By Frank Iannamico

The M3 submachine gun design had begun as the T-15 prototype, which was developed by the Ordnance Department and the Inland Division of General Motors. The three key individuals who shared much of the responsibility of the project were: Frederick Sampson, Chief Engineer of the Inland Division of General Motors; George Hyde, who had a number of original submachine gun and light-rifle designs to his credit; and U.S. Army Ordnance R&D officer Colonel René Studler. No submachine gun requiring extensive machining operations would be considered for adoption. The requirements called for an all metal weapon fabricated from sheet metal stampings to permit fast and inexpensive production with a minimum of machining operations, and no critical metals, such as aluminum, were to be used.

The original T-15 specifications of October 8, 1942, OCM 19007 were altered to include a kit to enable the weapon to be converted from its original .45 caliber to 9mm which was the standard pistol and submachine gun cartridge of the British and the Germans. Another amendment to the original T-15 design was the elimination of the semiautomatic function. This was done to simplify the design. The cyclic rate was such that semiautomatic fire could be accomplished by trigger manipulation. The new designation for the new 9mm/.45 full-automatic-only weapon was the T-20. Five prototype models of the T-20 and five 9mm conversion kits were built by General Motors for testing. The cyclic rate was relatively slow at 400 rounds per minute. There was very little muzzle climb. In the standard test of firing at a 6ft x 6ft target at 50 yards, the T-20 scored 97 hits out of a possible 100. This was a higher percentage than achieved by any other weapon tested in the trials except the Hyde-Inland M2.

U.S. Submachine Gun, Caliber .45, M3

The M3 submachine guns were all metal, fabricated mainly of stamped steel parts to take advantage of speed and economy of manufacture and assembly. Its weight distribution, along with its slow 350-400 rounds per minute cyclic rate, allow for excellent accuracy for a weapon of this type, regardless if the weapon is fired as a pistol with the stock retracted or as a carbine with the stock extended. Control of the weapon when firing bursts is enhanced by the stock being in direct axis with the bore of the barrel assembly. The internal parts were fully enclosed to protect them against any dirt, water or mud. The rear sight, barrel bushing, sear pin bushings, hinge assembly and sling loops were all welded in place. Dual guide rods and springs were employed to provide support and control for the heavy bolt without touching the inside walls of the receiver. The bolt/rod/spring assembly was easily removed from the receiver as a complete unit.

Soldiers’ initial reaction to the M3 was generally negative, mainly because of the weapon’s appearance. The slow cyclic rate also was disliked by troops, who equated effectiveness of a weapon by its cyclic rate. Many epithets were immediately bestowed on the M3; the name that stuck was the “grease gun” because it resembled a tool for lubricating automobiles. After being in service for a few months, the M3 began to gain some respect, but it would never achieve the status of the Thompson submachine gun.

The Guide Lamp Division of General Motors Corporation

General Motors’ Guide Lamp Division was a peacetime manufacturer of automobile lamps, headlight buckets, hubcaps and bumper guards. The Guide Lamp production plant was located in Anderson, Indiana. Guide Lamp had a lot of expertise and experience in sheet metal stampings and was an excellent choice for the manufacturing of the M3 submachine gun.

By June 1944, 1,000 M3s were being manufactured every 24 hours. The initial Guide Lamp contract price for the M3 was $17.92 per unit less the bolt assembly. The initial price was later amended to $18.36 per unit to cover the cost of minor production changes and the packing and shipping of the completed units. The M3 bolt assembly manufacture was subcontracted to the Buffalo Arms Company at a cost of $2.58 per piece. The bolts were then shipped to Guide Lamp for assembly. The total cost of the M3 was nearly one-half the price of the least expensive M1A1 model Thompson. More importantly, the time for producing each weapon was cut in half thus allowing production to keep pace with the growing war-time demand. The M3 was made almost entirely from simple .060 inch-thick sheet metal stampings. The only major parts requiring any machining were the barrel and bolt. The receiver was made from two die-stamped sheet metal halves. The two pieces were then welded together to form the receiver.

The M3 barrel was manufactured by cold swaging, a process that saved a lot of production hours. A steel 40-inch tube for the barrel would first be reamed to the correct inside diameter. The rifling would then be pressed into the barrel by inserting a mandrel and compressing the tube as it is forced through the die. The long piece of tubing would then be cut in sections to produce five M3 barrels. By May 1943 the first M3 submachine guns were rolling off the assembly lines at Guide Lamp. A patent for the M3 firearm construction was filed on May 1, 1944. The inventors listed were Frederick W. Sampson and George J. Hyde. Patent number 2,403,306 was granted.

The first serviceability problems with the M3 were reported by troops undergoing training in the United States during February 1944. The complaint was that the bolt cocking handle assemblies were failing. A closer look at the problem revealed that the retracting pawl on the cocking handle was cracking adjacent to the rivet hole where the pawl was riveted to the brace. An investigation revealed that the metal that was being used in the manufacture of the parts was not well-suited to the heat-treating process. Immediately the correct metal was substituted for the parts involved, and the width of the metal at the rivet hole was increased. Armorers in the field upgraded all M3s in service with the new parts.

The U.S. M3A1 Submachine Gun

The M3 was thought to be as simple and reliable as possible; however, the Ordnance Department felt that the weapon could be simplified even further. A study was conducted to determine if it were possible to eliminate the cocking handle assembly that was the source of most problems and complaints. A way to simplify field stripping and maintenance was also under study.

During the development stages of the M3(E1) submachine gun, the following Ordnance Department rejections, changes and additions were made:

• Eliminate the complete cocking assembly handle and associated parts by the redesign of the bolt.
• The modification requires enlargement of the ejection port.
• A new hinge and a stronger cover spring riveted to the receiver and a redesigned cover plate with improved safety locks.
• Incorporate an ejector slot cut in the full length of the bolt as well as a redesigned guide rod retaining plate to permit removal of the bolt assembly without removing the ejector housing.
• Design the stock to permit its use as a magazine loading tool, eliminating the need for a separate item for that purpose.
• Drill and tap the forward ends of the stock to accommodate a bore cleaning brush.
• Incorporate a larger oiler in the pistol grip.
• Modify the barrel nut to allow its removal using the wire stock as a tool.

Six pilot models incorporating the above modifications were designated as the M3E1 submachine gun. On December 21, 1944, the M3E1 Submachine Gun was approved and officially adopted as: Submachine Gun, Caliber .45 M3A1, thus reclassifying the M3 as Limited Standard.

The total submachine guns manufactured from 1943 to 1945 by Guide Lamp: 606,694 M3s and 82,281 M3A1 models, for a total of 688,975 weapons. The entire World War II production of the M3 and the M3A1 would total only a little more than one-third of the Thompsons produced during the war.

The M3A1 remained the Standard submachine gun of the U.S. Army until the adoption of the M14 in 1957. The M3A1 submachine gun then was relegated to Substitute Standard. The M14 rifle was, in theory, replacing the M1 rifle, the carbine and the submachine gun.

More Firepower!

During World War II, the primary U.S. weapons were the .30 caliber M1 rifle, the .30 caliber M1 carbine and the .45 caliber submachine gun. The M1 rifle was semiautomatic and had a magazine capacity of 8 rounds; it was an accurate weapon designed for long-range targets. The semiautomatic M1 carbine used a less powerful .30 caliber cartridge than the rifle and was a short-range weapon primarily intended to replace hand guns. The submachine gun had a full-automatic function and a magazine capacity of 30 rounds, but its range was limited.

What was needed was a weapon in between the long-range battle rifle and the short-range submachine gun. This was demonstrated by the Germans when information was received to the effect they were fielding a select-fire weapon, the MP43, using a 7.92mm Kurz (short) mid-range cartridge.

As the pace of the war accelerated, U.S. troops encountered new types of terrain and new enemy tactics; the need for more firepower was anticipated.

The T29 Submachine Gun

Inspired by the German MP43, during fall 1944, it appeared advisable to investigate the possibility of modifying the M3 submachine gun to permit the firing of the carbine cartridge caliber .30 M1. This investigation was entered into in view of the many reports received from the field requesting the development of the submachine gun which would fire the caliber .30 carbine round. Considerable study was given by personnel of the design section of the Guide Lamp Division of the General Motors Corporation that was manufacturing the M3 submachine gun.

To reconfigure the M3 submachine gun to accomplish the above, it was necessary to use a spring-loaded ejector to soften up ejection. To facilitate retracting the bolt, and still maintain the proper spring load to prevent the bolt from striking the rear receiver in recoil, it was necessary to employ both a shorter, stronger spring and a longer, low-rate spring; the short spring being required primarily to stop the bolt in recoil and the long spring to feed and fire the cartridge. A 30-round magazine was made by attaching two 15-round M1 carbine magazines together; the magazine well was enlarged to accept carbine magazines. A 14-inch long barrel was used to maximize velocity and reduce muzzle flash. The bolt was redesigned for the .30 carbine round.

The .30 caliber T29 weapons were tested during the fall of 1944. The modified submachine guns incorporated the basic design characteristics of the M3A1 submachine gun were completed, and function fired 1500 rounds per weapon. There were many functioning problems encountered due to the more powerful cartridge. Despite the longer barrel, the report and flash were quite excessive. Further study of the T29 submachine gun showed the Type A spring-loaded ejector and the feed ramp would require further development. However, in that the select-fire caliber .30 M2 carbine was standardized in September 1944, it was not deemed advisable to continue further development work on the T29 submachine gun concept, and the T29 project was terminated on November 16, 1944.

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Excerpted in part from the book The M3-M3A1 Submachine Gun, available from Chipotle Publishing LLC.

Special thanks to Curator Alex MacKenzie and the entire staff at the Springfield Armory National Historic Site.
Springfield Armory National Historic Site
Springfield, MA
413-271-3976
www.nps.gov/spar

Estate papers recently surfaced documenting the life of a fascinating individual named Jean Koree of Romania. Mr. Koree owned 1/4 patent rights to the Hyde Model 35 Submachine Gun. Information from the documents shed new light on the weapon’s development and history.

Koree was an industrial engineer who moved to New York City in 1919, serving in various Romanian consulate positions. He left the government, going into business for himself in 1923. Koree developed a razor blade, which he began manufacturing in 1925. He later patented 3 different safety razor designs. He registered the trademark “ABC” for “American Blade Company” in 1926, (U.S. Trademark #216,330) and “Flexo,” for one of his razor designs in 1930 (U.S. Trademark #281,818). Koree saw good business success.

Auto-Ordnance Connection

Koree had an interest in small arms, particularly the Thompson Submachine Gun. He attempted twice to purchase Auto-Ordnance Corporation from the estate of Thomas Fortune Ryan in 1932 and 1935. Both attempts involved Auto-Ordnance company executive Col. Marcellus H. Thompson, son of John Thompson, namesake of the Thompson Submachine Gun.

The Auto-Ordnance deals fell through, which disappointed Koree. He may have seen a similar opportunity when he met George Hyde, who looked to approach the market with a new submachine gun design.

Association of George Hyde and Jean Koree

Hyde and Koree probably became associated through Koree’s interest in small arms, and Hyde’s observation of Koree’s business acumen. A 1935 letter said of Koree; “Mr. Koree has always impressed me as a man of unusual ability, with an unusual knowledge of foreign matters, and with unusual connections and selling capacity.”

The earliest record of Koree and Hyde’s association exists in the form of invoices for 450 rounds of .45 ACP ammunition purchased in late March 1935 for the purpose of “Testing Hyde Gun.”

Koree and Hyde contracted on April 11, 1935, and Koree began the patent paperwork. Hyde exchanged 1/4 of the weapon’s patent rights for Koree’s assumption of all costs involving patenting, manufacturing, and marketing of the weapon. The two agreed to form a corporation, which later became Triangle Ordnance Corporation.

The Hyde SMG Patent

The following list summarizes Koree’s patents leading up to and including the Hyde SMG patent:

• Vehicle Wheel, Patent #1,428,243, September 5, 1922 (Shared with Assad Malluk of France)
• Lockable Cover for Automobile Fuel Tanks, #1,447,260, March 6, 1923 (Shared with Assad Malluk of France)
• Resilient Bumper for Motor Vehicles, #1,457,259, May 29, 1923 (Shared with Assad Malluk of France)
• Safety Razor, #1,929,982, October 10, 1933
• Vehicle Wheel Rim, #1,931,229, October 17, 1933
• Safety Razor, #1,932,110, October 24, 1933
• Safety Razor, #1,981,958, November 27, 1934
• Gun, #2,049,776, August 4, 1936 (This is the Hyde SMG patent: 75% Hyde, 25% Koree)

Koree used other gun patents, and small arms manuals of the 1930s to aid in presentation of the Hyde gun in the patent application, and for marketing ideas. He developed a specification sheet for the Hyde based on one for a Steyr-Solothurn S1-100 SMG. Patent attorney Daniel Morris worked the details, including potential Hyde patent infringement on Auto-Ordnance patents for the Model of 1921 Thompson and box magazine with the U.S. Patent Office in late 1935.

The Hyde 35 patent was approved on August 4, 1936. The weapon was originally developed by Hyde in the early 1930s at Lake Erie Chemical Company, and refined to the patented model sometime in early 1935.

Koree’s excitement about the weapon’s prospects was apparent in his letters to various government agencies seeking marketing research information. He inquired regarding the total number of U.S. banks and sheriff’s departments existing at the time, in an attempt to determine potential marketability.

NFA of 1934 and Neutrality Laws: Industry Jitters

Since the National Firearms Act of 1934 was newly enacted, Koree familiarized himself with the law, and appeared to mostly follow the rules. As a foreign national showing interest in machine guns, and with the situation heating up in Europe, he nevertheless attracted some attention.

Koree made several inquiries regarding parts suppliers, and received an appointment with a Mr. Carpenter at Remington’s Bridgeport, Connecticut plant in March 1936. The meeting organizer mis-communicated the backgrounds of the attendees, and Koree subsequently arrived with an associate from his former Romanian government work. Since the gentleman with Koree served in a foreign government capacity, Mr. Carpenter chose to shun both men, as Remington was nervous about recent neutrality laws, and the potential for trouble involving public discussion of armament sales to foreign countries. Mr. Carpenter was described as “surprised and disturbed” when Koree introduced the Romanian representative, and the situation resulted in embarrassment. Remington chose to “do nothing, rather than run the definite risk of doing anything that might be misinterpreted.”

Nervousness abounded in the 1930s firearm industry, as an inquiry to Winchester by Koree regarding manufacturing Hyde barrels raised concerns with Winchester, and subsequently, the Feds. Edwin Pugsley, a vice-president at Winchester who later gained notoriety during development of the M1 Carbine, wrote a letter to Koree on April 7, 1936 regarding barrel pricing. Pugsley stated, “…we are all set as soon as we can find out from the Government what the regulation is so far as making the barrel is concerned. To date we have been unable to get a ruling on this and have written again for an interpretation of the law.” A follow-up letter from Pugsley to Koree on May 4, 1936 stated Winchester had received an answer from the government, and could proceed with a price quote based on the submitted sample. The quote was $6.75 each in lots of 1,000, and $5.75 each in lots of 5,000, and indicated they could deliver at a rate of 40 barrels per working day. The quote was for barrels made of “regular Winchester proof steel, which is a chrome molybdenum alloy having extremely good physical properties, insuring great strength and long life.”

Federal Scrutiny

Winchester’s inquiry to the Feds regarding the barrel deal prompted federal action. On May 18, 1936, Treasury Deputy Collector Harry Frankel sent a letter to Koree, “…in reference to some information regarding firearms the government would like to know.” The Treasury Collector had tried to contact Koree on several occasions, and seemed apprehensive in the letter. Frankel finally spoke to Koree on the same day he mailed the letter, and he followed up in a May 19th letter stating the following: “As per our conversation, I would like you to send me an affidavit, sworn to by a notary, whether you had any firearms in your possession on or before July 26, 1934 – and what use you intended in the machine gun barrels you were negotiating for with the Winchester Repeating Arms Co. of New Haven, Conn., also full details of your regular business at that time, and at present.”

Koree replied to Frankel on May 25, 1936: “In answer to your letter dated May the 19th I am glad to state, that I did not have any firearms in my possession on or before July the 26th 1934 or thereafter. I am interested in a new invention in Sub Machine Guns however and have therefore asked the Winchester Repeating Arms Corp. of New Haven Conn. to let me know what their quotation in lots of 1,000 and 5,000 barrels would be, in case such barrels and such quantities should be required.

“It is my intention to organize a company for the manufacture and/or sale of such new and improved guns and to endeavor to sell them to such organizations (Police, Banks, etc.) as the Company will have the legal right to sell to.

“I have been engaged for the last 5 years in the sale and manufacture of Safety Razor Blades and had the honor of serving as a member of the Code Authority of the Razor and Blade Industry.

“Numerous inventions on Razors and Blades take my time now. Until last month my offices were at 187-189 Mercer Str. N.Y. where we occupied the entire second and fifth floors.”

Koree provided some inconsistent information to the Feds. He understated his time of engagement in the razor business, and also possessed a Hyde SMG for the photographic session in June 1935. Perhaps Hyde accompanied him with the weapon, but only Koree’s name appeared on the invoice. He also received a 1936 letter thanking him for demonstrating multiple Hyde guns to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

“Dear Mr. Koree,

We were more than pleased with your demonstration last week of the sub-machine gun which I hope to be able to put in use with the bank in the near future.

As you know, the guns were tried out by some of our expert shots and they found them most accurate, and the men were impressed with the simplicity of the mechanism. They noticed that the weight of the gun was so much lighter than other guns used by us.

One of my experts commented about the gun having little or no kick notwithstanding its lightness in weight.

Very Truly Yours,

Myles C. McCahill
Manager, Administration Department”

The lighter weight comparison undoubtedly referenced the 1921 Thompson Submachine Gun, used by the bank at the time.

Triangle Ordnance Corporation and Hyde Arms Corporation

Hyde’s 75% patent share produced a contract guaranteeing payment of $3.75 for every gun sold during the 17-year patent term. He agreed to work for 5 years at a salary scaling from $75 to $125 per week. The corporation recognized “the unique and extraordinary character of the knowledge and experience of said Hyde, and that his services cannot be duplicated.” His employment was retained to “carry on experimental work and make inventions in ordnance and to perform such other duties as may be assigned to him by the corporation from time to time.” Koree received $1.25 for every gun sold.

Triangle Ordnance Corporation incorporated in New York on July 9, 1936. Koree owned 50% of the company.

While Koree and Hyde assigned their patent rights to Triangle Ordnance Corporation, Hyde Arms Corporation was granted exclusive license to manufacture and sell Model 35 Submachine Guns. Hyde Arms conducted the only business that occurred with the gun, and they subcontracted most manufacturing to Griffin and Howe. Hyde Model 35 Submachine Guns cost about $75 to produce, and sold for $125.

Triangle Ordnance Corporation was an umbrella company that was well intended to engage in ordnance business, but never engaged in any substantial business. Koree faced New York State franchise tax problems between 1941 and 1943, and stated the following about Triangle Ordnance Corporation in 1941: “This corporation has not transacted any business since its incorporation. The owners of it wish to retain it as it is possible that it will become active in the near future.”

Lake Erie Chemical Company

Hyde first worked independently, and then for Lake Erie Chemical Company on his weapon as competition for the Thompson. Lake Erie wanted a submachine gun to compete with Federal Laboratories, who had exclusive distributor rights for the Thompson in the U.S. This hurt Lake Erie’s chemical agent sales, as most such sales to police forces were made in conjunction with weapons purchases.

The Hyde Model 35 Submachine Gun was evaluated during the U.S. Submachine Gun Trials at Aberdeen Proving Ground in late 1939. While the weapon was not adopted, it demonstrated some favorable aspects, including controllability and operation under certain adverse conditions.

George Hyde probably abandoned the project in 1939. The weapon never proved commercially successful, and the government trials sealed its fate. Hyde’s later projects are well known, and he appears to have disassociated from Koree after it became apparent the Hyde 35 wouldn’t be successful.

Koree did not give up, and retained rights to the Model 35 through Triangle’s patent ownership.

The ABC Automatic Hand Machine Gun

Koree began using his “ABC” razor trademark as a new name for the Hyde Model 35 SMG in January 1940, and the gun’s name changed to “The ABC Automatic Hand Machine Gun.”

No photographic evidence exists of a smaller model, but availability of a compact Hyde Model 35 was referenced in “European” calibers. A prototype may have been produced by Abercrombie and Fitch Co.

Koree believed strong foreign markets existed for the Hyde gun. As World War II began, more restrictive U.S. weapons export laws made many potential markets disappear.

Following the U.S. trials, sales efforts were focused on South America, including Peru and Argentina. Peru seemed interested, but wanted the weapon’s caliber changed to 7.65mm. Argentina did not respond to an invitation to demonstrate the weapon in their country.

Koree formed a sales commission agreement with an individual for sales to Canada, Britain, and France in March 1940.

Total Production Numbers

Estimates put total production of the Hyde Model 35 Submachine Gun between 86 and 101 guns. This figure does not include prototypes, or earlier models that were produced in small numbers by Hyde prior to his association with Koree. Winchester produced 100 barrels for Koree directly in 1936. An April 1940 Griffin and Howe document reaffirms this number, and references an additional 100 produced by Winchester for Hyde Arms Company after the first batch. An undated assets and liabilities sheet lists 99 barrels remaining in inventory. The Hyde barrels referenced in the document are probably the barrels Numrich has sold for many years, one of which was purchased by the author to look for markings. The barrel, which is the only remaining Hyde part available for current purchase, appears of high quality, and no markings exist except for an index mark.

An undated assets and liabilities sheet found in a Triangle Ordnance folder lists assets totaling $3,392.09, and liabilities of $4,798.25. Included in the liabilities were $1,629.48 owed to George Hyde, and almost $3,000 owed to either Seymour Griffin personally, or to the Griffin and Howe Company. Hyde formerly worked at Griffin and Howe, and Hyde Arms subcontracted them for manufacturing.

Remaining inventory included $203 cash, $1,700 worth of machine tools, 99 Hyde barrels, 1 Thompson barrel, 46 straps, 64 swivels, 24 Mauser sights, 3 complete guns, and 15 partially complete guns.

The list represents all that remained of the venture. Griffin and Howe probably got paid, based on a letter to Winchester in 1940 releasing to Koree any tools they had paid for that Winchester used for making Hyde barrels.

Conclusion

George Hyde saw his subsequent submachine gun design adopted by the U.S. Army as the M2, only to be eclipsed by the cheaper M3 after production startup problems with the M2 caused cancellation. He died in 1964.

Jean Koree achieved other successes, including invention of a new subcutaneous injection device, and prosperous real estate deals. His interest in ordnance continued through his life.

The Hyde Model 35 Submachine Gun compared favorably to the Thompson, but never saw success. Some mystery remains, and we may never learn its entire story. Examples of the weapon exist in the NFA registry, but the total number remaining is unknown.

The Koree estate documents provide a fascinating glimpse into small arms history. Other undiscovered paper treasures undoubtedly exist that can provide more insight into this and other weapons. We just have to keep looking.

With the assistance and resources of the Inland Division of General Motors, a newly redesigned Hyde weapon was ready for testing early in 1942. All of the objectionable features of the earlier 109 model had been corrected. The redesigned new gun was designated the Hyde-Inland-1. The Hyde-Inland-1 weapon was tested at Aberdeen from early to mid April 1942. The action was now enclosed and there were no external moving parts. The barrel fins and vertical foregrip had been eliminated. They were replaced by a horizontal wooden foregrip that extended under a newly designed smooth barrel. The weapon was select fire and was lighter than the Thompson and the earlier Hyde 109. In full auto fire the Hyde-Inland was superior to all other weapons tested. In the 50 yard full-automatic fire test the Hyde-Inland-1 placed 99 out of 100 shots on the 6’x6’ target. This compared to 50 hits out of 100 for the M1 Thompson and 49 out of 100 for the M1928A1 model. However, the weapon’s accuracy in semi-automatic proved to be inferior to the Thompson.

The subject gun fired 6,080 rounds of .45 caliber service ammunition during the testing. There were 20 malfunctions recorded. Fifteen of the malfunctions were failure of the bolt to remain open after the last shot in the magazine was expended. On three occasions the bolt remained open, but closed when the magazine was removed. Other malfunctions included one light firing pin blow and one failure to feed. The result of the mud and dust tests indicated that the Hyde-Inland had some superiority over the Thompson.

The average cyclic rate of the Hyde-Inland-2 was the same as the earlier models at 527 rounds per minute. This compared to the M1928A1 Thompson at 610 rounds per minute and the M1 Thompson at 775 RPM. Those who fired the test weapons stated that the Hyde-Inland handled very well and that the recoil was soft. They also stated that there was no appreciable tendency for the muzzle to rise in automatic fire. Mr. Hyde requested that he be permitted to make a few minor changes to the design before the service tests were held.

A few minor suggestions were made by Ordnance to further improve the weapon, including a redesign of the magazine well to use the standard Thompson twenty or thirty round box style magazine, and a heavier operating spring. Subject to the improvements being made, the Hyde-Inland gun was recommended for standardization as the U.S. Submachine Gun, Caliber .45 M2 on 30 April 1942. The Thompson was to be downgraded to Substitute Standard. However, because of the tremendous requirements for submachine guns it wasn’t considered a good time to completely stop production of the Thompson and retool to manufacture the new M2 weapon. The M2 was to be classified Substitute Standard and the Thompson would retain its Standard status. A report to the Ordnance Committee held on 13 April 1942 stated that “the Hyde-Inland weapon was superior to the M1 Thompson from a five- percent reduction in weight to a ninety- percent reduction in malfunctions. Accuracy in full-automatic fire was nearly perfect. All of the features of light weight, accuracy, absence of malfunctions, simplicity of construction, combined to make the proposed M2 far superior than any other weapon previously presented to the Ordnance Department.” The M2 however, was not the simple, easy to manufacture “sheet metal” weapon that was desired by the Ordnance Department.

In June of 1942 five new Hyde-Inland-2 models were submitted. The new weapons were tested for functioning on June 19, 21 and 22, 1942. A total of 2,640 rounds of .45 caliber ammunition were fired with only two reported malfunctions

The Marlin Firearms Company was awarded a contract to manufacture 164,450 M2 weapons at a cost of $36.76 per piece less magazine and accessories. A supplement to the contract was executed stating that one thirty-round magazine would be supplied with each submachine gun.

Initial production was expected to begin in December of 1942, but by 31 March 1943 no guns had been produced. The delay was due primarily to the Marlin company encountering difficulty in securing the dies needed for six components that were to be made of compressed powdered metal, a relatively new process. After several M2’s were made and tested, two of the components made by the powdered metal process cracked. It remained questionable whether or not other powdered metal parts could withstand the required tests. The Springfield Ordnance District was instructed by Washington not to accept any weapons pending further investigation. Marlin was finally able to partially overcome the expected early production problems and the first M2 weapons were shipped to the U.S. Ordnance Department in May of 1943. In the interim the Ordnance Department had tested and adopted the new all-metal M3 submachine gun. The reduced cost and potentially higher production of the M3 resulted in the subsequent cancellation of the M2 submachine gun. The U.S. Ordnance Committee officially declared the M2 submachine gun obsolete on 14 June 1943. No M2 .45 caliber submachine guns were ever issued by the military. The late Armin Romberg, a long time employee of the Marlin Company stated that approximately 500 of the M2s were manufactured.

The Submachine Gun, M2 is an extremely rare item today, with only two known transferable examples in the U.S.