# SMG Shootout



## Amsel (Dec 9, 2009)

If given the choice of SMG's which WWII SMG would you go with.


----------



## Colin1 (Dec 9, 2009)

The PPsH
for simple, mechanical reliability and a nice supply of ammunition


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 9, 2009)

PPsh41 reliable, looks cool and easy to make. What more do you want from an SMG.


----------



## Ferdinand Foch (Dec 9, 2009)

Yeah, I have to agree with the ppsh 41. A 71 magazine case, and an almost perfect record of never jamming. What else could you ask for with an smg. 
I would've taken the sten, but I think I'd have a better time hitting a target with the ppsh.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 9, 2009)

Honorable mention to the Suomi.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 9, 2009)

Yep, Suomi is perhaps the best. Voted for PPSh-41.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 9, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> Yep, Suomi is perhaps the best. Voted for PPSh-41.


I did too. I'd like to point out that I'd rather have an M1 carbine than any SMG.


----------



## timshatz (Dec 9, 2009)

Everybody already noted why the PPsh was the weapon of choice. 

Just to add that I once saw one of those things open up (on vid). It had a circular drum and the sluggs just kept comming. Litterally, it was like watching a wall of lead.

Knew a guy who was in Iraq during the invasion. Came accross a ton of weapons on the battlefield. AKs, Stens, Tommy and Grease guns (evidently, Iraq collected just about everyone's weapons). He ended up carrying a Ppsh (as his personal weapon) for the reasons everyone noted. As he said, "It works."


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 9, 2009)

timshatz said:


> Everybody already noted why the PPsh was the weapon of choice.
> 
> Just to add that I once saw one of those things open up (on vid). It had a circular drum and the sluggs just kept comming. Litterally, it was like watching a wall of lead.
> 
> Knew a guy who was in Iraq during the invasion. Came accross a ton of weapons on the battlefield. AKs, Stens, Tommy and Grease guns (evidently, Iraq collected just about everyone's weapons). He ended up carrying a Ppsh (as his personal weapon) for the reasons everyone noted. As he said, "It works."


They are very cheap and easy to build and still cranked out in little underground gun shops all over the world.


----------



## Amsel (Dec 9, 2009)

I really like the 'Papa shaw' for the amount of high powered lead it can put out. I chose the MP40 mainly due to the very accurate automatic fire it puts out and the folding stock.


----------



## timshatz (Dec 10, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> and still cranked out in little underground gun shops all over the world.



Did not know that. Figured they were leftovers from WW2. But believealble, especially due to the aforementioned simplicty. Hell, ammo is probably tougher to make.

Learn something new every day.


----------



## dragonandhistail (Dec 10, 2009)

The PPSh 41 was rugged, very mechanically reliable, and had a large drum magazine. It gets my vote. If I had a choice though the M-1 Garand is my baby because i can hit targets at 500 meters and I hit what I aim at. Subguns are junk. That's why no one uses them anymore.:twisted


----------



## Soren (Dec 10, 2009)

Amsel said:


> I really like the 'Papa shaw' for the amount of high powered lead it can put out. I chose the MP40 mainly due to the very accurate automatic fire it puts out and the folding stock.



Same here, and also a very reliable weapon. 

That having been said that's just considering a changing battlefield inviroment, cause in certain areas the PPSH-41 is the better choice, and vice versa. For example when putting out covering fire, the much larger capacity drum on the PPSH will prove invaluable. While the MP40 is better at quickly and effectly dealing with a target, putting more rounds on target instead of just all over.

The Sten I would never personally vote for, it was a dreadful piece of kit which had a nasty habbit of going off even by the slightest jolt. Not a nice weapon to hold either. A very crude piece of kit.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 10, 2009)

timshatz said:


> Did not know that. Figured they were leftovers from WW2. But believealble, especially due to the aforementioned simplicty. Hell, ammo is probably tougher to make.
> 
> Learn something new every day.


Ammo is pretty easy to get. It was the standard pistol cartridge of Russia and China until the adoption of the 9x18, and even then they didn't stop making the ammo by any means. In Russia, just because they adopt the Makarov, doesn't mean you necessarily get to replace your Tokarev.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 10, 2009)

The Sten had only one good thing going for it, it was cheap. But then if I had only 10 dollars to spend I think I'd still rather have the M3 Grease Gun. The M3 has performed competitively with far more expensive guns because of the very slow cyclic rate and resulting controllability. Also I knew a guy who had one in Vietnam, he said it would work no matter how filthy it got.


----------



## davebender (Dec 10, 2009)

No argument there. 

However at about $40 each the M1 carbine was somewhat expensive. You can purchase a modern SMG like the MP40 for half as much.


----------



## Colin1 (Dec 10, 2009)

dragonandhistail said:


> The PPSh 41 was rugged, very mechanically reliable, and had a large drum magazine. It gets my vote. If I had a choice though the M-1 Garand is my baby because i can hit targets at 500 meters and I hit what I aim at. Subguns are junk. That's why no one uses them anymore


Well OK
but I think the theme of the post is SMGs and SMGs aren't designed for targets 500m away, they're for up close and personal. 

At 44" long, the Garand isn't going to be that easy to wield in the close-quarter battle environment of the SMG.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 10, 2009)

dragonandhistail said:


> The PPSh 41 was rugged, very mechanically reliable, and had a large drum magazine. It gets my vote. If I had a choice though the M-1 Garand is my baby because i can hit targets at 500 meters and I hit what I aim at. Subguns are junk. That's why no one uses them anymore.:twisted



Yeah, you'd better tell H&K to stop taking money for the MP5. I think they are behind the curve and still stupidly making millions off of it. You should also tell the Special Forces of pretty much every country on earth that their sub guns are junk and they are idiots for using them effectively on every continent.


----------



## Soren (Dec 10, 2009)

The SMG still has some life back in it for sure, but it is true that it's reaching the end of its useful lifespan in comparison to the new tools arriving. At this point H&K have already succeeded in making a weapon as small and light as the MP5 with as light a recoil, firing projectiles capable of defeating body armour out to 200m, and spec ops, anti terror and police organizations around the world will no doubt shift towards these weapons in the near future.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 11, 2009)

Soren said:


> The SMG still has some life back in it for sure, but it is true that it's reaching the end of its useful lifespan in comparison to the new tools arriving. At this point H&K have already succeeded in making a weapon as small and light as the MP5 with as light a recoil, firing projectiles capable of defeating body armour out to 200m, and spec ops, anti terror and police organizations around the world will no doubt shift towards these weapons in the near future.


PDW weapons like the P-90 and the MP-7(especially the MP7) have complaints about stopping power, their small fast projectiles tent to go through body armor but have poor wound ballistics. That's why those weapons have been out since 1990 and 2001 respectively and have yet to displace sub guns satisfactorily.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 11, 2009)

Is there a SMG that fires .30 Carbine ammo? That would provide both stopping power and ability to pierce something.


----------



## Glider (Dec 11, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> Yeah, you'd better tell H&K to stop taking money for the MP5. I think they are behind the curve and still stupidly making millions off of it. You should also tell the Special Forces of pretty much every country on earth that their sub guns are junk and they are idiots for using them effectively on every continent.



As long as people keep buying them you cannot blame HK for making them.


----------



## Colin1 (Dec 11, 2009)

Glider said:


> As long as people keep buying them you cannot blame HK for making them.


I think I detected a note of sarcasm in Clay's answer, I don't think he was being serious

As long as there's terrorism, there'll always be a role for the SMG; an SMG will burst into a room (with a soldier behind it, obviously  ) and kill the bad guy. The full-calibre weapon will do the same, albeit probably more clumsily but the problem is that it will strike the intended victim, the wall behind the intended victim and then the unintended victim on the other side of the wall.

Then you've got military personnel working in field complexes, full calibre weapons are mostly inappropriate for this kind of work.


----------



## Juha (Dec 11, 2009)

Hello
I didn’t like Suomi SMG, even if it was the only gun with which I got excellent results at target range. After RK 62 it felt like a toy gun and IMHO the drum was not nice to load but of course with full magazine you had nice amount of firing time.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Dec 11, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> PDW weapons like the P-90 and the MP-7(especially the MP7) have complaints about stopping power, their small fast projectiles tent to go through body armor but have poor wound ballistics. That's why those weapons have been out since 1990 and 2001 respectively and have yet to displace sub guns satisfactorily.



Clay, there haven't been any complaints AFAIK, the small but excessively fast projectiles creating very larger wounds once entering a body. The temporary cavity created is large by virtue of the high velocity alone, and even larger as the bullets tend to tumble and break up.

The main problem so far has been cost.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 11, 2009)

Soren said:


> Clay, there haven't been any complaints AFAIK, the small but excessively fast projectiles creating very larger wounds once entering a body. The temporary cavity created is large by virtue of the high velocity alone, and even larger as the bullets tend to tumble and break up.
> 
> The main problem so far has been cost.





Wiki said:


> Typical PDWs use small-caliber, high-velocity pistol bullets capable of penetrating soft body armor up to Level IIIa. However, the wound characteristics of such ultra-light, high-velocity bullets are the object of some debate as their stopping power against unarmored opponents is considered inadequate.
> The 4.6 x 30 mm and 5.7 x 28 mm cartridges have been criticized for their low terminal effectiveness. This claim comes especially from those who discount the "energy dump" theory of wound ballistics such as Dr. Martin Fackler and Dr. Gary Roberts. Kinetic energy manifests itself in human tissue in temporary stretching of tissue, which most tissue (except for liver and neural tissue) is able to withstand with little ill effect. Dr. Fackler and Dr. Roberts argue that the combination of a tiny permanent wound cavity and frequently insufficient penetration (the US Federal Bureau of Investigation recommends a minimum of 12 inches of penetration in ballistic gel) make these PDW cartridges terrible terminal performers.



This pretty much echoes the sentiments expressed in nearly every article I've read on them. If cost was the issue, you could chamber a much cheaper weapon in the same caliber. A scaled down Kalashnikov action could handle a PDW round as well as the MP7.

The fact is that a little steel penetrator bullet doesn't have the right qualities to really stop an attacker. 

P.S. the submachinegun/PDW will always be needed because of their compactness. You don't want to go swinging a Garand around inside a house, you need something quick and handy with a lot of firepower.

P.P.S. Imagine one of these in .45 winchester magnum


----------



## Glider (Dec 11, 2009)

Looking at that, I was wondering why they bothered with a sight.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 11, 2009)

Glider said:


> Looking at that, I was wondering why they bothered with a sight.



I wonder what the muzzle velocity is

Great entry weapon though, one burst from that thing and you won't need stun grenades


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 11, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> I wonder what the muzzle velocity is
> 
> Great entry weapon though, one burst from that thing and you won't need stun grenades


in 7.62x39 the MV kinda sucks, but if you put a round with a big heavy bullet in it you can limit the energy loss.


----------



## Soren (Dec 12, 2009)

I wouldn't put too much faith in mr. Fackler Roberts, having myself seen what effects a supersonic bullet has on the human body. 

The main problem with these new weapons is like I said cost, but not just of the weapons themselves, it's the ammunition which is expensive.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 13, 2009)

Soren said:


> I wouldn't put too much faith in mr. Fackler Roberts, having myself seen what effects a supersonic bullet has on the human body.
> 
> The main problem with these new weapons is like I said cost, but not just of the weapons themselves, it's the ammunition which is expensive.


I'm very familiar with the "explosive wound" effect but that assumes the bullet to be at 2400 feet per second at wound entry (hard to do out of a short SMG barrel) and has really only been observed in lead bullets that deform on impact. Steel bullets may be a different matter and I wonder if they would have as dramatic an effect.


----------



## Soren (Dec 13, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> I'm very familiar with the "explosive wound" effect but that assumes the bullet to be at 2400 feet per second at wound entry (hard to do out of a short SMG barrel) and has really only been observed in lead bullets that deform on impact. Steel bullets may be a different matter and I wonder if they would have as dramatic an effect.




That's not really true Clay, the 5.7x28mm round has been through gelatine tests and the effects obtained were larger han those by normal handgun ammunitions. I'm talking mostly about shockwave effects destroying surrounding tissue, creating a large temporary cavity, which is what makes supersonic rounds so lethal. As soon as you begin going well supersonic odd things start to happen when a projectile enters human flesh. 

There's a good link here showing just how lethal the 5.7x28mm round is :http://www.fivesevenforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=57 

All the rumors floating around about the 5.7x28mm lacking stopping power are pure conjecture, it packs a mighty punch and is more lethal than most pistol rounds, esp. because it penetrates kevlar vests on top of turning your guts into grinded meat.


----------



## Soren (Dec 13, 2009)

From the guy who did the gelatine tests above:

_For The folks who are scrolling through these pics, Most of the photos are of regular ballistics gel being used to test the performance of the listed rounds fired out of the Five-seveN handgun. I did the meat and blue ballistics gel testing (which is actually not gel but waxy stuff) that you see in the middle.
The meat shown is a 22lb block of pork shoulder I purchased from Sam's Club. I did this test because I had recently purchased my Five-seveN and kept hearing all the negative information about the 57x28mm's poor stopping power. I also heard things like it is basically just a .22 magnum and you would be a fool to carry this round for self defense. I had to put an end to all the mis information and rumors my self. My results pretty much confirmed what several people on this forum had already told me. The pics speak for themselves.
I did the test on a warm 70 degree night and the meat's temperature was about 57 degrees (a lot colder than a living specimen) just before I shot it. The meat was placed 10' from the muzzle of my Five-seveN USG and 1 round of SS195 was fired into it. The white zip tie shows the bullet's path and you can see where the bullet nearly exited the meat on the right lower portion. The total penetration was just under 9 inches and the permanent wound cavity measured right at 4 inches in diameter! Yes, I said it, a permanent wound cavity of 4 inches! If you study the pics closely you will see the bullet entered almost right in the center of the block, began to tumble/yaw at about the 2 inch mark which spread the wound channel to nearly 4 inches wide, continuing for the next 6 inches. The bullet began to lose it's energy, stopped tumbling and began to go down in it's path, finally stopping facing sideways with the tip of the bullet pointing up. 
If you look at the other ballistic gel testing, the results are pretty similar. Keep in mind that Pork meat is much tougher and denser than any type of human tissue.
The blue gel testing is actually a testing product called "Bullet Test Tube" (do a search for it, you can buy it yourself) and it is a waxy media used for testing bullet expansion. The test was set up the same as the meat testing and you can see similar results with slightly less penetration and cavitations, which is due to the characteristics of the wax. The company recommends you multiply the measurements you get by 1.34 to get an idea of what the bullet would do in flesh.
If you own a Five-seveN or are curious about it and need to prove the terminal performance yourself, I would recommend you try the meat test yourself. The block of meat was readily avalible and cost about $18. Thanks for taking the time to read this, I hope this helps clear up some of the rumors and/or wrong information about the 5.7x28mm._


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 13, 2009)

> That's not really true Clay, the 5.7x28mm round has been through gelatine tests and the effects obtained were larger han those by normal handgun ammunitions. I'm talking mostly about shockwave effects destroying surrounding tissue, creating a large *temporary cavity*, which is what makes supersonic rounds so lethal. As soon as you begin going well supersonic odd things start to happen when a projectile enters human flesh.



Temporary cavities made by rounds that don't tumble, deform, or fragment have never proven to be very effective. With enough speed and energy, those cavities become permanent because the tissue can't stretch fast enough to get out of the bullet's way without rupturing. Usually these wounds are greatly enhanced by the fracturing, deformation, or tumbling of the bullet.

I have no doubt that the 5.7x28 has the capacity to make those kinds of wounds with some loads, but can they do it with AP ammunition? I doubt that the cartridge can be loaded to BOTH defeat body armor AND give good wound performance. On the other hand I suppose you could carry some of both in the magazine.


----------



## Doughboy (Dec 13, 2009)

I'd choose the MP-40 because it was accurate, reliable, and it didn't jam very often... Another bonus is that you can take ammo from a dead British soldier if he has a Sten and you're fighting the British.


----------



## stug3 (Aug 9, 2012)

I like the PPS-43 PPsh-41 very much, but I would choose the US M3A1 because I think .45 ACP is the best round for an smg. And they made 9mm conversion kits for it which could come in handy.


----------

