old vs new sub machine guns

[Tired_and_hungry]

All things being equal, how much of an edge or advantage do contemporary submachine guns like the MP-5, UMP45 and KRISS have over their vintage bretheren like the MP-40, MP-18 and thompson SMG? If one tactical team armed with latter day SMGs went up against a similarly skilled adversary team armed with old style SMGs in an urban environment, who would prevail? Please assume that both sides carry the same amount of ammo (about 300 rounds per person).

 

[Ian]

I think the main functional improvement between current and older SMGs has been sights (and cost of manufacture). Given two groups of adversaries with equal skill, probably not much difference in outcome (IMO).

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Of course integral suppression would be nice...

 

[JShirley]

Training is the big difference. It's also important to realize the differences between finely crafted subguns like the Thompson, and cheaply made disposables like the Sten or M-3- whenever the arms were made.

John

 

[12Bravo20]

Training is the big difference. It's also important to realize the differences between finely crafted subguns like the Thompson, and cheaply made disposables like the Sten or M-3- whenever the arms were made.

John

Like with anything, training is key. The MP5 is accurate and easy to stay on target and so is the Thompson. A person that is properly trained with a Sten or M3 can keep it on target as well. I carried a M3 for a while in the Army and had an old timer show me how to properly shoot it. With controlled burst, it is easy to keep the M3 on target.

 

[smkummer]

Weight is an issue with a Thompson, then and now. Weight slows one down. I'll take my Uzi and 300 rounds of ammo over my Thompson and 300 rounds of ammo almost all the time.

 

[TCBPATRIOT]

I technicality wouldn't consider the MP5 or the UZI a new design. I'd take a Carl Gustav M70 over most sub guns.

 

[Sam1911]

Advances in ergonomics, higher strength and lower weight materials, better engineering and design optimization ... the new guns almost cannot fail to be easier to hit with accurately and quickly than older, more cave-man simple (sten, M3) or elegant but heavy and complex (Thompson) designs. Heck, even an Uzi feels a bit like a dinosaur relic in the hand compared to more developed, modern designs.

And that's leaving out the most beneficial aspect which is optics. A sub gun set up to (cleanly, efficiently, and ergonomically) use a red-dot or other low-magnification optic is head and shoulders above what passed for sights on most of these weapons.

Again, using the Uzi as an example, the sights are bothersome enough to find and get down on for a single aimed shot. Fire off a short burst and you're trying to find that bit of pop-can-with-a-hole-in-it rear sight and forget the front sight. Sure, many desgins can be retrofitted with some degree of success, but any "tactical" firearm that easily mounts an optic in just the right place (or allows you to put it exactly where YOU can see through it naturally) is just in a different league.

Though the heyday of the sub gun may have passed, the new ones are just better users. Progress marches on.

 

[JTW Jr.]

I have zero issue finding the sights on the UZI and getting fast hits , although I have been shooting mine for about 10 years now. All in what you get used to I guess.
If I had to choose only one to keep , it would be the Uzi , or if ammo keeps skyrocketing , the American 180.

I do not find the Mp5 comfy to shoot.

The Thompson with a 50 round drum is a beast to hold and run with . With mags no problem.

 

[Sam1911]

It's all in what you get used to...if you're comparing one style of iron sight to another of equal relative merit. When you put a decent red-dot up top aligned well with a heads-up stance, there's no comparison.

You "can do" with either. You can do a whole lot better with the optics, hence my point.

 

[Jim K]

With the exception of a slow rate of fire (advantage or disadvantage?) the M3A1 is a very good submachinegun. It is very reliable, functions in very adverse conditions, and is as good as the Thompson for all practical purposes (besides being a lot lighter and less expensive). It might have been better with a double column double feed magazine, but in spite of theory, the DCSF magazines worked OK in the real world. (The orignal M3 was not as good; the M3A1 was a definite improvement.

(And the M3 was the inspiration for the manufacturing method used by one Bill Ruger for his .22 caliber automatic pistol.)

Jim

 

[OcelotZ3]

The Kriss is supposed to be much better at keeping on target due to the reduction in recoil.

 

[TCBPATRIOT]

The KRISS is a piece of junk in my opinion

 

[Sam1911]

The KRISS is a piece of junk in my opinion

What is it about the gun that feels junky to you? How is the controllability and ergos, especially firing burts?

 

[SilentScream]

The KRISS is pretty clunky looking but when holding it, the ergonomics are pretty good. I also think it's design philosophy could very well revolutionize firearms design once it's been refined a little more.
I work on and shoot MP5's and UMP's daily both were/are big advances over their predecessors. The big advance with the MP5 was it's overall build quality & usability, compared to everything that came before, it could be built less expensively BUT BETTER.
The UMP's benefit is that you get a gun almost as robust as an MP5 but with a cheaper price tag, lighter weight, and a design that is more in line with the current style of training/use and use of optics/electronic sights. Also it is pretty universal.

 

[Swampman]

"It's all in what you get used to...if you're comparing one style of iron sight to another of equal relative merit. When you put a decent red-dot up top aligned well with a heads-up stance, there's no comparison.

You "can do" with either. You can do a whole lot better with the optics, hence my point."

If the OPs projected scenario is to have any relevance whatsoever, the weapons would have to be restricted to the sights they were manufactured with. The discussion is an attempt to compare weapons, not electronics.

Obviously if you equip the more modern weapons with the latest thermal imaging scopes, it'll give an overwhelming advantage to the team so equipped, just disengage, wait for nightfall, then pick off your opponents like sitting ducks.

If we open up the registry of old subguns to include the Soumi and PPSH 41 (both used in WWII), the playing field would get a bit more even. Their greater magazine capacity and the accuracy of the Soumi along with the superior penetration/trajectory of the PPSHs 7.62x25 chambering might even give the old war horses an edge!

 

[Sam1911]

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree about that, then.

Picking off your enemies with thermal imaging scopes really falls way outside the role of a sub gun. Quick, close engagements where a red-dot really shines is what sub guns do.

So I think it relevant to count into the equation whether the gun was built to work with such aids or is a little, rather, very hard, or impossible to use them with. Consider that many guns these days (Steyr TMP for example, or the FN P90, or HK's MP7, and others) come from the factory with sights which can only be considered backup sights, with the obvious intent that an optic will be the primary sighting system.

 

[TCBPATRIOT]

I don't like it at all. I think was a solution looking for a problem. Having shot one side by side with a UMP I find the UMP to have better ergonomics,more accurate, and easier to control. And not that it really matters its(at least to me) better looking. And its from a name I can trust.