Nolo,
I have not shot enough (any) people with either caliber SMG to render a reliable opinion.
I have shot a few things with both.
I like shooting the M1928 series Thompsons a lot, they are a hoot and in my experience a good deal more accurate in both semi and full suto than most give them credit for. With GI hard ball or a close weight shape and velocity reload those old Lyman Ladder sights actually work. Makes lots of holes in things not to strong or thick and kicks up lots of dust down range.
I also enjoy the old MP-40, mostly for its evil natness I supposse. It makes slightly smaller holes in things not to strong or too deep and kicks up lots of dust down range.
I admit it the MP 5 has a certain coolness factor as well, though the MP5k is a bit silly and limited in use. I really likes the SD model when set up with a heavy subsonic and a scope with a proper Bullet Drop Compensator for it. I have on a ggod day fired from 25, 35, and 50 meters and kept all shots inside a 50 mm x 50 mm square on semi and very quietly. Right off hand I can not think of a more controllable 9X19mm SMG than the MP5 with either fixed or colapsing stock. On the other hand I never took an MP5 off a range and lived with it for a bit and I have heard too many destressing stories from US troops issued them in the 1980's (Rangers and some ARBN as back ups for 90mm or Dragon gunners) about them not working when needed or just not having the power to do the job when they did. You know how those stories get, especially when talking face to face with witnesses, so I can not verify finicky peration or Girlie-girl performance on fleah and blood targets.
As much as I hate to admit it if told I had to have a 9 monkey masher SMG I might well ask for an UZI. Controls are easy to reach (if stiff on most guns), good repretation in the field, I actually like the grip safety, and I thing the hand finds hand feature for mag changes not only works but has much to appreciate. I would pefer ( as on an HK) the fixed stock but the folder/pincher/ nasty thin steel bit stock works OK and doesn make things smaller
I do not like un modified or unsupressed M-10s. M3 and M3A1 guns are not ergonomic and sfety can be an issue. I like the way a Thompsonof any mark feels and shoots and the controls are all where they need to be.....and they asn their ammo weight too much for Mrs, Hollingsworth boy to be toting around all day. Still for around the house/bunker/ AFV the THompson would be my first choice in .45ACP.
Why babble like this? Because you asked how effective .45 guns are relitice to 9sillymeters. Well the effective gun is the one you will have with you when you need it, will go bang every time you pull the trigger and can hit what needs to be hit with a telling shot.
Having spoken with folks that did shoot folks with one or the other and some that have been shot with one......for wounding power in FMJ loads Ithink I would give a slight edge to the .45 ACP.
Because you mentioned it let me say that if for some reason guys passed the half century mark, with a bad knee a blown rotatator cuff and grossly over weight were called upon to tote one of the caliber guns you mentioned into bad places, I would pick the .30 Carbine in an M-1 carbine with all the post WWII upgrades, bayonet and sheath, and nice reliable 15 round magazines over an UZI, MP5, Sten Mark Whatever, Patchett-Sterling. froggie M-49, Swedish "K", or S&W 76 AND over a .45ACP SMG.
Sounds crazy I know comming from a 1911A1 kind'a guy like me, but a carbine, Machine Karbine, or SMG is not a pistol. If it needs to go to my shoulder and be held in two hands I want more than 9 or 11.25mm performance.
TO close, the theory that multiple hits from an SMG on full auto are some how better or more destructive than the same number of rounds deliverd insemi auto fire has been fairly well debunked. The shock waves of the first hit from full auto pistol caliber rounds are gone by the time the second hits. Ony when the impacts are for all intents simutanious as in a shot gun blast or multiple shell or mine fragments do you get any multiplicaion in the effects to be seen by flesh torn away from the wound tracks of individual rounds. Most hold that if for instance a single hit of a cartridge has a 65 percent chance of stopping a target that those targets that remain get the same 35 percent cahnce of continuing on the first unshot group did and on for a good many shots (eventually them odds have to catch up but whether the say three wounds were deliverd from and uzi in .15 seconds or in 3 seconds frpm a High Point carbine, the actual effects are the same.
What makes an SMG more "effective" than a handgun of the same caliber within hand gun ranges is a function of hit probability within a given time limit, to include the probability of multiple hits. At ranges beyound "normal Handgun ranges" the SMG has a supposed advantage of greater practical accuracy than a hand gun. Not that both the conditions can be over come by training. (Sorry if that sounds too "Cooperish", but there it is)
-Bob Hollingsworth
