeal when not being used - but under firing conditions this thing is just a fancy bolt-action rifle that's hard on the hands. Here's a shortlist of all the crap I went through trying to fire the damn thing. Keep in mind that I'm not complaining at all about the weight or the fact that's it's difficult to be accurate. #1 - Loaded the 1st mag and -wham- a misfeed pushing the first round sideways causing the bolt to stick. Tried to clear it then the guy in the next lane recommends I remove the mag.......:banghead: #2 - Okay, chucked out 3-rounds -CLEAR- put the mag back in and proceeded. Shot 2-3 rounds .......then JAM. #3 - (Crap) Cleared round, checked bolt then proceeded to fire - nothing. :banghead: #4 - Always check bolt postion - if it's not 100% closed......I mean back just a mere 1/8th to a 1/4th inches from all the way foward the trigger won't release the firing pin. Damn BATFE regulations......:rant: #5 - Worn out hand from constantly pulling back the bolt (tough spring) during use only getting 1, maybe 2 or 3 rounds off at a time. My record was 5-rounds in succession. :bear_angry: #6 - New mag change and the results got WORSE !!! #7 - After growing tired of the fire - not firing ritual.......time for quits. Next stop is the back to the gun shop for a refund. :508:

Darkside | 10-15-2007 10:57 AM
Re: *CAUTION* New Thompson Rifles suck ! I have some feed problems with a pretty high quality rifle: the CZ 527 American. It's a .22 Hornet caliber bolt action rifle and the craftsmanship seems top notch- the metal components are practically fused with the wooden stock! Anyway, it''s got some annoying feed problems with it's magazine... Oftentimes when I push the bolt forward to feed the next round it jams up in an angled position. The round gets angled in such a way that the bullet tip is jammed just above the opening of the chamber. I tried two magazines and it's the same thing. Luckily the company is offering to try and fix it for me for free and they have a location in my state so I will try that route first before giving up on it, because it is such a pleasure to fire when you get the rounds in!

The Argent Dragon | 10-15-2007 11:02 AM
Re: *CAUTION* New Thompson Rifles suck ! Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkside (Post 779757) ....Oftentimes when I push the bolt forward to feed the next round it jams up in an angled position. The round gets angled in such a way that the bullet tip is jammed just above the opening of the chamber.......
This is EXACTLY what happens when it jams......the darn 45-ACP round gets 'caught' sideways (angled) when releasing the bolt to the foward postion. It's very annoying to me. That aside, when it does FIRE, it's kinda fun but with all the problems occuring at the range I would've traded out for a 1911 pistol in a heartbeat. :banghead:

Got Goldies | 10-15-2007 11:02 AM
Re: *CAUTION* New Thompson Rifles suck ! Unless you got a relic from the war I'm sure you wont be happy at all. They are not being made for war but for shelf.

<SLV> | 10-15-2007 11:04 AM
Re: *CAUTION* New Thompson Rifles suck ! Sorry to hear that Argent. I know you were really excited about that gun. What if the manufacturer offered to take it in and tune it for you? Would you keep it?

Got Goldies | 10-15-2007 11:08 AM
Re: *CAUTION* New Thompson Rifles suck ! dont watch if under 18 YouTube - WINDTALKERS
YouTube - WINDTALKERS

Libertarian_Guard | 10-15-2007 11:09 AM
Re: *CAUTION* New Thompson Rifles suck ! It might just need to be broken-in. How many rounds did you fire? Give her a good cleaning and try again.

The Argent Dragon | 10-15-2007 11:11 AM
Re: *CAUTION* New Thompson Rifles suck ! Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Goldies (Post 779772) Unless you got a relic from the war I'm sure you wont be happy at all. They are not being made for war but for shelf.
Honestly, with today's technology and accurate machining, I don't see why they can't make a Thompson fire 'better' than the WWII versions. My main complaint is with BATFE ~ their damn stupid regulations and 'fear' of a conversion to Full Auto ruins the Thompson. Spring tensions are way off and too stiff......the trigger is spongy.....and that closed bolt requirement is excessive. It will NOT FIRE if that bolt is not 100% closed. Period - BOLT must be completely closed.....any mis-feed....even after clearing.....the BOLT must close to fire.......99% doesn't cut it. :banghead: :rant: I hate BATFE regs......they suck.....they don't understand that even a 'partially' closed bolt could be adequate. Bastards. :rant: :bear_angry: Clearing a jam is one thing......but repositioning the bolt after each shot ??? Please.....it's just a fancy Bolt-Action Rifle at best. Kahr Arms claims to have used 'original' blueprints from the 1921 and 1928 versions to design this new gun. I do know that there's a 1927 semi-auto produced for the police dept back in the 1920's and 1930's as well. But again, BATFE won't even allow the original 1927 semi-auto version to be produced without severe modifications to the Bolt & Receiver mechanisms. That's my complaint........damn BATFE :banghead: :rant: :bear_angry:

Got Goldies | 10-15-2007 11:17 AM
Re: *CAUTION* New Thompson Rifles suck ! Argent, its just something to hang on the wall. I'm also sure these m1 collectors that are brand new wont be good as one's that was actually used in the war. I have asked myself over and over do I really need such a weapon? I dont. What I need is more movies.

The Argent Dragon | 10-15-2007 11:18 AM
Re: *CAUTION* New Thompson Rifles suck ! Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertarian_Guard (Post 779786) It might just need to be broken-in. How many rounds did you fire? Give her a good cleaning and try again.
My father-in-law suggested the very same thing. He said that any 'debris' could cause the mis-feeds. I shot about 50-rounds (2-30 rnd mags loaded with 25 each). The modified mag (which fits tighter) worked better than the factory supplied mag but mis-feeds were common with both. How many rounds would it take to 'break-in' the Thompson ? I'm just so pissed and emotional about it because the AK which costs half as much worked as smooth as butter. The AK was awesome with both mags & the Romanian Drum - the bolt was silky smooth and the accuracy was dead-on after dialing in the scope. I could buy 2 more of these for that Thompson replica. :banghead:

The Argent Dragon | 10-15-2007 11:19 AM
Re: *CAUTION* New Thompson Rifles suck ! Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Goldies (Post 779800) ........What I need is more movies.
FWIW - I did buy a copy of WindTalkers and it's one hell of a movie ! :D That said........Jarhead sucked - don't watch it.

Libertarian_Guard | 10-15-2007 11:30 AM
Re: *CAUTION* New Thompson Rifles suck ! It took about 40 or 60 rounds to break-in my AK, and then another good cleaning, along with polishing down the bolt & plunger with rotary scotch brite. It's been smooth ever since. I have no knowledge of your Thompson. You need to hear from someone with first hand experince.

The Argent Dragon | 10-15-2007 11:31 AM
Re: *CAUTION* New Thompson Rifles suck ! Quote:
Originally Posted by <SLV> (Post 779775) Sorry to hear that Argent. I know you were really excited about that gun. What if the manufacturer offered to take it in and tune it for you? Would you keep it?
At this point, I'm thinking of taking the gun back to the store and either get a 'refund' or perhaps 'credit' towards something else. The dealer doesn't sell any AK's but does stock a wide variety of Bushmasters and other AR's. Perhaps all it needs is a re-tuning from Kahr ~ I just want something that works well and is dependable. :banghead:

Got Goldies | 10-15-2007 11:33 AM
Re: *CAUTION* New Thompson Rifles suck ! I was duped into jarhead, too. But letters from Iwo Jima is one of my more precious WW2 films. YouTube - Flags of our Fathers/Letters from Iwo Jima - Colossus Island
YouTube - Flags of our Fathers/Letters from Iwo Jima - Colossus Island
Much better than flags of our fathers. The guy who made this used both films and sounds like music from Gladiator. Nice!

REV127 | 10-15-2007 11:42 AM
Re: *CAUTION* New Thompson Rifles suck ! That's no break in problem, sounds a lot more like dimensional inaccuracies. I'm sorry you got a lemon but agree with your assessment, return it. The money is better invested in a platform that works without excuses or apologies.

DogFarm | 10-15-2007 01:30 PM
Re: *CAUTION* New Thompson Rifles suck ! I say return it. It's like a cheating spouse....you can never trust her again! Quote:
Originally Posted by REV127 (Post 779832) That's no break in problem, sounds a lot more like dimensional inaccuracies. I'm sorry you got a lemon but agree with your assessment, return it. The money is better invested in a platform that works without excuses or apologies.

wallew | 10-15-2007 02:38 PM
Re: *CAUTION* New Thompson Rifles suck ! Quote:
Originally Posted by The Argent Dragon (Post 779803) My father-in-law suggested the very same thing. He said that any 'debris' could cause the mis-feeds. The modified mag (which fits tighter) worked better than the factory supplied mag but mis-feeds were common with both.
AD, You've actually answered your own question, but you don't know it. 99 times out of 100, misfeed problems are the fault of the magazine. Yes, yes, you CAN have a miscut feed ramp, but almost all of those will be caught by factory quality control. Do you have an MIL SURPLUS mags? If so, try one of them. IF NOT, find ONE and try it. I've not done the proper research to tell you where to find them, but they are still out there. AND YOU ONLY WANT MILITARY SURPLUS magazines. They seem to work the best. And I would at least CALL KAHR and talk to one of their customer reps. Express your frustration and the problems you have had. I'm pretty sure that they have heard them all before and generally speaking have some 'standard' fixes. DON'T GIVE UP YET AD. Now, if you CAN NOT find any mags that work, then OK, dump it. BUT, if it actually works as advertised (semi auto), would you still want to sell it? Oh and break in for MOST new military rifles is 500 rounds. Shoot 50 - CLEAN IT COMPLETELY - Shoot another 50 - CLEAN IT - shoot 100 - CLEAN IT - shoot 100 - CLEAN IT - shoot 200 - CLEAN IT COMPLETELY . If after getting 'good' magazines that function properly and breaking it in, you still don't like it, dump it. Just my .02

Anty Ep | 10-15-2007 03:09 PM
Re: *CAUTION* New Thompson Rifles suck ! waste of time. lose that junker. heavy POS. .45 cal carbines blow. I like my 45 sidearm, in a rifle I want a rifle round if possible. hell all pistol caliber rifles blow. LOL unless they are fully auto and a lot of those blow too. what was it, 800? go get another gold ouncer for your stash. LOL

REV127 | 10-15-2007 03:16 PM
Re: *CAUTION* New Thompson Rifles suck ! It sounded to me like he used two different mags. Even if they're both factory mags I have a hard time believing Kahr is shipping their product with mags that will never work. If they are then the gun itself would also be suspect. If it was only having extraction problems I'd suspect ammo. What is really concerning me here is that it apparently isn't going into battery reliably and its inaccuracy. I've never heard of any serious military longarm required a 500 round break in period to go into battery or feed a round unless you're talking about a Chauchat. You might get a round that doesn't feed right once in a while from a rough feed ramp, maybe an intermittent ejection failure, gritty trigger or stiff action but it shouldn't be behaving like this. With the gun not going into battery reliably there is really no way to even be sure it was correctly headspaced before it left the factory. If AD saved his brass he might check for buldged case heads. Accuracy could be anything from the barrel to the ammo to the ergos but if you can't hit with it you shouldn't be using it.

The Argent Dragon | 10-15-2007 03:25 PM
Re: *CAUTION* New Thompson Rifles suck ! Quote:
Originally Posted by REV127 (Post 780193) It sounded to me like he used two different mags. Even if they're both factory mags I have a hard time believing Kahr is shipping their product with mags that will never work. If they are then the gun itself would also be suspect. If it was only having extraction problems I'd suspect ammo.
I'll check once I get home but the first mag I used was 'surplus' which I notched to fit the mag lock/catch on the rifle. The second mag was factory supplied. It seemed to extract well with shells flying out at good distances (into the next lane). Quote:
What is really concerning me here is that it apparently isn't going into battery reliably and its inaccuracy. I've never heard of any serious military longarm required a 500 round break in period to go into battery or feed a round unless you're talking about a Chauchat. You might get a round that doesn't feed right once in a while from a rough feed ramp, maybe an intermittent ejection failure, gritty trigger or stiff action but it shouldn't be behaving like this.
The inaccuracy wasn't as bad as I make out. I was hitting the target but instead of the 9's and 10's (at 10-yds) it was walking all over the place into the 5's, 6's, 7's, and 8's as well. I'm still not used to aiming this thing but the bipod does help which was used later. Which also reminds me, the feed problems 'seemed' to clear up a bit when using the bipod on the table.......but the bolt wouldn't fully return part of the time........and then the jams started to occur after 1 or 2 firings after that. :banghead: Quote:
With the gun not going into battery reliably there is really no way to even be sure it was correctly headspaced before it left the factory. If AD saved his brass he might check for buldged case heads. Accuracy could be anything from the barrel to the ammo to the ergos but if you can't hit with it you shouldn't be using it.
I did save a few casings so I'll check those out later for any buldging.

REV127 | 10-15-2007 03:52 PM
Re: *CAUTION* New Thompson Rifles suck ! As I recall you said you shoot a .44mag so I would presume that you should have no trouble controling the Tommy but it is a blowback. Concievably if you were limpwristing, er, limp shouldering? it might interfere with feeding and that might explain why the bipod made it feed a little better. Do you feel you were holding it steady or was it practically jumping out of your hands? 10 yards is awful short range for a longarm of any kind. If you were not hitting the bullseye but still grouping tight that's just a sight adjustment. If your groups were all over the place it could be ammo, unfamiliarity or the gun. There's all different levels of shooters out there but I can just about drill the bullseye out at 10 yards with a longarm without even using the sights. I'm sure having to manually cycle the thing wasn't helping your groups either but a wide dispersal at that close of a range with just about any halfway decent ammo could be a warning flag. That kind of stuff happens sometimes, even with otherwise accurate guns from good manufacturers. If you're going back to the range it might be something to keep an eye on.

The Argent Dragon | 10-15-2007 04:03 PM
Re: *CAUTION* New Thompson Rifles suck ! Quote:
Originally Posted by REV127 (Post 780261) As I recall you said you shoot a .44mag so I would presume that you should have no trouble controling the Tommy but it is a blowback. Concievably if you were limpwristing, er, limp shouldering? it might interfere with feeding and that might explain why the bipod made it feed a little better. Do you feel you were holding it steady or was it practically jumping out of your hands?
Unfamiliarity with the weapon was a factor but my groupings still should've been tighter. I did remove the buttstock to make it easier to handle and 'unjam' the gun when mishaps occurred. I'm sure the buttstock removal had an impact on the inaccuracy. It's odd to shoot because to me it feels like a dastardly long pistol that you hold with two hands. The kick was minor and relatively no backward motion. The barrel moves around a bit like someone had their hand on the Compensator and pushed it each time it fired.........very awkward and I know the originals only had a 10 1/2" barrel in lieu of my regulated 16" long wanker. :rant: Perhaps I was just 'rattled' a bit - enough to give up on aiming each time it jammed........cursing the gun :rant: ....and feeling like the only 'dope' at the range who couldn't get his firearm to work properly.......:banghead: Mind you ~ all of this went away and the FUN started when I abandoned the 'Tommy' and picked up my AK.............I'm so fond of this rifle setup, I wouldn't mind owning several. The long barreled RPK style is a force to reckon with if you're looking for increased accuracy with a 7.62x39mm cartridge. Even my wife shot it and was amazed on how easy it fires. The action is smooth, the feeds are flawless, and dang it's so fun to shoot over & over again !!! ~ my biggest problem is that I didn't have enough loaded mags on standby !

Libertarian_Guard | 10-15-2007 04:44 PM
Re: *CAUTION* New Thompson Rifles suck ! It is my opinion, that Wallew has given the best advice on this thread. I can remember from when I was bought my Bushmaster AR ….. that there is a break in period. I don’t remember the specifics. But I remember several people telling me to use the lower pressure .223 ammo first, rather than the higher pressure 5.56 I’ve been reading Wallew for several years now and he has never misled me. In the past he took the time to PM back to me concerning a problem with my AK. He is quite knowledgeable, and I’m glad that he contributes to this forum.

The Argent Dragon | 10-15-2007 05:24 PM
Re: *CAUTION* New Thompson Rifles suck ! Quote:
Originally Posted by wallew (Post 780126) 99 times out of 100, misfeed problems are the fault of the magazine. Yes, yes, you CAN have a miscut feed ramp, but almost all of those will be caught by factory quality control........
That fits with the advice I got off another thread on THR (The High Road). Here's another response, I'll check into this Wallew and see if I can't figure something out. I was using Magtech ammo which some guys say produce 'underpowered' ammunition......... "The "Big Two" on stoppages in the 1927-A1 are: A. Ammunition. Try a different brand/type. Some guns simply don't "like" some ammo. These guns are designed to operate with 230 grain full metal jacket USGI spec ammo. Anything else may cause problems. B. Magazine problems. This is the single biggest problem with the Thompson. The magazine must be altered to work in the semi-auto, and often this is improperly done. If the magazine sits slightly too low, it will have failures to feed. Since the magazines are used military surplus, it's not unusual to find them with deformed or bent feed lips. TRY A DIFFERENT MAGAZINE. With the semi-auto, you have four options on magazines. 1. Use factory mags. These are simply military surplus, altered and refinished. They are expensive, and often don't work. 2, Alter military surplus mags to work. This is done by using a larger round chain saw file to file the magazine catch hole SLIGHTLY upward. File only enough to allow the magazine catch to engage. 3. Alter the magazine catch. You can file the magazine catch's engagement stud downward slightly until it will just engage the stock magazine's latching hole. 4. Replace the magazine catch with a full-auto catch. Military surplus magazine catches will "drop-in" and will work. This way you don't make alterations to either the magazines or the original catch. Last, the gun usually benefits from a good cleaning and lubrication, and a break in period of a few hundred rounds."

wallew | 10-15-2007 06:51 PM
Re: *CAUTION* New Thompson Rifles suck ! LG, WOW! Thx guy. I really try. And let me clarify that 500 round statement. That's my break in period. I apologize to everyone for making it sound like that was a military specification. See, the thing is, with a new firearm you've got metal wearing on metal. You have one of two choices. The first is to 'shoot it in'. FOR ME, I've found that 500 rounds is generally a MINIMUM number of rounds to start seeing the metal on metal contact to be smoothed out. The SECOND choice is to disassemble the weapon and 'smooth out' all the small sharp or jagged edges of metal with a set of India stones. These are generally left over from the CNC milling process. They remove over 99% of these imperfections in the assembly process. Paying close attention to metal on metal contact and smoothing those surfaces out so that they are again two smooth metal surfaces working with each other as best they can. After using my India stones there are many a weapon I then start with 600 grit rubbing compound and apply it to the metal surfaces wearing on each other. After cycling the weapon numerous times (sans ANY spring so no stress is applied). This is EXACTLY how I mate a pistol frame and slide together. You get them so they fit SO TIGHTLY that you can't really make them move forward and backward the full distance. From that point on I use rubbing compound. Eventually you will get the mated surfaces moving the full distance and still remain a tight fit. THAT helps with accuracy. Having said that, I stand by bad magazines. But as Rev says, AMMO can make a huge difference. Strangely enough, different guns like different ammo. By that I mean you should purchase several single boxs manufactured by different ammo makers. Even consider different bullet weight. After experimenting, YOU WILL SEE a difference between different ammo's. The story I can highlight this particular example is one of my customers is the supervisor of large armed security force. They had ONE Sig P220 in .40 S&W that just would 'work' correctly. The have an armorer on staff. No joy, as he had no idea. They sent it back to Sig, TWICE. Again, no joy. So, I sit down with my buddy and I did the one thing that no one seemed to do. I asked WHEN was it having it's worst problems. Generally during qualifications shooting which occurs once a quarter. Down we go to their shooting range in the basement. I check the firearm and it's fairly new and tight, tight, tight. Most Sig's I've disassembled and reassembled (and there's been quite a few) are built to really tight tolerances, so this pistol being tight is basically normal. I then asked about ammo. He opens their ammo locker. They buy from Denver Bullets. Now DB is a good company, but these guys went with reloads. And DB is known for how dirty the powder is that they use when manufacturing their reloads to keep costs down, which most of their customers love (lots of smoke and loads of debris left in the firearm). So I disassemble the pistol and in less than twenty minutes had smoothed out all the surface contact points. I reassembled the pistol and had my buddy run one box of NEW ammo through it (which is what they carry). Narry an issue. We sit down and I explain WHY this pistol was having problems. The tolerances were very tight (not a bad thing in a pistol but if this is the case it can be a problem when dirty). The powder DB used IS dirty shooting stuff. So I recommended that after every shooting session this particular weapon should be cleaned carefully before being put back in normal surface. PROBLEM SOLVED. The reason I use this story is to point out several things. First is it MAY NOT BE just one thing. It could be a combination. You are using a new to you firearm. Using new to you magazines. Ditto with the ammo (at least for this weapon - as it's new). It could be partly the magazines. I could be partly the ammo. It could be partly the weapon. And it could be partly you. Give it a few more sessions. Talk to Kahr. You've got the semi auto version of the weapon my Dad carried during WWII. He said it was the best weapon he ever fired and he fired most of them (small arms). He just loved the old Tommy gun. Having said that, you might have gotten one of the few 'lemons' that ANY manufacturer has and ocasionally will slip past QC. But there COULD be a lot of other 'solutions'. Keep us informed. AD, OK you are quicker than I am. I hope this explanation above also helps everyone understand what I said and why. Thx for posting the other item from THR.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:13 AM. |

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright = None use it and Link to GIM