Stemple 76/45 + Russian Lend-Lease Thompson Kit = STG-M1A

[Bob Riebe]

The modularity and clever design of the Stemple Takedown Gun is perhaps best illustrated by the STG-M1A and STG-1928 (these are the same gun with either a horizontal or vertical front grip). In the early 2000s a bunch of Thompson parts kits came into the US, WW2 vintage lend-lease guns sent to Russia. They were M1 and M1A1 models, and had intact barrels but torch-cut receivers. BRP, who makes the Stemple, realized that the sear-to-magwell dimensions on the Thompson were almost identical to the Suomi and Stemple – and that he could make a version of the STG that was a nearly perfect clone of the M1 Thompson.

The registered Stemple receiver slides into a square Thompson lookalike housing, and original Thompson grips, stocks, and hand guards are used. It is chambered for .45ACP, using original Thompson stick magazines (naturally). The result isn a submachine gun that almost perfectly duplicates the handling of a true Thompson, without the historical value that makes the Thompson so expensive and keeps many owners from wanting to actually take their Thompsons out to the range.

Note that the example in this video is an early example, and models made today are able to take both stick and drum magazines. Also, due to the deign of the disconnector in the original Thompson FCG, the semiauto setting is not functional in the Stemple version – it’s only full automatic.

There was one of these for sale on Gunbroker -- 14,500 dollars. -- So I see no money difference.

[ironglow]

Never have fired the Semple, but I have the Thompson.  Personally for me, the Thompson handles like a 2" X 10" plank, with a barrel mounted.  A real klunky thing IMO..

  On the other hand, during the same era, I used the M3 "Grease gun", a much better weapon..again.IMO..

    ..And they only cost the government something like $7.95 at the time.

[Bob Riebe]

Never have fired the Semple, but I have the Thompson.  Personally for me, the Thompson handles like a 2" X 10" plank, with a barrel mounted.  A real klunky thing IMO..

  On the other hand, during the same era, I used the M3 "Grease gun", a much better weapon..again.IMO..
 ..And they only cost the government something like $7.95 at the time.

I have fired both Thompson and Grease Gun at targets, more than once , I , MUCH, prefer the Thompson.
Even with the stock extended, the Grease Gun sights are an insult to gun sights.

[ironglow]

Differences in opinions...what makes the world go round.  Fortunately, the M14 came round, far surpassing the Thompson, the Mi and M3.
   I always figured the Thompson and Grease gun, as short range weapons, rather than 'target' weapons per se, in any case..
   I considered the M3 almost as a "last ditch" weapon, issued to mobile artillerymen, tankers or Jeep drivers..easy to stow away beside self, but still there..just in case.

   I know the Thompson did well as a basic issue weapon for many troops in WW2, especially for the jungles of the   
 Pacific islands, and I don't doubt it's usefulness.  It's just not my 'cup of tea"..