Are SMGs going the way of the dinosaur?

[natedog]

From what I've read in military and police circles the new "sub-assault rifles" (G-36C and K, M-4, SIG 552, etc) are gaining a lot of popularity over SMGs. If the tests that I've seen performed are correct, 5.56mm penetrates interior walls than 9mm, hits harder, and is apparently better at penetrating body armor (to me that sounds like a somewhat contradictory statement). But it seems that SMGs are going out... What would, for example, an MP5A3 offer over an M-4 Carbine? I believe they have similar lengths. Could noise (or lack therof) be an advantage to the SMG? What about suppression? Pistol calibers can shoot much heavier bullets (think 147gr vs. 55gr.) than these "sub-assault rifles", which I suppose would be important if you needed the bullet to be going subsonic.

 

[tc300mag1]

Well i know that israel is stopping makeing and using the uzi. I would say the SMg like the MP5SD will stay around for the built in silencer. I believe a 223 would go though a lot of body armor at close range and walls but i alwyas thought swat/police wanted to prevent over penatration to keep from shooting the people in the next apartment in a apartment building.

 

[c_yeager]

You know, now that you mention it im not seeing many MP5s at all in the footage from Iraq. It looks like the short barreled ARs are pretty much taking their place. It must make things MUCH easier on the supply chain so it probably makes sense.

 

[Mulliga]

The SMG has limited range and limited penetration. These are the exact same limitations it has had since WWII (Thompsons were heavy, too, but modern stamped metal SMGs are fairly light).

That said, there's no better weapon for combat beyond shotgun range but too close for assault rifle range. 9mm/.40/.45 hollowpoint ammo easily trumps .223/7.62x39 in terms of terminal wound characteristics against unarmored foes. Even with shotguns available for close range, some people prefer a fully auto, smaller weapon than the typical entry shotgun (though I've read a skilled user can unload a Benelli in about 2 seconds).

Silenced SMGs will always be more effective than silenced assault rifles, simply due to the laws of physics.

Overpenetration is a real risk for all non-buckshot weapons. Even typical 9mm FMJ can penetrate several layers of walls if they are the thin kind used in some apartments.

 

[Jim K]

For military purposes, the SMG has been dead for years. The (then) East bloc issued few SMGs after adoption of the AK family, and the U.S. has gone to the M4 carbine for the roles that used to employ the SMG.

For police work, I think the SMG has a place, though I have problems with giving some of the LEO's I know BB guns, let alone MP5's. Cutting half a magazine loose in a city from a 5.56mm is a lot more likely to cause "unforseen consequences" than doing the same with 9mm.

The general trend to military arms and tactics for police is (again IMHO) deplorable. To the military, there is "them" and "us", and "we" can kill "them" without overmuch concern for any "innocents".

But a cop may have a tough time explaining why 30 rounds intended to take out Nasty Ned ended up ten blocks away at a church dedication and did in the Mayor, two councilmen, three local ministers, a TV crew and the archbishop.

Jim

 

[MeekandMild]

I wouldn't write their eulogy just yet. SMGs have often been the weapon of the underdog, easy to make, easy to operate and easy to maintain.

Just think back to who used SMGs: Britain after Dunkirk, Israel in the 40s-60s, Rhodesia during the civil war, Russia during the Winter campaign.

Wow that rhymed in a way though it was kind of lame.

 

[natedog]

Could you clarifly? Because to me it appears that you are saying that a pistol round is more powerful than a rifle round...

9mm/.40/.45 hollowpoint ammo easily trumps .223/7.62x39

 

[cordex]

Could you clarifly? Because to me it appears that you are saying that a pistol round is more powerful than a rifle round...

Maybe he meant out of ubershort barrels?
Or suppressed and using subsonic ammo?

 

[c_yeager]

If we are talking subsonic rounds then yeah the heavier pistol rounds are probably better. But, there isnt a pistol round alive that is more deadly than any full power rifle round at any range.

 

[boofus]

I think SMGs will still be around for a while. The newer designs are very small and compact. The MP7, Glock 18, and TMP are all fairly concealable compared to the short carbines like M4s and G36Cs. I guess if you need firepower but want to keep it low profile like a bodyguard or secret service type assignment SMGs would still be the way to go.

 

[VNgo]

I think SMGs will still be around for a while. The newer designs are very small and compact. The MP7, Glock 18, and TMP are all fairly concealable compared to the short carbines like M4s and G36Cs. I guess if you need firepower but want to keep it low profile like a bodyguard or secret service type assignment SMGs would still be the way to go.

Those are more machine pistols than submachine guns.

 

[444]

I am certainly no expert on the subject, but in the two carbine classes I took at Gunsite, the rangemasters and instructors as well as the written material handed out basically said that SMGs going the way of the dinosaur. These are guys that use these guns professionally either as police officers or in the military. Or as civilian contractors to the military.

The reasons have already been stated. They offer much greater power in a similar sized package, that is just as easy to control.


"5.56mm penetrates interior walls than 9mm, hits harder, and is apparently better at penetrating body armor (to me that sounds like a somewhat contradictory statement). "
I assume you mean the 5.56 penetrates interior walls less than 9mm. It also provides increased penetration in body armor. No, that isn't a contradiction. The reason is that when the 5.56 round hits, it fragments or tumbles. It penetrates the body armor and begins tumbling. This obviously still creates a wound, but is no longer aerodynamic. If you shoot inside a house, the bullet will penetrate the sheetrock and start tumbling. When it hits the sheetrock on the other side of the wall, it probably is going to hit it sideways or some variation of that bleeding even more energy away. A 9mm HP on the other hand will hit sheetrock and the nose fills with the gypsum making it into a solid. The bullet will remain stable and continue to punch through. In addition, the bullet is heavier meaning that it should penetrate further. Another advantage to using a carbine such as the M4 is that you can tailor the ammunition used to the situation. For example, if you knew there was a severe risk involved in overpenetration, you could use a round such as the Hornady TAP (tactical application police) in which the bullet would fragment when it hits. No similar option is avialable in the SMG. The carbine allows for a much greater effective range. Even in short barreled carbines, the round is effective out to 200 yards. Trying to hit someone at 200 yards with a 9mm is not something that would be easy to do without a lot of practice.

 

[Nightcrawler]

But, there isnt a pistol round alive that is more deadly than any full power rifle round at any range.

A 5.56mm isn't a "full power" rifle round to begin with. (At least, according to the NATO definition of what an "assault rifle is".) Out of an 8" barrel, you're losing a LOT. I'd rather have a 10mm out of a short barrel than a 5.56mm, since out of a 8" or so barrel, the velocity difference between the two (depending on the load) won't be that great. Even if it was, the 10mm would make a bigger hole with a lot less flash.

The military stopped using submachine guns for a variety of reasons, but it's also really easier to supply one kind of ammo and one kind of magazine to the forces.

The whole ammunition variety thing doesn't apply to the military, who are stuck with ball or AP ammo. Both of which, in either 9mm or 5.56mm, will go through quite a bit of "stuff", but on the battlefield penetrating cover is more important than fragmentation or expansion of the bullet.

Trying to hit someone at 200 yards with a 9mm is not something that would be easy to do without a lot of practice.

Not with a pistol, no. With a submachine gun I'm told it's not difficult at all. People here that have fired SMGs at range will chime in, I hope. Obviously, 9mm isn't going to have a lot left at 200 yards, though.

Submachine guns can be put into smaller packages than rifles, due to the shorter length of the cartidge. A machine pistol and a submachine gun are the same thing. MP = machine pistol.

IMI still makes the Uzi, and they sell them world-wide. The Mini-Uzi is a better seller these days. HK isn't having a hard time selling MP5s, either, and the UMP seems to be doing okay in sales. So, for better or for worse, the subgun is hanging in there.

Obviously, a large-caliber pistol is preferable to a small caliber rifle round for suppressed use, since the velocity advantage of the rifle is lost when using subsonic ammuniton. (Which bullet would you rather have at 1000 feet per second, a 77gr 5.56mm or a 147 grain 9mm?)

Rifle rounds out of super short barrels also are very loud and have very big muzzle flashes. This is bad in low light if you're trying to preserve your night vision to any extent, or indoors if you don't have ear plugs in.

However, the range and power of the intermediate cartidge rifle over the pistol cartridge subgun can't be denied. (Bear in mind that according to some FAQ page on AR-15.com, though, 5.56mm, out of a 14.5" barrel, isn't going to fragment at 200 yards anyway; the velocity is too low.)

The range can be a double-edged sword, though. Overpenetration concerns are only one part of the equation. Remember, police, typically, MISS a LOT more than they hit. The miss to hit ratio has, I've read, gone up dramatically in recent years. This is the result of inadequate training, of course, and doesn't apply to every officer out there. But, it is a general fact.

So, if you happen to miss your target, which round is going to go farther and do more damage to whatever it hits? The rifle round will. A rifle bullet at 2500-3000 feet per second is going to cover a lot more distance than a pistol bullet at 850-1400 feet per second, and this could be a liability.

As for armor penetration...well, that's a matter of ammo design. The Belgians came up with their small-caliber 5.7mm cartridge. The Russians had a better idea, I think, and simply developed a new armor penetrating 9x19mm round, that's loaded quite hot. I understand that it does just as well as 5.7mm, but makes a bigger hole when it hits.

With that, though, you're not going to get any kind of fragmentation. Fragmentation is primarily the result of a light-weight, lightly-constructed bullet moving at very high velocities, travelling through a thick medium, like a person, a tree, or several walls. The small caliber and high velocity is what allows the 5.56mm round to penetrate soft armor, and the light bullet breaks up in a thick medium. (The thick medium causing enough drag on the bullet, over time, to destablize it and cause it to tumble and/or break up.) As with range, this can also be a double edged sword; sometimes, on the battlefield, you NEED to be able to shoot through walls, trees, cars, etc., and you want the bullet to hold together and go the distance. AP ammo is best for this, but general issue ball ammo should be able to do this too, if not as well.

To wit: Both weapon systems have their place, and more than likely both will continue to see much use for years to come.

 

[R127]

The Finn in me wants to believe in the smg, but at the same time I've always had a problem rationalizing carry that large/heavy a weapon that fires only a pistol round. Currently I've like the idea of a major caliber rifle for hard targets at fighting at a distance, and a short smg, no longer than 16" in a pistol grip configuration for high volume, close range firepower. I could see such an smg, or machine pistol, being useful for a designated marksman or sniper. I've been thinking of a .50cal bmg as my Mad Max rifle, backed up by something small, light and which spits out a lot of bullets quickly. Folding stocked firearms are hard to come by, but a Kel-Tec Sub-2000 would be useful in such a role.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

The reason for the increasing dominance of M4s over SMGs in many armies and large LEO agencies is simple logistics. As mentioned, it's easier to use a gun that uses the same ammo and magazines as the troops standard issue weapon. But it is also easier because they use the same internal parts so there is no need to stock different spare parts, they can use the same accessories, the armorers don't have to learn a different firearm and buy the tools needed to work on a differenct firearm and a biggie is that it is functionally the same as the other M16 variations, so there is less training involved in teaching a new firearm to the troops and then keeping them proficient.

 

[El Tejon]

The machine pistol was designed for a specific application. Many used it for something other than it was designed for out of reasons of logistics.

Will always be around and will always have a tiny tactical niche.

 

[DrDremel]

The main reason for the death of the SMG is logistics. If a short version of a rifle is issued for the role of a smg, parts are the same for most parts, the mags and ammo are the same and there is no difference in the training for the weapon. That is what killed the smg for military use. The smg is still a good weapon, but supplying one kind of ammo mags and parts is easier.

 

[Tony Williams]

The SMG is being squeezed out of military use between the short carbine versions of assault rifles on the one hand, and the new generation of PDWs like the FN P90 and the MK MP7 on the other. The use of body armour can be expected to spread, which will increase the advantage of the smaller calibre/high velocity rounds which are better at punching holes in it.

As has been mentioned, the only real role for SMGs in the future is likely to be in silenced weapons.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

 

[pwrtool45]

If this keeps up, those dinosaurs are going to be pretty well-armed. They've got revolvers and SMGs now. We need to do our part ot make sure they don't get bolt actions, too. Never know. They get TOO well-armed, they might try and take the planet back....

 

[444]

"Out of an 8" barrel....."
Who is using a rifle cartridge out of an 8" barrel ?

"the 10mm would make a bigger hole"
And you are basing this on what ? Really, do you have any data to support this ?

"The whole ammunition variety thing doesn't apply to the military, who are stuck with ball or AP ammo."
That might be true, I don't know. The people that had been using the SMG in the military over the last 20 years or so have far more lattitude in what equipment they use than the average soldier. The real users of SMGs were police officers federal, state, and local. Then can use whatever ammo they want; and do.

"The reason for the increasing dominance of M4s over SMGs in many armies and large LEO agencies is simple logistics. "
"The main reason for the death of the SMG is logistics. "
"The military stopped using submachine guns for a variety of reasons, but it's also really easier to supply one kind of ammo and one kind of magazine to the forces."
I assume we are talking about the present day as the time period of the SMG going the way of the dinosar ? The SMG hasn't been a generally issued military weapon for what 30 years or more ? Sure there have been some issued here and there but mainly it was a tool of the Special Operations Community. So, I have a hard time believing that there was all that big of a logistical problem with SMGs because there wern't a lot of them out there. Law Enforcement: They didn't have to supply parts and ammo to a whole lot of different weapons to remote locations. If they had subguns, they were probably used again, by spec ops units. I don't think there are many PDs that use SMGs for patrol. Again, how big of a logistical problem would this present to supply the few guns they had ?

"People here that have fired SMGs at range will chime in, I hope."
I own a 9mm submachine gun. I also own three 9mm carbines. Shooting them at distance is an exercise in plinking.

"So, if you happen to miss your target, which round is going to go farther and do more damage to whatever it hits? The rifle round will."
I assume we are still talking about firing this weapon indoors or in an urban environment ? That statement would be false. Again, the rifle bullet will tumble or fragment. The pistol bullet will travel on a straight course or richochet.
When you are agruing about velocity, you say that the 10mm probably has close to the same velocity as a 5.56.
Then when you are arguing about the danger of misses, suddenly : "A rifle bullet at 2500-3000 feet per second is going to cover a lot more distance than a pistol bullet at 850-1400 feet per second, and this could be a liability."

"Obviously, a large-caliber pistol is preferable to a small caliber rifle round for suppressed use, since the velocity advantage of the rifle is lost when using subsonic ammuniton."
Most tactical units are not using suppressors to make the rifle silent. They are using them to decrease the blast indoors. They don't use subsonic ammo in the rifle.


In the interest of providing references for my opinions, I am bascially quoting material that was given to me by Pat Rogers, Louis Awerbuck, Jeff Gonzales, Bill Murphy, along with written material by Gary Roberts (mostly the wound ballistic and penetration stuff).
I have a feeling that they know a little bit about this subject.

 

[DrDremel]

The people that had been using the SMG in the military over the last 20 years or so have far more lattitude in what equipment they use than the average soldier. The real users of SMGs were police officers federal, state, and local. Then can use whatever ammo they want; and do.

Actually the smg started to die right after WWII. It was during WWII that the logistics involved became very apparent and it was much easier to supply one type of ammo and have one type of weapons system to supply parts for. SMGs were phased out at that point. They were still used because they were already there but it was dead at that point.

I assume we are talking about the present day as the time period of the SMG going the way of the dinosar ? The SMG hasn't been a generally issued military weapon for what 30 years or more ? Sure there have been some issued here and there but mainly it was a tool of the Special Operations Community. So, I have a hard time believing that there was all that big of a logistical problem with SMGs because there wern't a lot of them out there.

No the SMG did not die suddenly, but over 30 years ago as you stated. Logistics is everythi9ng to the military. Most advancement in military tactics have to do with logistics. Getting the right equipment to the right people at the right time in the quickest manner possible.

I have fired many submachineguns and own a few.

As for soft or hollow point ammunition. No military uses anything but FMJ for the 5.56 round. As for police, they tend to use whatever the military use. This is simply because they want it, not because they need it.


"So, if you happen to miss your target, which round is going to go farther and do more damage to whatever it hits? The rifle round will."
I assume we are still talking about firing this weapon indoors or in an urban environment ? That statement would be false. Again, the rifle bullet will tumble or fragment. The pistol bullet will travel on a straight course or richochet.
When you are agruing about velocity, you say that the 10mm probably has close to the same velocity as a 5.56.
Then when you are arguing about the danger of misses, suddenly : "A rifle bullet at 2500-3000 feet per second is going to cover a lot more distance than a pistol bullet at 850-1400 feet per second, and this could be a liability."

Well you seem to only be thinking in LE terms. A .223 round fired at the same angle as a smg round will go further than the pistol round. The pistol round will hit the ground before the rifle round. This makes the rifle round more dangerous if it does not hit it's target. That was the point he was making.
]

"Obviously, a large-caliber pistol is preferable to a small caliber rifle round for suppressed use, since the velocity advantage of the rifle is lost when using subsonic ammuniton."Most tactical units are not using suppressors to make the rifle silent. They are using them to decrease the blast indoors. They don't use subsonic ammo in the rifle.

decreasing muzzle blast is what makes the gun quieter. That is how silencers work. No silencer is silent. When you want a firearm to be as quiet as possible, the smg is the only option.

 

[Jeff White]

There will always be a small mission profile for a SMG. It's not a good enough general purpose weapon compared to the 5.56mm carbine to keep it in wide distribution.

The 5.56mm carbine has relegated both the SMG and the shotgun from general issue to special purpose weapons. PDWs won't be viable until someone comes up with a cartridge with acceptable terminal ballistics out of a weapon that size. The technology isn't there and won't be in the forseeable future.

Jeff

 

[444]

"Well you seem to only be thinking in LE terms. A .223 round fired at the same angle as a smg round will go further than the pistol round. The pistol round will hit the ground before the rifle round. "

Well I am thinking in terms of LE because, as you say, the American military hasn't used SMGs in any significant quantities for many years. Law Enforcement on the other hand got into the HKs pretty heavy for a number of years long after the military had quit the SMG for all but a few isolated untis. Of course a rifle round will travel further than a pistol round if simply fired in the open at an angle. But, in an urban environment particularly indoors the chances of a bullet not hitting something pretty quick are slim. This was my point. The 5.56 has been proven by more than one reliable source to travel significantly less through common building materials which is what the bullet would be hitting in a typical senario; whether that be sheetrock walls and studs inside a house, or typical exterior building construction.

The point about suppressors was that usually, military and police tactical units are not trying to make a shot so no one will hear it, although I am sure that would be nice. They are more interested in not giving away their position, or decreasing the blast inside a building. For these type of uses, subsonic ammo is not needed.

Ammo: I can only base this on what I have been told by a couple people that I spoke to who use carbines as law enforcement officers. None of them used military ball ammo. I realize this is a couple people out of a whole lot, but that is all I know about for sure. One is a member of a tactical team in Southern California - they used Federal HP. One carried an AR as a regular patrol officer in Colorado - they use Hornady TAP. One carries the AR as a regular patrol officer here in Nevada and they use Federal SP.
As far as pistol caliber ammo in SMGs, I have no idea what is used in law enforcement. But it doesn't really matter. If a HP becomes clogged with sheatrock or wood, it acts as a FMJ. If they are using FMJ to begin with - same result.

 

[Nightcrawler]

Who is using a rifle cartridge out of an 8" barrel ?

Anyone who carries an H&K G36 Commando or an HK53 is. The Sig 552's barrel isn't much longer than that. The M16 isn't the only 5.56mm rifle in the world, you know, and unless I'm mistaken isn't the only rifle being discussed in this thread.

The M4 carbine has a 14.5" barrel. That makes it considerably longer than an MP5. So it's not "just as compact" if it has a longer barrel and a greater overall length, yes?

Okay, let's compare: 5.56mm vs 10mm. 10mm has a larger bore diameter. All other things being equal, it will make a bigger hole in anything than a 5.56mm. If the 5.56mm doesn't fragment, as I've read it's not terribly inclined to do out of an 8" barrel, then the 10mm bullet will make a larger wound, since a 0.40" hole is bigger than a 0.224" hole. Out of a barrel 10" or less, you're giving up a LOT in terms of 5.56mm's performance. An awful lot.

Out of a 14.5", or better yet, a 16" or 20" barrel, 5.56mm has a clear and undeniable advantage. But, in that case, your weapon isn't nearly as compact and handy as a submachine gun. As with everything, it's a tradeoff.

I assume we are still talking about firing this weapon indoors or in an urban environment ?

You're the only one that suggested all shooting takes place indoors. Police do quite a bit of their shooting outside, do they not? Which round will go farther down a crowded urban street, a 5.56mm rifle bullet at 2800 feet per second, or a 9mm pistol bullet at 1200 feet per second? As I said, the range advantage of the 5.56mm carbine can be a double edged sword.

EVERYTHING IS A TRADEOFF. The 5.56mm carbine is NOT always better for everything than a submachine gun, and the submachine gun is NOT always preferable to a 5.56mm carbine. An advantage in one case can be a disadvantage in another. AS I SAID, both weapons have their roles.

That's all I'm trying to say. Longer range means the bullet can go farther if you miss. Less penetration isn't good in the military, but is good in law enforcement. Despite all "urban" this and "urban" that is all the rage these days, people still have gunfights outside. If you shorten the barrel of a 5.56mm carbine to get it as compact as a submachine gun, you're giving up an awful lot in terms of terminal performance. There are AR-15 variants that are as compact as an MP5 submachine gun; they have 6" barrels.

Which would you rather have, a submachine gun or a 6" barreled 5.56mm weapon? I doubt the terminal performance of the two would be much different, and the subgun would have a lot less flash and bang.

The M4 carbine isn't the be-all and end-all of small arms design. It isn't the best weapon for every conceivable mission out there, and yes, it does have disadvantages.

Another advantage of the M4 carbine in the United States is that with so many different people making it, it's easy to get parts and repairs. With a weapon made by one company, you have to go through them for whatever you want. I've read that H&K in particular is pretty picky about letting people order parts for it. It's not a problem with anything in the M16 family.

This advantage only applies to LE in the United States, of course. In Europe or the rest of the world, M16 parts probably are harder to acquire than regionally produced weapons.

As people were saying, logistics has a LOT to do with it.

Nobody here was bashing the M4 carbine, or was saying it's a bad weapon. Yet whenever anybody suggests it's not always the best weapon for everything, somebody always takes it personally.

 

[444]

Aw come on Nightcrawler.
That wasn't a very confrontational post.
One of the great joys of my life is the madatory debate you and I have at least once a week on the M16 family of rifles.
Your stand is too moderate, I can't argue with you on this last post.