machine pistol vs. small SMG

[simonrichter]

I always wondered why the US Army would choose the APC9 over e.g. the MP9 or the MP7. Are there any inherent advantages of the classic SMG design compared to the magazine-in-pistol-grip machine pistol layout? When it comes to compact size with still a useful barrel length, doesn't the latter fare much better? The question applies for the semiauto versions as well, of course!

 

[rc]

I'm no expert but I think with the magazine in the pistol grip the overall length can be made shorter.

 

[44 AMP]

Are there any inherent advantages of the classic SMG design compared to the magazine-in-pistol-grip machine pistol layout?

I think there are. And there are advantages to the other style as well. As to what the Army chooses and why, could be a lot of different things I'm not privy to. Sometimes its just cost. Other times it's other things, including perceptions of how one thing or another "enhances mission performance" or some other technobabbel in current favor.

ONE point where the separate pistol grip and magazine have an advantage is in how well most people can point and shoot them. In the "classic" SMG designs, with separate pistol grips and magazines, the pistol grips are nearly always angled a little or even a lot, to make a more easily used, ergonomic grip for the hand, and I believe this aids in being able to point and shoot well.

I've used classic style guns and I've used the mag in the pistol grip tyoe (Uzi, Mac 10 etc) and find those guns have pistol grips that are essentially straigh up and down. THis is not the most comfortable or easiest to use. Certainly works, but I think an angled pistol grip is better. what I can tell you from personal experience shooting a Mac 10 style semiauto as a pistol in 9mm, that while the gun was bigger and heavier than a regular 9mm pistol, felt recoil and muzzle flip were WORSE than a standard 9mm duty pistol. I put this down to the "T" shape of the gun, its straight up and down pistol grip, and the weight of the heavy bolt moving back and forth at 90 degrees to where one held it. Quite surprising, actually.

On the plus side of the mag in the grip, is ease of reloading. The "hand finds hand" does work, both in the dark and when you can't afford to look at what you are doing.

Do they balance or cancel each other out? Judgement call. yes for some folks, no, for others.

 

[4V50 Gary]

Cool factor but that doesn't count.

Depends on who writes up the criteria and how unbiased that writer is.

 

[simonrichter]

thank you 44 AMP, that were maybe exactly the points I was missing!

 

[SIGSHR]

Military small arms procurement is as much a matter of fashion,trends,style,"experience", theory as it is of true practicality and efficiency. The Thompson gave way to the Sten Gun and the M3 because the latter were designed for rapid low cost production by at best semi-skilled labor, the Army basically dropped the "Grease Gun" in the 1950s , deciding it wasn't that effective. There was supposed to be a heavy barrel version of the M-14, the M-15 to replace the BAR, that was approved but never produced. At present "bull pup" designs seem to be "in".

 

[ghbucky]

On the plus side of the mag in the grip, is ease of reloading. The "hand finds hand" does work, both in the dark and when you can't afford to look at what you are doing.

I read somewhere, a long time ago, that this was the reason for the uzi design.

 

[44 AMP]

the Army basically dropped the "Grease Gun" in the 1950s in the 1950s, deciding it wasn't that effective.

This needs a little expansion to be correctly understood.

The Army didn't drop the Grease Gun in the 50s, and it wasn't considered "not that effective".

What the Army did (in the 50s) was decide that the idea of a pistol caliber submachine gun for infantry troops was no longer that effective/efficient. Then didn't "drop" the Grease Gun, what they dropped was issuing SMGs to the INFANTRY. The Grease Gun, (both M3 and M3A1) were in active duty service in the 70s, (I know this from personal experience) and I've heard some were still in service in the "sandbox" Gulf Wars in the 90s.

But, they weren't in the hands of the infantry, they were in ARMOR units. Tankers got Grease Guns and .45 pistols. While the Grease Guns were individual weapons and issued from the arms rooms as such, they were considered part of the vehicle "on board" equipment. SO, while not in infantry use, they were not dropped or relegated to special use by small groups, they were is "frontline" use in Armored divisions through the end of the 70s, and in some cases, beyond. This is a fact, I was there (till 10/78), and worked on some of them. An armor company arms room held the machine guns for the tanks and other tracks, 1911A1 pistols for officers and some others, M3/M3A1 grease guns for the tank crews and M16A1s for the rest of the company troops.

During the 50s, a segment of the Army became enamored (some say obsessed) with having one "do it all" rifle. They tried to do it with the M14 and nearly ruined a fine rifle in the process. They wanted something to replace the BAR, the SMG, and the regular infantry rifle (m1 Garand) and the M1 carbine.

The M14 was a good rifle. It would have been an excellent and superior replacement for the M1 Garand. But it wasn't allowed to be just that. Too big, too heavy and too powerful to be a good carbine and not even close to what makes a good SMG, and at the same time NOT heavy enough to be a good LMG/automatic rifle. Much is made of the short service life of the M14 as if that were in some way due to its failings as a rifle. It wasn't. The MacNamara Defense Dept decided that ALL the military was going to use the m16, whether they wanted to, or not.

The story is out there, well known to some, and widely misunderstood by a lot more.

back to SMGs, "machine pistols", meaning the smallest SMGs are widely favored where open wear of a larger SMG is not allowed. Bodyguards and others who must be armed but cannot appear armed to the public favor the smallest SMG and accept their drawbacks. Larger guns are easier to handle and use, but are too big for anything but open carry.

One hand use of machine pistols is possible, (and dramatic, they love it in the movies) but to me it is the literal definition of "spray and pray!"

 

[SIGSHR]

I fired the M3A1 , it was in the M88 recovery vehicle of the mech infantry battalion I was in at the time-National Guard. Basically our version of the Sten Gun.

 

[Brit]

When I lived in Ontario Canada (for 46 years) I owned a Sten Gun, and a Sterling Sub Machine gun. The problem was not too many places to legally shoot them.

The easiest way, join a military range. The Sterling magazines were superior to the Sten gun magazines, which was the source of stoppages. But the magazine protruding from the side, with both models, made for comfort when shooting from prone, the 9 mm cartridge was also the same cartridge as the Mil-Spec pistols, an advantage.