Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Colin1
Senior Master Sergeant
The PPsH
for simple, mechanical reliability and a nice supply of ammunition
for simple, mechanical reliability and a nice supply of ammunition
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
PPsh41 reliable, looks cool and easy to make. What more do you want from an SMG.
Ferdinand Foch
Staff Sergeant
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.
I would've taken the sten, but I think I'd have a better time hitting a target with the ppsh.
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
Honorable mention to the Suomi.
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
I did too. I'd like to point out that I'd rather have an M1 carbine than any SMG.
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."
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
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
They are very cheap and easy to build and still cranked out in little underground gun shops all over the world.
- Thread starter
- #10
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
Airman
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
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
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
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
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
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
1st Lieutenant
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.
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
Senior Master Sergeant
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
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
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.
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
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
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.
