Favorite Sub-machine gun

Favorite Sub machine gun

  • Total voters
    14

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

The PPSh-43 was still better than the PPSh-41, and the PPSh-41 wasn't exactly art.
 
The PPSh43 exaggerated the low lethality of the Soviet 7.62 round, was really not much better than the MP40 - that's a nice one.

NS:

I meant the weight and compactness really, though the Tommy's stock could be detached.

It's all you need on a submachine gun because there's no way in hell you're going to hit anything spot-on beyond about 50 yards anyway.
Click to expand...

It is actually very accurate, there was even a Program with Jezza Clarkson and the Brit Army showing it's abilities. 8) Plus it's recoil ain't bad, due to it being so heavy and having a muzzle break.

But what was with the top fed magazine?
Click to expand...

"it helped when moving through thick cover."

- Rifles and SMGs

- Major Fredrick Myatt M.C.

The Owen could also be fired one-handed like an Uzi. 8)


One that's been forgotten here is the Sterling, or Patchett as it was called then.

Didn't see much WW2 service, but was one of the best.

Uncomfy, but not if you were used to a Sten.
 
Well the effective ranges of the PPS-43 and the PPSh-41 were both about double that of the MP-40, so I'd say the Soviet 7.62mm round had plenty of lethality. Especially close up.
 
Yes, the PPS-43 was superior to both the PPSh-41 and MP-40. As I said before, it's considered to be one of the best SMGs of the war. And I would certainly rank it in the top three.

My father fired the Sterling and wasn't much impressed. He said it felt like holding a toy. But then he was also trained on the much loved SLR.
 
I just missed out on the Sterling. They discontinued the training with it not long before I joined up, and had switched completely over to the MP-5. According to everyone I know who had fired it, it was a clunker.
 
I think the Sterling is still the most powerful 9mm weapon?

It was auto, compact and very reliable and often silenced.

Popular with my family.

The SLR didn't have any of those features, apart from being reliable.
 
You're a retard if you think the SLR wasn't good. The SLR was reliable, accurate, long range and it actually felt like a real gun. The SLR is one of the best rifles in the world ...ever.
 
My dad had no problem with the SLR. The only problem would be the length, as you said, in house-to-house fighting. The weight found no problem with my dad, he loved the feel of that wonderful rifle.
 
Ahem...

Well, I tried out most available weaps in combat situations, and it was just too damn big... It was a great weapon, no doubt pD, and if there was fighting in the Sahara or Antarctica, it might be a weapon for a skilled operator to use... The weight wasnt so much of a handicap as to the size of it..
 
You know, it never even occurred to me to ask any Falklands vets what they thought of it.
I don't know any of the old timers from the British Army or Royal Marines anymore. The guys I know only had SA80 experience.

I seem to recall that there was some misgiving among a lot of British troops about having to give up their SLR's for the SA80's, after the Falklands. Most regular infantry types that I've spoken with in the Canadian Army were only too happy to give up the old C1's for the C7's (licence built, ever so slightly modified M-16).
 
I actually like the SLR PlanD, it's just not auto.

The SLR was no good for paras or jungle fighting, though I know a few people who loved it for the latter. Some 'borrowed' Argentinian versions had folding stocks.

Close range it was lethal too, though not nearly as much as an AK47, AR-15 or Sterling.

You could also give someone a good whack with it or when using the bayonet the length was an advantage.

The SA80 is disliked because it is a horrible weapon, worse than the Sten or Chincom 56.

The C7 is good and is full auto, there was a clamour for the AR-15s when it came out despite the unrealiablity because of its weight (and that of it's ammo) and full-auto rifle ability. Though you look after it and it's OK.
 
The SLR was fine for any kind of combat. My father carried a SLR through Northern Ireland, Falklands and the Gulf. And he was glad he left the RAF before the SA80 came in. In fact, he was the last guard commander at RAF Finningley before it switched to the SA80. "It's not auto..." so what? The British forces are trained for single aimed shots to drop the opponent in one ...the 7.62mm round will drop them in one, especially in the hands of a marksman like my dad. And yes, he has the marksman badge.
 
Oh yes, like I said some love it, usually markmen like your dad.

However sometimes compactness and auto fire are vital, would you use it for CQB or hostage situations?

Would the MG42, AK47, MP40 or PPSh41 be as good if they were single-shot?

I know of it's use in Malaya and Aden by friends/family who loved it and I like it but some would pick a Sterling or AR-15 9 times out of 10, and no they're not crap shots.

If you are a crap shot, then the SLR is not really for you either.
 
The M-16 and M-4 are not auto and they are just fine. You dont have to be fully auto to be a good gun. In fact for most scenerios a fully auto is a waste of ammo.

Dont go into the M-16 being fully auto either. Yes the older versions were but the A-2, A-3, and A-4 are not fully auto and there is a reason why it was a waste of ammo and if you needed to put out lots of ammo you have 3 round burst.
 
All of the Canadian versions (C7, C7A1, C8 ) have the auto-fire capability, and there are certainly times when it's good to have. Like any good soldiers, the boys are trained to conserve the ammo as much as possible of course, and single-shot marksmanship is essential. They train that way constantly. Just because the weapon has the automatic setting, it doesn't mean that they don't train to fire in controlled bursts. They do.
 
Then Canadian versions are liscence built versions of the M-16 that were early versions - Vietnam era. From the A-2 onwards the US only used the 3 round burst and semi auto selectors on there M-16s.
 
No, the Canadian versions were modified that way deliberately. They're based on the M-16A2, M-16A3, and M4 but lack the 3 round burst setting and instead have the full-auto setting. That's how the Canadian Forces wanted them. Denmark and the Netherlands use C7's as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
The D-Day Naval Gun Battle
Replies
0
Views
723
MIflyer
M
The Rise and Fall of the Nazi War Machine
Replies
5
Views
1K
pbehn
P
Favorite "obscure" theater or World War II to research?
Replies
9
Views
1K
EwenS
E
Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress Aircraft Gunner from the series: "Masters Of The Air"
Replies
2
Views
1K
The Stannum Liberator
Favorite WWII movie soundtrack?
Replies
8
Views
720
chipieal
Menu
Log in
Register