General Categories > General Firearm Discussion

Swedish K vs. M3A1 Grease Gun

(1/2) > >>

SemperFiGuy:
Any of you Former/Current Spooks have opinions concerning the relative merits of the Swedish K vs. an M3A1 Grease Gun??

The 9mm Swedish K has a dedicated cult following.   And Certain Knowledgeable Folks tell me that you can't hit the barn with a Grease Gun.  However, I'm thinking maybe the .45ACP Grease Gun is a better choice than the K when the SHTF.

But then, I've never shot either one.  (I have shot and do like the 9mm Glock 18.  It's very controllable.   It does 3-4 round bursts quite properly and well.  And Glock 30 round mags work with it most bodaciously.   And the Glock 18/30-round mag combo is more compact than either the Swede or the Greasy Gun.   Even with the resultant odd appearance.)

So?????????????

Just Askin'....................................

sfg

Gunscribe:
What role will the choice have in your specific battery? These older firearms are some serious fun and nostalgia. Of course that is reason enough to get either or both. If the choice is part of an overall plan the availability of replacement parts and ease of maintenance has to be considered.

SemperFiGuy:
Actually, I'm not going to get either one.   Already have an armory of hardware that I don't get around to shooting as I should.  (Although a Class III would help to eat up some of my excess ammo inventory.)

I've been doing some reading of first person stories about the VietNam War, including some of the CIA ops in Thailand, Cambodia, and Laos.  (One of my high school friends was an Air America pilot, as well.   Occasionally, if prodded and a bit sauced, he'll share some of his hair-raising stories.)

What I was wondering is why the working Spooks in those areas were issued Swedish Ks when our side already had warehouses full of Grease Guns.   Were the Ks that much better??   Why not Uzis instead of old-timey WWII era smgs?

Not to mention why the Swedes ever even bothered to develop the K when the German MP40 and the British Sten designs were already out there and available for purchase or pirating a copy.   And if they'da waited just a bit, the Swedes coulda just bought Uzis, and the hell with it.  Certainly, Uzis were available during the late VietNam/Operation Phoenix days.

As you can see, I've time to waste.

sfg

JAK:
I never carried either and I am not old enough to say why the decisions were made, however I have fired both of them a lot back when I was still in the USAF.

The M3 is cheaply made and fires a slow rate.  It is just fast enough that you cannot adjust between shots.  It also only had the wire stock which moved while firing.  All of this combined with the 45 ACP made it difficult to control.  In short not something I would pick to carry if I had a choice.

The Swedish K fired at a higher rate, had a stock that didn't move during firing and was easily controllable.  It was a much nicer gun to shoot.  Also the Smith and Wesson Model 76 is basically a copy of the Swedish K.

They both weighed about the same loaded from what I remember,

I agree that given a choice I would have taken the UZI over either of them.

John K

sidearm1:
I am getting old and gray haired, but the one reason why SOG types used the Swedish K was deniability.  If found in the boondocks through very unpleasant means, the bad guys could (I don't know if they really did, but that was the reason given) think it was left over from the French, so that good guys weren't around.  Lot of them sneaky guys used AKs a lot also.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page