from S.W.G.
I don't want to get into the middle of anything, and maybe I'm reading this the wrong way, but (to me at least) you're coming across as kind of rude.
Just sayin'.
Perhaps that is not rudeness, but frustration, at the stubborn irrationality displayed by people who simply
won't face facts. It's hard not to lose patience with people who stubbornly cling to demonstrably bad ideas. Wishful thinking is simply not an admirable quality, and frustration with those who insist in engaging in it is understandable.
See below for more examples...
Since when does a pistol's accuracy get compared to that of a rifle(except T/C Contender of course)? The machine pistol does not need to put 2 bullets in on hole, it needs to put two bullets in a 2" or less group at 7 yards.
Actually it does need to be about as accurate, relative to the ranges at which it would be used, as the rifles I mentioned. The G11 and AN-94 were designed, not as weapons to be issued to snipers or designated marksmen, but to common soldiers. They didn't need to be minute of angle accurate, they just need to be capable of putting a burst on a man-sized target at reasonable ranges.
The recoil is not nearly severe enough to bring the muzzle up as fast as you say it will. If people are capable of double tapping their pistols with that kind of accuracy, why can't a two-round-burst pistol produce the same accuracy?
Because it doesn't! It just doesn't.
For the tenth time -- WHY AREN'T THERE MORE FULL AUTO PISTOLS? Why are almost all the models that have ever been made out of production? Why don't more people use them? Why don't elite police, military, and antiterrorist units, who have the luxury of operating in free fire zones that civilians
NEVER WILL, use these weapons? Why don't they?
You can ask why all you want, but it doesn't change the facts. They aren't controllable enough even for these elite operators, nevermind civilians who, if they ever shoot in anger, will do so in areas where bystanders must always be considered. Even the Glock 18, which is perhaps the least uncontrollable of these things so far, has found very, very few customers.
Pistols are secondary weapons. Apart from very, very specific applications (e.g. Vietnam tunnel rats) where a pistol's small size is uniquely advantageous, it's
never preferred over a long gun as a weapon by those who are expecting trouble. It is only carried and used for the reason that, unlike other small arms, it is compact enough to be carried at all times. Eight decades of experience, from the days of the Mauser Schnellfeuerpistole onward, have taught us that a full auto pistol is simply a poor compromise of characteristics. Period. Full stop. End of story.
The only advantages a pistol has - compactness, concealability,capability of one-hand operation -- become liabilities when combined with full auto fire in serious cartridges. The result is a weapon that is needlessly complex, from a mechanical standpoint, offers no performance advantage over semi-auto pistols, wastes ammo, and isn't sufficiently precise. Eight decades of experience have taught us, the hard way, that if you want to take advantage of full auto fire, you simply have to step up to a larger, more easily controlled weapon. If compactness, or convenience of carry is the premium quality, then you simply have to accept being limited to semi-auto fire as the price you pay for the convenience of a small, compact, concealable weapon.
Life is all about trade offs. You can't have everything at once. To get some things, you have to give up some others. Why can't you accept that this applies to firearms, just like it does everything else in the universe?