# Shotgun Pistol



## Pieman (27 Apr 2016)

The CF uses the 9mm Browning and a 9mm Sigsauer (I don't recall the model). I've shot both these pistols. My Browning would fall apart frequently and I'm pretty sure it would have been better to throw it at the enemy than try and shoot it. My Sig was a lovely handgun, but for someone who didn't have much practice (next to none) with a handgun it was a bitch to hit anything even from a short distance. I actually had no training on handguns initially, they just gave me one when I deployed.

For personal defense, I have a Mossberg 500 'tactical' shoutgun with no choke. If I get into a situation where I have to use it, it's likely to be up close and I just have to point in the general direction. The spread will take care of the rest. 

I spotted this pistol, 'The Judge' which is a pistol that can shoot .45 Colt ammo and .410 2-1/2" shotshell. My thought is that the shotgun shell option would be better to have as if I am going to pull my pistol it would be in close quarters anyway....or I would at least try to get close enough so I had an actual chance of hitting something!  The .45 cal is overkill I'm sure, but the shotgun shell option is really appealing. 

Think our forces would be better off using a pistol like this?

http://www.taurususa.com/product-details.cfm?id=199&category=revolver


----------



## Eaglelord17 (27 Apr 2016)

Pistols are next to useless. Effective range of 25m, and unless you practice a fair bit (i.e. not the training we normally receive) hard to be effective with. They are more a status symbol than anything else. Personally I believe we should do away with them as we can spend that same money on other equipment that will help us kill our enemies much more effectively than pistols will (things like Arty, a new B class fleet, etc.).

I like the logic the Americans had in WWII, with the M1 Carbine. Lighter than the service rifle but still effective for short to medium range, and definitely better than a pistol. A SMG would also be a better option for short range to medium range, as it takes less training to be effective in comparison to a pistol and some are pretty compact and light now (just slightly heavier than a pistol). A SMG would also give us more tactical options for short range combat than a pistol will ever do.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Apr 2016)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> Pistols are next to useless. Effective range of 25m, and unless you practice a fair bit (i.e. not the training we normally receive) hard to be effective with. They are more a status symbol than anything else. Personally I believe we should do away with them as we can spend that same money on other equipment that will help us kill our enemies much more effectively than pistols will (things like Arty, a new B class fleet, etc.).
> 
> I like the logic the Americans had in WWII, with the M1 Carbine. Lighter than the service rifle but still effective for short to medium range, and definitely better than a pistol. A SMG would also be a better option for short range to medium range, as it takes less training to be effective in comparison to a pistol and some are pretty compact and light now (just slightly heavier than a pistol). A SMG would also give us more tactical options for short range combat than a pistol will ever do.



At the same time, the "Tunnel Rats" in Vietnam fought solely with pistols.  There is a time and a place for every weapon.  Throwing out a tool from your tool box, just because you don't, or seldom, use it, is STUPID.


----------



## CombatDoc (27 Apr 2016)

If you can't hit your target at close range with a 9mm round, neither 45 Colt or 410 shotshell will be of much help. I've seen people miss steel poppers at 5-10 yards with 12 gauge shot, so thinking that shotshell is a panacea is erroneous. You still have to aim.


----------



## brihard (27 Apr 2016)

I'm not sure why people believe a shotgun just needs to be pointed in 'the general direction'... At clsoe range from a short barrel you're looking at no more than an inch and a half to two inches of spread per yard of distance. You still very much need to be on target.

A pistol exists either for situations where you did not anticipate the need for a long gun, or where your long gun fails and you face the immediate need to continue servicing threats until changing tactical circumstances allow you to restore your long gun to function or get a new one. Within a proper context a pistol is far from useless. It's perfectly appropriate for an office dweller in an armed camp to carry one in the event of a perimeter breach where they need to mvoe to their fighting kit, for instance. It's appropriate as a backup weapon for someone with an unwieldy support weapon. It's appropriate for someone who expects to be moving through close quarters actively fighting with a rifle or carbine and who may experience stoppages with an active threat.

A pistol's not a primary weapon to knowingly enter into a firefight; nobody pretends it is in the military context. It sure as hell does have a valid role as a supporting weapon, and basic proficiency (not mastery) is quite achievable.


----------



## Pieman (27 Apr 2016)

> At clsoe range from a short barrel you're looking at no more than an inch and a half to two inches of spread per yard of distance. You still very much need to be on target.



Good point, but I don't have to be nearly as on the mark as with a 9mm. Someone standing just 5 yrds down the hallway would have a spread up to 10 inches diameter come at them. That's a huge difference from a single 9mm bullet, which is 0.35 inches. It's a whopping 28x the area. 



> A pistol exists either for situations where you did not anticipate the need for a long gun, or where your long gun fails and you face the immediate need to continue servicing threats until changing tactical circumstances allow you to restore your long gun to function or get a new one.



I totally agree with you, definitely not arguing against pistols. I think all soldiers should have one. 

I guess the question is if there is an advantage to having the shotgun ammo option in a pistol or not. In my mind, I got a way better chance of hitting the mark.


----------



## brihard (27 Apr 2016)

So where then is the rest of your shot going? Who might it be going into if not the threat?


----------



## Pieman (27 Apr 2016)

> So where then is the rest of your shot going? Who might it be going into if not the threat?



Whoever happens to be behind the guy I'm shooting, I suppose.  Solid point. The same could be said for a 9mm, but odds of missing someone you don't want to hit are much better with a smaller bullet. Hm.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (27 Apr 2016)

While a shotgun makes a good, short range, defensive weapon, keep in mind that a pistol able to accommodate a 2.5 inch 410 gauge shell does not magically give a handgun the ballistic capabilities of a shotgun.  I found this test of the "Judge" to be interesting.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/the-box-o-truth-41-the-taurus-judge-vs-the-box-o-truth/


> Lessons learned:
> 1.Jack bought this pistol for snakes and it looks like a fine tool for that job.
> 2.Birdshot, in any gauge, is for little birds.
> 3.Buckshot out of a .410 does not penetrate enough to be an effective personal defense load.
> ...


----------



## Pieman (28 Apr 2016)

Thanks for that reference. 

The fellow was saying shots had a two inch penetration. Then he stated



> Again, well short of the 12 inches minimum required for a defense load.



Wonder how that is determined to be what is needed for a defensive load? Are they assuming the guy is wearing an armored vest?

Looks like this pistol won't be up to the task after all. Boo-Urns!


----------



## Dissident (28 Apr 2016)

To answer your question, not just no, but hell no.

Training on pistol marksmanship in the CAF is abysmal. Changing the round won't solve that problem.

Now I'm going to back away before I start off on my usual rant, again.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (28 Apr 2016)

NinerSix said:
			
		

> To answer your question, not just no, but hell no.
> 
> Training on pistol marksmanship in the CAF is abysmal. Changing the round won't solve that problem.
> 
> Now I'm going to back away before I start off on my usual rant, again.



What training? In over 30 years in the military, I have never been trained to shoot. I have been shown how the weapon functions and what to do if it malfunctions, but I have never ( not once, ever) received any raining on how to shoot.

That fact that I pass every time I shoot is entirely because of the shooting I do on my own time (with my own ammo).


----------



## a_majoor (28 Apr 2016)

Shame on your range staff and leadership for not even reviewing the principles of marksmanship (as a minimum) prior to going on the line.

I hope other readers of this thread ensure that they take the time to do dry firing, coaching and all the other things needed to effectively shoot. It doesn't take a lot of time, and you could incorporate it with TOET's the day before, if needed.


----------



## Dissident (29 Apr 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> What training? In over 30 years in the military, I have never been trained to shoot. I have been shown how the weapon functions and what to do if it malfunctions, but I have never ( not once, ever) received any raining on how to shoot.
> 
> That fact that I pass every time I shoot is entirely because of the shooting I do on my own time (with my own ammo).



I can't speak for other units, but I know what you mean. I have long suspected that the CAF at large has little in the way of decent pistol marksmanship training. 

My unit/trade does a fair job, as one would hope. My platoon does a fantastic job of teaching pistol shooting, but that is because the Captain, one of our cpl,  and I have spent a lot of time and money on our own to develop those skills, which we pass on/coach.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (29 Apr 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> At the same time, the "Tunnel Rats" in Vietnam fought solely with pistols.  There is a time and a place for every weapon.  Throwing out a tool from your tool box, just because you don't, or seldom, use it, is STUPID.


Its not a matter of throwing out a tool so much as getting tools that will be used more effectively. If everything was sunshine and rainbows we would have tons of money, a perfect procurement system and infinite numbers of troops. Unfortunately we don't which means we have to pick and choose. 

In one hand we have a fairly ineffective with small amounts of training item with a max effective range of 25m which you say is needed for things like Vietnam Tunnel rats, a pretty specialized position. Or we can spend that money to get something which would see more use, capabilities we lack but are much more important. AA capabilities, Arty, B Class fleet, or maybe something like a SMG might be better options for the money. 

Personally I like the idea of getting a modern SMG which is both lightweight and compact. Much more firepower, and with the minimal amounts of training we actually receive on the pistol, you could get much more proficient with a SMG (as it is already similar to rifle training, just the location of the controls being different).


----------



## George Wallace (29 Apr 2016)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> Personally I like the idea of getting a modern SMG which is both lightweight and compact. Much more firepower, and with the minimal amounts of training we actually receive on the pistol, you could get much more proficient with a SMG (as it is already similar to rifle training, just the location of the controls being different).



NO!  A SMG is not at all similar to a rifle in training.  In fact I would compare the training to be more comparable to a pistol due to the length of the barrel, which greatly degrades accuracy at long ranges; which brings us back to 'your' comment on a max effective range of 25 m.  Having been issued a SMG, the only way to really be proficient on it, one has to be on the range a minimum of three times a week for several weeks; definitely not once a year.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Apr 2016)

I always say I can shoot pistol despite my army training. to the OP, forget the judge, useful for killing snakes and getting people to buy "cool toys". A pistol can be a useful tool in the right circumstance, as can be a rifle or a SMG. A pistol is generally useful against unarmoured targets up to 25m, but with practice you can hit a man sized target out to 50m and still penetrate enough to do damage. A SMG in 9mm will do 50-75m quite easily and I shoot my .40cal carbine out to 200m with a scope frequently, so a 9mm SMG will work out to about a 100m as you get an energy boost from the longer barrel. http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/

After that it's rifle all the way. Which is a whole set of other skills, which the army is actually pretty good at.

Pistol shooting is one of the most perishable skills I have met, I shoot 1-2 times a month and can see my ability slip if I miss 1 month, the guy that taught me who competes in IPSC shoots roughly 30-40,000 rds a year. I shoot about 2-300 rds a month. If you want to improve your shooting and you have a Restricted PAL, look at getting a .22cal pistol. If you want one that mimics a full size gun, I recommend the  M&P .22 or the Sig Classic .22 (which means you can buy a slide, barrel and mags) to convert it to 9mm. You could buy a G17 but the .22cal conversion kits are not as common. With the .22 practice, practice and practice. Your local club will have various pistol competitions like Bullseye which will help you improve your base skill. Then if you have the time and money get into IPSC , which will push your skills up another level. The chart below will help you. (edit just realized this is for left handed, there is a right handed version as well)


----------



## suffolkowner (29 Apr 2016)

I have a Henry mare's leg in 45 colt. Not a military weapon by any stretch but extremely fun to shoot, accurate, "cool", and non-restricted to boot (just don't tell anyone, it must have slipped notice)


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Apr 2016)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> Pistols are next to useless.


-When you lose your rifle, say from an IED sucking it into limbo
-When your rifle gets a stoppage in a close range engagement


----------



## Old and Tired (29 Apr 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> -When you lose your rifle, say from an IED sucking it into limbo
> -When your rifle gets a stoppage in a close range engagement



Searching Caves and tunnels any where the bad guys like to hang out


----------



## brihard (29 Apr 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> -When you lose your rifle, say from an IED sucking it into limbo
> -When your rifle gets a stoppage in a close range engagement



Any time you feel an overwhelming urge to scream "BREAK YO'SELF FOOL!" and fire a gun sideways.


----------



## RCPalmer (29 Apr 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> NO!  A SMG is not at all similar to a rifle in training.  In fact I would compare the training to be more comparable to a pistol due to the length of the barrel, which greatly degrades accuracy at long ranges; which brings us back to 'your' comment on a max effective range of 25 m.  Having been issued a SMG, the only way to really be proficient on it, one has to be on the range a minimum of three times a week for several weeks; definitely not once a year.



I would assume a semi-auto capability in any modern SMG/PDW, and in that configuration they can be very accurate within their effective range (<100m) with training comparable to what we would provide for a rifle.  My only frame of reference is MP5 and the Kel Tec Sub 2000 (which is more in the nature of a plinker, and not durable enough for military service), but those were both very easy weapons to shoot accurately within their capabilities.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Apr 2016)

I don't see a requirement for an SMG. If we need something that compact (armour crewmen, etc) we can easily crunch a C7 down to that size and then there's no requirement for separate training.

I had a bunch on deployment that would toss their C7 into the back of the SUVs. They tried to explain that they had a pistol on them should the need arise. My response was that their pistol was only functional to fight their way to the back of the SUV to get the rifle that they shouldn't have put back there in the first place. They soon started having the rifles with them instead of stowed.  [

There is one simple use for the pistol.

*And so when man and horse go down
Beneath a saber keen,
Or in a roaring charge of fierce melee
You stop a bullet clean,
And the hostiles come to get your scalp,
Just empty your canteen,
And put your pistol to your head
And go to Fiddlers’ Green.*


----------



## Lumber (29 Apr 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> NO!  A SMG is not at all similar to a rifle in training.  In fact I would compare the training to be more comparable to a pistol due to the length of the barrel, which greatly degrades accuracy at long ranges; which brings us back to 'your' comment on a max effective range of 25 m.  Having been issued a SMG, the only way to really be proficient on it, one has to be on the range a minimum of three times a week for several weeks; definitely not once a year.



Maybe it's just you and me, but with very little training on the MP5, I found it to be extremely accurate at 25m, on par or better than the C8 with EOTech . It was lighter and more ergonomic than the C8, and it barely got hot after 3 full mags. I'm actually disappointed they pulled it from the ship's inventory. 

Now, beyond 25m, I don't want any besides a carbine/rifle, but I would much rather an MP5 over my sig.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (29 Apr 2016)

I get in comparison to the old school SMGs there is a big difference, however some modern ones are closer to our rifles. For example a MP5K. Weighs in at 4.4lbs, similar in size to a pistol (just a bit bigger), significantly more firepower, paddle selector switch/safety, closed bolt system which is closer to a FN-FAL for loading (left hand charging) with a simple tab to remove magazine (similar to a AK in terms of magazine changes). It wouldn't be that much of a training gap from the C7 (especially if you compare it to a pistol).

You would even be able to carry this like a pistol if you wanted to, so you still have a back up weapon, except now it is more effective at short range combat (and can even do some mid range). It is something you might choose to use in room clearing or other short range uses, than your C7 as it is significantly smaller and more controllable in full auto.


----------



## LightFighter (29 Apr 2016)

Eaglelord17, I've used both the C7 and C8 for CQB/FIBUA and I've never wished to have a SMG. I have no desire to be switching between a rifle to a SMG when I enter a building than switching back when I exit as a rifle works just fine. Nor do I wish to carry a SMG on my leg, and extra magazines for it, etc. 

If I need a secondary, I'd much rather carry a pistol, as they are effective in that role especially if the shooter has proper training and range time with it(marksmanship and transition drills).


----------



## RCPalmer (29 Apr 2016)

LightFighter said:
			
		

> Eaglelord17, have you ever carried an Infantryman's fighting load? Conducted dismounted patrols, etc. The last thing I would want is a SMG strapped to my leg. I've used both the C7 and C8 for CQB/FIBUA and I've never wished to have a SMG.
> 
> If I need a secondary, I'd much rather carry a pistol, as they are effective in that role especially if the shooter has proper training and range time with it(marksmanship and transition drills).



I think it is more for the CSS troops to avoid the "rifles in the truck" scenario that RecceGuy describes when there isn't a combat arms guys around to guilt them into carrying them.  It would ensure that there is no excuse for carrying a proper weapon if that weapon can be carried in a holster, and doesn't interfere with the member's other tasks.


----------



## LightFighter (29 Apr 2016)

RCPalmer said:
			
		

> I think it is more for the CSS troops to avoid the "rifles in the truck" scenario that RecceGuy describes when there isn't a combat arms guys around to guilt them into carrying them.  It would ensure that there is no excuse for carrying a proper weapon if that weapon can be carried in a holster, and doesn't interfere with the member's other tasks.




I was commenting on Eagelord17s post



			
				Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> You would even be able to carry this like a pistol if you wanted to, so you still have a back up weapon, except now it is more effective at short range combat (and can even do some mid range). It is something you might choose to use in room clearing or other short range uses, than your C7 as it is significantly smaller and more controllable in full auto.


----------



## brihard (29 Apr 2016)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> I get in comparison to the old school SMGs there is a big difference, however some modern ones are closer to our rifles. For example a MP5K. Weighs in at 4.4lbs, similar in size to a pistol (just a bit bigger), significantly more firepower, paddle selector switch/safety, closed bolt system which is closer to a FN-FAL for loading (left hand charging) with a simple tab to remove magazine (similar to a AK in terms of magazine changes). It wouldn't be that much of a training gap from the C7 (especially if you compare it to a pistol).
> 
> You would even be able to carry this like a pistol if you wanted to, so you still have a back up weapon, except now it is more effective at short range combat (and can even do some mid range). It is something you might choose to use in room clearing or other short range uses, than your C7 as it is significantly smaller and more controllable in full auto.



You're ignoring a critical element What comes out of the muzzle. 9mm Luger versus 62gr 5.56mm. Why would you deliberately enter a firefight armed with 9mm out of an SMG when you can enter the fight with 5.56 instead? There's a reason that the various professional doorkickers have moved away from MP5s towards various makes and models of AR family carbines.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Apr 2016)

Brihard said:
			
		

> You're ignoring a critical element What comes out of the muzzle. 9mm Luger versus 62gr 5.56mm. Why would you deliberately enter a firefight armed with 9mm out of an SMG when you can enter the fight with 5.56 instead? There's a reason that the various professional doorkickers have moved away from MP5s towards various makes and models of AR family carbines.



That and the muscle memory that comes from using different weapons. Like I said, a crunched down AR would not require any extra training or burden on the existing logistical system.


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Apr 2016)

http://www.coltcanada.com/iur.html

Could even get away with using the same lower and just swap the uppers.


----------



## brihard (29 Apr 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> http://www.coltcanada.com/iur.html
> 
> Could even get away with using the same lower and just swap the uppers.



IUR-14 is what I have at work. They've put together a very nice carbine. I've not found it to be unwieldy in indoors work. Is it MP-5 short? No, certainly not. I'll take a bit more bulk though for the vastly superior terminal ballistics.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Apr 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> http://www.coltcanada.com/iur.html
> 
> Could even get away with using the same lower and just swap the uppers.



Just made my point.  

There are also barrels for the system that are shorter than 10". If needed, you could slap a 4"-6" upper on and shorten it that much more.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (30 Apr 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> There are also barrels for the system that are shorter than 10". If needed, you could slap a 4"-6" upper on and shorten it that much more.


Have you ever shot a 5.56 with a barrel 10" or less? It has a ton of muzzle blast, and isn't pleasant to say the least, not to mention difficult to effectively control. If it is dark, any night vision you have will be instantly removed. The AR platform isn't as compact as you can make a gun by a long shot. A MP5k as a easy example is roughly the size of the receiver without the buffer tub attached to the back.  


			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> You're ignoring a critical element What comes out of the muzzle. 9mm Luger versus 62gr 5.56mm. Why would you deliberately enter a firefight armed with 9mm out of an SMG when you can enter the fight with 5.56 instead? There's a reason that the various professional doorkickers have moved away from MP5s towards various makes and models of AR family carbines.


You have a point, however 9mm will still kill someone at short ranges, it has been doing it for over 100 years at this point. The fact that a good SMG is extremely controllable on full auto also means that you get multiple hits easily.

The only time you would have issues if there was body armour involved (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout), in which case I am doubting the capability of the 5.56 to get the job done as well (realistically I would want something like 7.62 Nato AP if that was the situation). 



			
				LightFighter said:
			
		

> Eaglelord17, I've used both the C7 and C8 for CQB/FIBUA and I've never wished to have a SMG. I have no desire to be switching between a rifle to a SMG when I enter a building than switching back when I exit as a rifle works just fine. Nor do I wish to carry a SMG on my leg, and extra magazines for it, etc.
> 
> If I need a secondary, I'd much rather carry a pistol, as they are effective in that role especially if the shooter has proper training and range time with it(marksmanship and transition drills).


Part of the argument is how much training do you have to receive to be effective with the pistol and rifle? Once you get your skills up you definitely can be more effective with a pistol, however the time and training required is both long and expensive. Most people in the CF happen to requalify once a year, a SMG would be better suited to those type of people than a pistol would. Especially those that sit behind a desk with the pistol strapped to them so they have a weapon, they need more firepower than that, because the majority of them will be fairly ineffective with the pistol if they are called upon to use it.


----------



## Journeyman (30 Apr 2016)

Well Eaglelord17, you've gone from 'pistols are next to useless -- an expensive status symbol' to wanting a new type of kit (SMGs $$) to arm people sitting behind desks (arguably not particularly in harms' way), which would require additional training, even though you claim they don't get enough time to qualify effectively on pistol already.  Outstanding.

Please tell us that you don't work in NDHQ.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Apr 2016)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> ......... The fact that a good SMG is extremely controllable on full auto also means that you get multiple hits easily.
> 
> .......... Most people in the CF happen to requalify once a year, a SMG would be better suited to those type of people than a pistol would. Especially those that sit behind a desk with the pistol strapped to them so they have a weapon, they need more firepower than that, because the majority of them will be fairly ineffective with the pistol if they are called upon to use it.




I am far from being a "Gun Nut", but even I, with my experience firing a SMG (with a short barrel) know that hitting targets on FULL AUTO takes a lot of training.  It seems to me that you do not think that a SMG firing on FULL AUTO has a large dispersion (due to having a short barrel) zone, nor realize that a very few of the rounds will actually hit the target, especially when an inexperienced and less than skilled person is firing it.  Your example above would likely result in more Blue on Blue casualties than not.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (30 Apr 2016)

Not much difference between a closed bolt SMG and a C7. Its like how there isn't a significant amount of difference between a C6 and C9. Overall I do consider pistols next to useless in comparison for there money. I do a bit of pistol shooting on the side, and that is why I feel they aren't the best for a military. The amount of training you need in comparison to what I see you getting out of it is significant. Its not that pistols can't be effect, its difficult to get someone effective on it (I have met people who can shoot 100m with a pistol consistently, however they shoot tens of thousands of rounds a year).

Even if you didn't get a SMG, look at what else we could buy with the money. How about Arty (maybe even self propelled) which cause the vast majority of casualities, or a B class fleet so we can actually supply and do what we need to do. How about AA considering we 'might' be getting 65 aircraft and maybe they might not be able to retain air superiority with those numbers. The question is if it is worth the money (i.e. is there things that should be higher priority).

Don't worry I don't work in NDHQ, and I have no intentions of ever going there. Likely my crazy ideas wouldn't be well received  ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 May 2016)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> Have you ever shot a 5.56 with a barrel 10" or less? It has a ton of muzzle blast, and isn't pleasant to say the least, not to mention difficult to effectively control. If it is dark, any night vision you have will be instantly removed. The AR platform isn't as compact as you can make a gun by a long shot. A MP5k as a easy example is roughly the size of the receiver without the buffer tub attached to the back.  You have a point, however 9mm will still kill someone at short ranges, it has been doing it for over 100 years at this point. The fact that a good SMG is extremely controllable on full auto also means that you get multiple hits easily.



I have, many times. I happen to own a few and you're overstating your case against them.


----------



## Good2Golf (2 May 2016)

Brihard said:
			
		

> IUR-14 is what I have at work. They've put together a very nice carbine. I've not found it to be unwieldy in indoors work. Is it MP-5 short? No, certainly not. I'll take a bit more bulk though for the vastly superior terminal ballistics.



IUR15.7 is nice too...and with the stock full in, you can have a pretty compact form.

Eaglelord17, I'd be very interested to know why you think a 10" C8/M4/AR-15/whatever is "difficult to effectively control?" ???

G2G


----------



## Dissident (2 May 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Eaglelord17, I'd be very interested to know why you think a 10" C8/M4/AR-15/whatever is "difficult to effectively control?" ???



Having shot the MP5SD full auto, anything else would feel "difficult to effectively control".


----------



## Good2Golf (2 May 2016)

NinerSix said:
			
		

> Having shot the MP5SD full auto, anything else would feel "difficult to effectively control".



Having only shot suppressed MP5K, I don't know how the SD shoots differently, but given the length difference between either a 5K/5SD and a suppressed C8 short-barrel variant (15.7/SFW and especially CQB), which for being 5.56, I'd rather have, I'm still not tracking the huge difference, especially if the C8 has the DANSOF/IUR15.7 flash-suppresor if unsupressed.  For the record, I don't "kick doors, turn right, shoot!" for a living, but, specific task which would demand a 9mm class subsonic bullet aside, short-barreled C8s are still quite nice.

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 May 2016)

The biggest issue with SMG's most of us old farts used is the open bolt and lag between trigger pull and BANG. When you shoot a closed bolt SMG, it's much easier to control and to teach. The SMG would be useful to certain trades who need a very compact weapon while they carry out their duties. they also I suspect fit the bill for certain mission for Special Forces, but otherwise I would use them for certain specialist trades.

I note someone saying 62gr 5.56, I was under the impression that all NATO issued 5.56 was 55gr?


----------



## Eaglelord17 (2 May 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> IUR15.7 is nice too...and with the stock full in, you can have a pretty compact form.
> 
> Eaglelord17, I'd be very interested to know why you think a 10" C8/M4/AR-15/whatever is "difficult to effectively control?" ???
> 
> G2G



Part of the argument isn't to try and replace the C8 or any of its variants, it is to replace the pistol. In my mind I see a very small closed bolt SMG which could reasonably fit into a holster (a specific holster designed for the SMG) on your side. Essentially you would be slightly larger and heavier than a pistol but have significantly more effective firepower with less training needed (as a closed bolt SMG isn't far off from a C7). 

For the door kicker guys, this isn't going to make much of a difference as they receive tons of training, its for the average guy who doesn't that would receive the benefit. Guys that are carrying pistols just in case they get attacked, would instead have 30rd magazines and the ability to respond more effectively than they would before. I imagine you could still do the transition drills to the SMG as again what I envision isn't much bigger than a pistol. 

Everyone is comparing the SMG to the C7 (and variants), where the comparison needs to be is with the pistol (as it would arguably be what would be replaced). Effective range of small SMG vs. pistol, SMG wins. Weight and size, pistol wins but if you choose the right SMG barely. Amount of firepower, SMG wins. Training, SMG wins. Overall as I see it you have a much better option than a pistol, which could actually used as a primary weapon for some specific circumstances should you choose to.


----------



## Loachman (2 May 2016)

The same people who are currently scary with a pistol would be even scarier with a short SMG.

Give them Roman gladii.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 May 2016)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> Part of the argument isn't to try and replace the C8 or any of its variants, it is to replace the pistol. In my mind I see a very small closed bolt SMG which could reasonably fit into a holster (a specific holster designed for the SMG) on your side. Essentially you would be slightly larger and heavier than a pistol but have significantly more effective firepower with less training needed (as a closed bolt SMG isn't far off from a C7).
> 
> For the door kicker guys, this isn't going to make much of a difference as they receive tons of training, its for the average guy who doesn't that would receive the benefit. Guys that are carrying pistols just in case they get attacked, would instead have 30rd magazines and the ability to respond more effectively than they would before. I imagine you could still do the transition drills to the SMG as again what I envision isn't much bigger than a pistol.



I'm pretty much 100% against your theory that an SMG would make a better back-up platform than a pistol but just out of curiosity what SMG's would suggest replace pistols?


----------



## Old and Tired (2 May 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'm pretty much 100% against your theory that an SMG would make a better back-up platform than a pistol but just out of curiosity what SMG's would suggest replace pistols?



Pretty much in agreement here with Jarnhamar and the rest.  There is nothing wrong with a pistol as a secondary weapon.  And SMG, without intensive and constant training would not be any better.  We went down this road once when we looked at PDW's in pistol and Sub-pistol calibers.  They offer no major improvement over what and how we operated at the time (2005-2007) time frame.

As for the contention that a short barreled carbine is excessively loud and the muzzle blast is to great I can partially agree on the former.  The latter takes a little bit of engineering to over come but can be done.

From my point of view as a CQB instructor, it is not the weapons we use but rather the training we give or don't give to the people that need it.  Too much time, energy and resources are spent on buttons, bows, this Pip or that and endless sourcing of kit that meets the Made in Canada requirements.  If we spent half as much time training, and buying the quantities of Ammo that we really need none of this would be a problem.


----------



## childs56 (4 May 2016)

The difference in size and weight for a SMG and a pistol is huge when you have to wear one on your leg or shoulder holster. 
Most of the people around the world who use these SMGs need a compact platform that they can slightly conceal under their jacket (the rest because its cool to own one). but also provide firepower above a pistol and below a carbine. They are purpose built platforms not to replace the pistol but instead compliment their use in close protection style defensive. They generally do not carry a SMG, Carbine, and a Pistol. They might have a carbine and pistol, or pistol and a SMG or just a SMG. Usually in a close protection style work. A few interesting SMGs/ pistol variants have come up over the past few years.

There is a couple videos showing how accurate a 9mm can be, also the effectiveness if the platform.


----------



## a_majoor (14 May 2016)

We can split the difference as per the title by adopting the LeMat Revolver, which fired both pistol ammunition _and_ shotgun ammunition. Of course this led to a rather bulky and expensive weapon. Like most compromises, it satisfied few users and regulation revolvers and carbines did the job "well enough".

Frankly, unless there is a dedicated opus to provide enough range time and training ammunition, it really doesn't matter what weapon you advocate, giving a poor shot a 12 gauge now means there is a poor shot with a 12 gage standing guard or trying to do military tasks.

The only "technical" solution would be a weapon with computer assisted aiming and "smart" bullets with their own terminal guidance, at which point the operator serves more as a carrying device for the weapon. We are not there yet, and even then, the operator need to know how to use the damn thing when all the gucci sights and ammunition stops working.

Solution? More time on the range with the weapons we already have.


----------



## Pieman (14 May 2016)

> The only "technical" solution would be a weapon with computer assisted aiming and "smart" bullets with their own terminal guidance, at which point the operator serves more as a carrying device for the weapon. We are not there yet, and even then, the operator need to know how to use the damn thing when all the gucci sights and ammunition stops working.



I'm thinking that bullets are going to cost almost as much as the weapon in the future. I recall a stand-up routine by Chris Rock where he said the way to solve the gun problem was to make bullets cost 5,000 dollars. If someone got shot three or four times then you know he must have really deserved it. ha.


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 May 2016)

UFI
In the Remington 870 pam it says not to shoot people in the head with the shotgun.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Sep 2016)

Re reading this thread is something like reading brochures for PDWs like the FN P90 or FiveSeven pistol. While they are technically amazing pieces of firearms technology and from a technical POV would be an answer to most of the issues raised, they still would mean new items in the supply chain, new ammunition in the system, training and range time (as if we get enough range time as it is).

Frankly, the real answer is to radically ramp up range training so people are familiar with their issue weapons. The next technical solution would be to change the sights on the pistols to make getting on target easier and faster. If NATO goes to some sort of new standard then we would have a reason to change weapons, changing on our own is always possible, but we will have to accept the risks associated with doing so.


----------

