Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Posted: 9/1/2001 12:34:44 PM EST
Is there a role for the SMG in today’s modern military? By SMG I mean the classic pistol caliber type (Thonpson, M3, Uzi, etc.). I’m talking about issuing SMG to your standard infantry units like they did in WWII and Korean War and not “Special” units like SF or SEALs. Personally, I think the SMG is outdated and has no role in today's military when assult rifles such as M4 can fulfill that role in much more effective caliber. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don’t think any military force here or in other countries issue SMG to infantry unit any more.
Link Posted: 9/1/2001 12:41:24 PM EST
the M4 is not a perfect replacement to a subgun, first in a silenced role the M4 requires special subsonic ammo that either makes the action function or not, these bullets are highly expensive. Also you can carry more subgun ammo then that of a M4. Subguns work better in CQB because they are relatively shorter and there is less chance of over penetration (in most cases). Also subguns of the 9mm kind can be quite more usefull for tactical ops because the ammo is common across the globe, 5.56 isnt, this means you have deniability because the round cannot be associated with the service rifle of your country. There is alot more to it, but I don't feel like typing anymore.
Link Posted: 9/1/2001 12:45:52 PM EST
Scarecrow: I agree with you on most of your points but I'm talking as a "general issue" for standard combat units like the infantry and not specialized units.
Link Posted: 9/1/2001 12:46:37 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/1/2001 12:46:31 PM EST by CounterStrike]
LOL Scarecrow, thats honesty.
Link Posted: 9/1/2001 2:04:41 PM EST
Originally Posted By Scarecrow: the M4 is not a perfect replacement to a subgun, first in a silenced role the M4 requires special subsonic ammo that either makes the action function or not, these bullets are highly expensive. Also you can carry more subgun ammo then that of a M4. Subguns work better in CQB because they are relatively shorter and there is less chance of over penetration (in most cases). Also subguns of the 9mm kind can be quite more usefull for tactical ops because the ammo is common across the globe, 5.56 isnt, this means you have deniability because the round cannot be associated with the service rifle of your country. There is alot more to it, but I don't feel like typing anymore.
View Quote
While most of what you say here is true, some recent studies have shown the 5.56 round to be less likely to overpenetrate than the 9mm.
Link Posted: 9/1/2001 2:15:32 PM EST
What do Armor crews have as personal weapons? I heard they still carried M3 Greaseguns, but I would suspect M4's instead. Personally I would prefer an M4 over any subgun for combat.
Link Posted: 9/1/2001 2:52:07 PM EST
The last Grease Gun has been retired. I [i]think[i] it happend in 96' but I am not 100 percent sure. The M4 is being issued as a PDW to aviators, AFV crewmen and some gunners at the moment. There really is no combat role for a pistol-cal SMG anymore, and hasnt really been since the assault rifle appeared with its selective fire capability 50 odd years ago. Their last bastions were in spec ops and as a PDW for CS/CSS types. The development of the carbine sized assault rifle has squeezed them out of that role now too. Having said that, the fact that they exist in hundreds of millions and are easier to build than a gas operated rifle action will guarentee their apperance on the battlefield for some time.
Link Posted: 9/1/2001 3:18:22 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/1/2001 3:18:42 PM EST by 11BravoE5]
Scarecrow-
Also subguns of the 9mm kind can be quite more usefull for tactical ops because the ammo is common across the globe, 5.56 isnt, this means you have deniability because the round cannot be associated with the service rifle of your country.
View Quote
Since when is 5.56mm not common? Both 9mm and 5.56mm are NATO rounds! If deniability is needed, then why wouldn't you use an AK47? If I was planning a mission I sure as hell wouldn't count on foraging 9mm.
Link Posted: 9/1/2001 3:36:43 PM EST
Scarecrow, first off, it is suppressed. And what exactly do you mean by:
requires special subsonic ammo that either makes the action function or not, these bullets are highly expensive
Every firearm achieves the most potential from a sound suppressor when using sub sonic loads but with current top notch suppressors the weapon is very quiet with normal rounds. And what do you mean by either makes the action function or not? Here are some measurements from the 1999 Suppressor trials held here in Finland, in which i took part with my collegue and two suppressor makers from the town where i live. Meters 1. At the shooter´s ear 2. 1m side of the muzzle 3. 10m side of the muzzle SAR80 459mm barrel, no suppressor,.223 velocity 907m/s 1. 156 dB 2.163 dB 3. 141dB SAR80 459mm barrel, LEI Universal suppressor .223 velocity 906m/s 1. 134dB 2.126dB 3.109dB Colt M16A1 508mm barrel, no suppressor, .223 velocity 874m/s 1.155dB 2.163dB 3.141dB Colt M16A1 508mm barrel, BR Tuote T8AR, .223 velocity 868m/s 1.131dB 2.143dB 3.121dB
Link Posted: 9/1/2001 5:15:42 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/1/2001 5:30:44 PM EST by Scarecrow]
Not all silenced weapons use subsonic ammo, the MP5SD will not work with subsonic ammo. And in order for a AR to deliver enough punch at good ranges with subsonic speeds it needs to be made of tungsten and rounds of that kind can cost upwards or 2$ a round. As for the 5.56 not being common, its not as common as the 9mm, and the idea behind deniability is leaving no way of people knowing ANYTHING about the country that led the action, so why use 5.56 wich means NATO when you can use the 9mm which means could it could be nato... or 100 other country's that use that caliber.
Link Posted: 9/1/2001 5:21:17 PM EST
Who said all sound suppressed weapons MUST use sub sonic loads?.
Link Posted: 9/1/2001 5:32:22 PM EST
Originally Posted By Tuukka: Who said all sound suppressed weapons MUST use sub sonic loads?.
View Quote
You said to obtain best results from a suppressed weapons sub sonic ammo is required.
Link Posted: 9/1/2001 5:33:15 PM EST
Holy Shit, this really is an exercise in stupidity---the answer to the original question is: "NO." No more SMG's as USGI for regular infantry, etc. Special Ops does their own thing, but their job description dictates that they have the budget for those sorts of things. No use arguing a moot point IMHO.
Link Posted: 9/1/2001 5:49:55 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/1/2001 5:50:04 PM EST by MG_ME]
[left]I thought that the reason why the military done away with SMG's for ordinary troops is because of body armour not but the fact of subsonic alone! and has for subsonic i really think you can get good results with 1100 Fps rounds! they maybe not what you call true subsonic but they should still work. ive been around regular suppressed 9mm smg's they had a good paint ball gun pop sound! i still think a good suppressed 45ACP is better![/left]
Link Posted: 9/1/2001 5:53:26 PM EST
Scarecrow, yes i said that. Where in that is the MUST USE sub sonic ammo. [:)]
Link Posted: 9/1/2001 6:01:24 PM EST
In think lightweight body armor and the newer kevlar helmets have greatly reduced the SMG's usefulness on the modern battlefield. While probably not totally ineffective, no military wants to standardize on a weapon that can be tripped up by such simple countermeasures. Or that the average soldier even THINKS is ineffective.
Link Posted: 9/1/2001 6:16:22 PM EST
the smg idea has been kicking around in my head lately. in an urban environment, i wonder if the subgun could be beneficial. the .223 argualbly could deflect or disintigrate when used against the hardened cover likely found in a city or neighborhood. and from what i recall, the .223 takes a couple hundred feet to get up to its most effective velocity from a 16in barrel. at shorter ranges, i think there is something to be said for the manuveability and stopping power of a larger caliber subgun.
Link Posted: 9/1/2001 6:38:21 PM EST
Originally Posted By beanbag: and from what i recall, the .223 takes a couple hundred feet to get up to its most effective velocity from a 16in barrel.
View Quote
Once the round leaves the barrel, velocity decreases until the bullet hits something or falls to the ground.
at shorter ranges, i think there is something to be said for the manuveability and stopping power of a larger caliber subgun.
View Quote
I wouldn't bet my life on subgun stopping power over carbine stopping power.
Link Posted: 9/1/2001 6:45:10 PM EST
While there probably isn't much need for your regulars to have sub guns, you can bet that your spec ops units still have their toys. I've heard of some of them (Seals, Combat Control, Green Berets, etc.) using MP-5's from time to time. I'll bet that the regulars in other countries like Israel for instance may use sub-guns.
Link Posted: 9/1/2001 6:56:51 PM EST
Umm, Scarcrow The 147gr 9mm Subsonic loads were invented for the suppressed MP5's and their bolt is weighted to use them. As MG ME said, they sound like paintball guns. They were designed for the nearly soundless kill. So was the SOCOM .45. .223 Subsonic exists but even with 77gr bullets they dont have much energy to them- and coring them with tungstin instead of steel or lead isnt going to make them better, tungstin will not increase kinetic energy or make the bullet hole larger. And yes they can give cycling problems =============================================== I am pretty sure that- regardless of what has been said in public- that the real reason they bulilt the SOCOM .45 was that everyone wanted the M4 but some missions still required silent or near silent kills of dogs, sentries and so on. Hence the pistol which they can carry alongside the M4. If they needed to silently dispose of people at longer ranges they used .308 suppressed sniper rifles loaded with subsonic ammo. Those numbers Tukka posted showing how suppressors work on .223 rifles show that .223 suppressors are valuable- they do reduce the signature down to near that of a .22LR- but that is not quiet enough for true stealth. It will save your hearing, reduce the range that people can hear you, and confuse people closer by as to your range, but it is still far from silent. I wish someone would debug the .300 Whisper caliber M4 uppers. SSK clames that they are as silent as the suppressed MP5's. I havent heard of anyone in the military using them yet though. Adopting .300 Whisper would be the closest thing you would see to the return of a "pistol caliber" SMG (technically .300 Whisper [i]is[/i] a pistol cartridge- its primary use so far being in single shot handguns) but obviously distribution would be extreamly limited and they guns would be mere conversions of M4's.
Link Posted: 9/1/2001 11:00:18 PM EST
The reason this question came up was because of my discussion with my cousin yesterday. My cousin was in Marine infantry and served in Vietnam between 1967-68 and during the first several months he was issued a M3 "Grease Gun" in 45ACP. He said the SMG was a good weapon when they had "close contacts" (under 50 meters) but beyond that the M3 was useless. It happens that most of the "contacts" were 50 to 100 meters so beyond the effective range of the M3. According to my cousin M3 had several other problems. The weapon and loaded magazines were too heavy, the sights were terrible and the cyclic rate was too low to be effective. He did say the weapon was reliable. His second weapon was the M2 carbine and he said this was the best weapon for Vietnam. The weapon was light, had high magazine capacity (30 rds), reliable, accurate out to 150 meters and the cyclic rate was high. Actually he said M1 and M2 and carbines were the preferred and most widely used weapon in his unit. Until yesterday he thought the M2 carbine was THE weapon of choice for all infantry unit. Yesterday I took him out to the range with my BM 16" carbine and the LEGP rifle. Until yesterday his experience with M-16/AR-15 rifle was limited to some training he received after returning from Vietnam. He left the active military at the end of 1970 and was in the reserve until early 80's and his weapon in the reserve was the M1 Garand then later M1 carbine. After spending 3 hours firing about 700 rounds in both the BM and the LEGP he felt they were much better than the M3 and the carbine. He felt they would have been more effective in Vietnam if they had such weapons with full auto capacity. His opinion was that SMGs were useless standard infantry weapon even back in 1960's.
Link Posted: 9/2/2001 12:32:49 AM EST
I saw an interesting article in SOF. A Vietnam Vet stated he used the M1 carbine as his main weapon. But, the M1 Carbine/M2 as I understand were supposed to be intermediate steps between the M1 SMG/M14 and the M-16. Personally I feel every soldier should be issued an M4, Uzi, and a 9mm Pistol & a .45 Pistol. The M4 could be a main battle rifle, the Uzi could be used for Close Combat where FA is needed. The 9mm Pistol could be used for quick fire in small areas, and the .45 could be used if the 9mm doesn't stop 'em. A subgun is still usefull, but only when it is correctly designed. Obviously, an SMG with a 14.5/16" Barrel is useless compared to an M4. But an SMG with an 11.5" or smaller barrel would be good. An M4 is a Rifle (Carbine), during higly mobile close combat, using a rifle can be a burden. Wheras, an Uzi or other small subgun could be used in such a situation. As for the U.S. Id oubt SMGs will ever again be issued. Then again, in Isreal, etc. Uzis may well be seen for many years from now.
Link Posted: 9/2/2001 12:38:40 AM EST
The sub-gun was useful when troops had bolt actions, or even semi-autos. They offered high firepower at the troop level. Once the assault rifle appeared on the scene, the only advantage the SMG had was compactness. The US continued to use the M3 for armor crews forever, mainly because we simply had zillions of them and they were smaller than an M1, M14, or M16. Other countries still use SMGs for tank crews, etc. for the same reason. A collapsed Uzi is still a pretty small package. Suprressors, sub-sonic, and overpenetration are not concerns of the standard Infantry platoon. I want to be able to shoot through walls. I want to be able to grab ammo off a fallen comrade. I don't really care if I'm making alot of noise when there's a half dozen other guys with the same gun and a couple SAWs, and even a 25mm chaingun going at the same time. The question was about REGUALR TROOPS. The answer is that there is no real place for the SMG in a STANDARD rifle platoon today. Ross
Link Posted: 9/2/2001 7:22:07 AM EST
Does Israeli infantry units still use Uzi? I thought they were only for the police and civilian use.
Link Posted: 9/3/2001 3:08:34 PM EST
I am sure the choir would agree with me, but the M4 is a nice compromise weapon combining the firepower of a Subgun with the range of a Battle Rifle.
Link Posted: 9/4/2001 7:27:46 AM EST
A pistol-caliber subgun is more useful for light AFV crews (this lesson was learned in Vietnam, and was the reason why the M16 did not replace the venerable M3A1 sub machinegun as a crew weapon). The reason you do not want to use a high velocity rifle for this role is because these weapons, especially in "Low Intensity" conflicts, often get used to remove pesky enemy soldiers from the exterior of your buddies M113 or armored car. A rifle caliber weapon can and will cause "spalling" when it hits a lightly armored vehicle. Spalling is when fragments of the interior armor are knocked loose and zing around the crew compartment at relatively high velocities. Ouch. This is less of a problem with pistol caliber subguns, and the main reason why there were grease guns in the US inventory for so long. Other than that very limited role, there are few reasons for pistol caliber subguns to be a general issue weapon on today's battlefield, excepting special operations roles. BTW, the German Army has for many years used FN-produced Uzis as a firing port weapon for the Marder IFV.
Link Posted: 9/4/2001 8:27:39 AM EST
Also you can carry more subgun ammo then that of a M4.
View Quote
Are you sure about that? I doubt that 9mm NATO ammo is much lighter, if any, than 5.56mm NATO ammo.
Link Posted: 9/4/2001 8:31:54 AM EST
Originally Posted By Renamed:
Also you can carry more subgun ammo then that of a M4.
View Quote
Are you sure about that? I doubt that 9mm NATO ammo is much lighter, if any, than 5.56mm NATO ammo.
View Quote
How long is a 9mm? long as a 5.56? no. as wide? around the same, maybe 3 - 4mm difference. in the space you can carry 1 5.56 bullet you can fit 2 9mm's. Anyways this subject is over, SMG's will never be standard issue in the US.
Link Posted: 9/4/2001 3:47:11 PM EST
I couldent wait to get my hands on the M3 grease gun when in basic training in '87 When I did, all I could think was "my God, they sent men into combat with this Piece of shit?" It was unreliable, heavy, and remarkably inaccurate. I feel for any soldier who actually had to stake his life on it. The procurement officers, and contractors responsible should be jailed. It was that bad.
Link Posted: 9/4/2001 6:42:33 PM EST
Originally Posted By BillofRights: I feel for any soldier who actually had to stake his life on it. The procurement officers, and contractors responsible should be jailed. It was that bad.
View Quote
I was talking with a fellow in our Taiwan office this evening who just recently left their army and he said they still have thousands of M3 SMG in inventory. In addition they also have thousands of Sten SMG held for emergency stock.
Link Posted: 9/4/2001 7:09:43 PM EST
Originally Posted By BillofRights: I couldent wait to get my hands on the M3 grease gun when in basic training in '87 When I did, all I could think was "my God, they sent men into combat with this Piece of shit?" It was unreliable, heavy, and remarkably inaccurate. I feel for any soldier who actually had to stake his life on it. The procurement officers, and contractors responsible should be jailed. It was that bad.
View Quote
Boy, you ain't sh*ttin'! I got issued one at Ft Hood, and I was like "WTF am I supposed to do with this thing? Hit 'em with it?" The barrel was worn so bad it was practically a smooth-bore, and stickin' your finger in the bolt to charge it? I couldn't believe that sh*t. Every body who saw it at REFORGER was like "Man, that's cool as hell!" and I'd reply with "I'll give ya $50 to take it." What a POS!
Link Posted: 9/4/2001 10:52:03 PM EST
In 95, I was issued a BRAND NEW M3A1 by the US Army to go along with my aging, breakdown prone track. It was probably made in 1945, but somewhere along the line it had been repacked in a plastic bag and cardboard box, complete with bar codes. It looked like it had never been fired or issued and it lacked any arsenal rebuild stamps that were so common on the "newer" weapons that had been in circulation for a couple of decades. While the stock was flimsy, I was impressed at how simple and robust it was. A cheap weapon, true, but a beautiful one none the less. All things considered, I would prefer an M16 in almost any variety or configuration, but it was still a nice weapon.
Link Posted: 9/6/2001 8:31:06 PM EST
Originally Posted By cc48510: I saw an interesting article in SOF. A Vietnam Vet stated he used the M1 carbine as his main weapon. But, the M1 Carbine/M2 as I understand were supposed to be intermediate steps between the M1 SMG/M14 and the M-16. Personally I feel every soldier should be issued an M4, Uzi, and a 9mm Pistol & a .45 Pistol. The M4 could be a main battle rifle, the Uzi could be used for Close Combat where FA is needed. The 9mm Pistol could be used for quick fire in small areas, and the .45 could be used if the 9mm doesn't stop 'em. A subgun is still usefull, but only when it is correctly designed. Obviously, an SMG with a 14.5/16" Barrel is useless compared to an M4. But an SMG with an 11.5" or smaller barrel would be good. An M4 is a Rifle (Carbine), during higly mobile close combat, using a rifle can be a burden. Wheras, an Uzi or other small subgun could be used in such a situation. As for the U.S. Id oubt SMGs will ever again be issued. Then again, in Isreal, etc. Uzis may well be seen for many years from now.
View Quote
dude, where you gonna hitch the trailer? i get tired just hauling my $hit from my tailgate to the bench. the sub-gun may yet be reborn as the [i]personal defence weapon[/i] a'la the fnp90, hk pdw, bushman, etc. enhanced penetration of (the ubiquitous) body armour being a prerequisite. probably will end up filling the same niche as sub-guns.
Link Posted: 9/6/2001 9:00:07 PM EST
Originally Posted By pbrstreetgang: the sub-gun may yet be reborn as the [i]personal defence weapon[/i] a'la the fnp90, hk pdw, bushman, etc. enhanced penetration of (the ubiquitous) body armour being a prerequisite. probably will end up filling the same niche as sub-guns.
View Quote
What kind of effective range does FNP90 have? I found few thousand empty brass from that rifle few weeks ago at the local range and they looked like miniture .223 but with .22 caliber bullet.
Link Posted: 9/7/2001 11:12:24 AM EST
i have some of that cute little brass.[:)] hmm, let me see if i can find that brochure...
Link Posted: 9/7/2001 11:33:48 AM EST
Originally Posted By yobo:
Originally Posted By pbrstreetgang: the sub-gun may yet be reborn as the [i]personal defence weapon[/i] a'la the fnp90, hk pdw, bushman, etc. enhanced penetration of (the ubiquitous) body armour being a prerequisite. probably will end up filling the same niche as sub-guns.
View Quote
What kind of effective range does FNP90 have? I found few thousand empty brass from that rifle few weeks ago at the local range and they looked like miniture .223 but with .22 caliber bullet.
View Quote
i thought the FNP90 fired caseless ammo? Not true?
Link Posted: 9/7/2001 11:39:23 AM EST
here it is. from p90 tr sales brochure: operating principle: [center]blowback mechanism firing from closed breech[/center] overal length: [center]19.7in (500mm)[/center] width: [center]2.2in (55mm)[/center] height: [center]7.1in (180mm)[/center] weight with empty magazine: [center]5.7lb (2.580kg)[/center] magazine capacity: [center]50 rounds[/center] firing modes: [center]single shot, full automatic[/center] cyclic rate of fire: [center][b]900 rpm[/b][/center] maximum effective range: [center][b]200m[/b][/center]
Link Posted: 9/7/2001 11:52:02 AM EST
Originally Posted By Smeghead: i thought the FNP90 fired caseless ammo? Not true?
View Quote
You are thinking about the H&K G11 rifle. FNP90 fires a standard brass cased ammo which looks like a miniture 223.
Link Posted: 9/7/2001 11:55:29 AM EST
nope, 5.7x28 little teeny bottleneck rounds. makes 7.63 mauser look stout by comparison. (or 7.62x25)
Link Posted: 9/7/2001 12:29:36 PM EST
Originally Posted By pbrstreetgang: nope, 5.7x28 little teeny bottleneck rounds.
View Quote
I wonder why they didn't just go with 5.56mm caliber? I would think it would make the logistics of producing the bullets simpler.
Link Posted: 9/7/2001 1:10:22 PM EST
Originally Posted By yobo: The reason this question came up was because of my discussion with my cousin yesterday. My cousin was in Marine infantry and served in Vietnam between 1967-68 and during the first several months he was issued a M3 "Grease Gun" in 45ACP. He said the SMG was a good weapon when they had "close contacts" (under 50 meters) but beyond that the M3 was useless. It happens that most of the "contacts" were 50 to 100 meters so beyond the effective range of the M3. According to my cousin M3 had several other problems. The weapon and loaded magazines were too heavy, the sights were terrible and the cyclic rate was too low to be effective. He did say the weapon was reliable. His second weapon was the M2 carbine and he said this was the best weapon for Vietnam. The weapon was light, had high magazine capacity (30 rds), reliable, accurate out to 150 meters and the cyclic rate was high. Actually he said M1 and M2 and carbines were the preferred and most widely used weapon in his unit. Until yesterday he thought the M2 carbine was THE weapon of choice for all infantry unit.
View Quote
This sounds exactly like the story my father-in-law told me. He was in Vietnam early in the war. He's a big guy so he got to lug around the radio pack. At first they gave him a M3 Grease Gun. He said it was kind of cool at first but he couldn't hit shit with it. He gave it back for an M2 Carbine. He said he really liked that one. When I showed him my AR he didn't know a thing about it. Said that they were just starting to show up as he was buggin' out.
Top Top