# NBP Weapons



## TCBF (7 Apr 2005)

"I think the NAVY made a major blunder with the MP-5's - they chose the Look Cool Factor over terminal effectivenss."

Yeah, I think the RCN bought a bunch of high speed low drag sunglasses, and the distributer threw in a bunch of MP5s that he couldn't flog to Yankee Class III dealers.

I will ctc you on other means ref that data.

Tom


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (7 Apr 2005)

Well Tom there is no such entity as the RCN (remember Hellyer?), we don't even refer to ourselves as such anymore _anyways_.... :

One of the reasons the MP5 was chosen by naval boarding parties was no for a look cool factor but to give boarding parties a little more firepower then sidearms alone. A 5.56 will penetrate a bulkhead on a ship and if we are trying to gain control we do not want to damage critical machinery that maybe on the otherside not to mention our own people that maybe searching in the compartment next to us. Plus its compact enough not to get in the way as we conduct searches. Have you ever tried to crawl through a compartment on a ship with a rifle or a carbine? I have and give me an MP5 anyday.


----------



## Kal (7 Apr 2005)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Kal in what way is the MP5 not robust? In my experience the weapon can take a lot of abuse and still be as reliable as ever.



      I believe Kevin summed it up.  Maybe I should have gone further to say, it's an excellent weapon for it's intended environment, being urban and CQB.  Not a "green gun" as Kevin stated.  As for the terminal effectiveness of the MP5, that open to interpretation.  At the time the navy acquired the MP5, I believe H&K still had the .40 cal or 10mm option on them, that would increase their lethality, but let's understand though it's a close range weapon.  Although, I don't see why H&K never offered them in .45 seeing as they do it with the UMP.


----------



## TCBF (7 Apr 2005)

Ex Dragoon:

Yeah, I know, But I was lazy, and RCN has three letters, Navy has four.

I understand the SMG concept, I just don't understand why MP5s when we have wharehouses full of our own SMGs.  I never heard LETE doing any trials on the MP5s. 

Tom


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (7 Apr 2005)

> I never heard LETE doing any trials on the MP5s.


Then again did LETE do any trials on the P225 Sig Sauer?


----------



## KevinB (7 Apr 2005)

The NAVY should have looked at the RCMP's ballistics study on 9mm/.40/12ga. and 5.56mm  - not to mention the Colt 9mm SMG's woudl have had the same manual of arms as the C7/C8's...

 I know it was the cool guy factor - unfortunately they did not look very clearly - the really cool guys have 10.3" 5.56mm CQBR's


----------



## Infanteer (7 Apr 2005)

What did the ballistics studies say?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (7 Apr 2005)

To buy a weapon for the look cool factor reeks of unprofessionalism and if anything the Navy is not unprofessional. Why we got the MP5 instead of a 9mm Colt god only knows, what I do know is the MP5 is a good weapon for the teams and it has never failed me when I have done any Boarding Ops.


----------



## KevinB (7 Apr 2005)

IM inbound...


----------



## Infanteer (7 Apr 2005)

Ok - to avoid an unnecessary bunfight here.   Kevin and Ex-Dragoon are both SME's on matters - Kev WRT small-arms and Ex-D has BTDT when it comes to Naval Boarding Parties.

From reading this thread (and being a non-SME in either category), it seems that the MP5 is suited to NBP ops because of its size.   Being on the Naval Boarding Party isn't liable to be a muddy shoot'em up, Fallujah-type affair, so I am sure that some of the issues with ballistics are outweighed by the unique demands of the Navy's task.

Kevin points out some interesting facts on the ballistics, but do you think this ballistic data is enough to outweigh the advantages that Ex-Dragoon alluded to (small size and the fact that the 9mm round isn't as destructive if they do need to point-and-click with the things).

Considering we complain about many things in the Forces on these threads, but the loadout of the NBP doesn't seem to be one of them, I'm willing to believe the Navy pointy-end in that their kit is up to snuff for the task at hand.

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## Island Ryhno (7 Apr 2005)

I guess you gotta go with what works, the reason I brought this up was that as an armourmed crewman if you are out of vehicle and in infantry style combat, I'm supposing that something went pretty wrong and you had to scramble out of the vehicle. Presuming that to be the case, would a bunch of people in a small space with big cumbersome weapons be a problem?  Hence the idea that an MP5 or Sig may be ineffective at long range, but in this situation it's not likely to be long range battle. Perhaps I'm out to lunch or is this accurate?


----------



## TCBF (8 Apr 2005)

It comes down to "Using versus carrying" a lot of times.  If I have to shoot at a target, 5.56mm is better than 9mm.  If it was only a case of what to use when dismounted, the C7 (or the FN C1A1 before it) wins hands down.  Living with it in a Leo Turet is another matter.  Our old scale of two SMG/two pistols per tank crew worked fine, but the echelon had FNs in a harbour.

In Recce - both Lynx and Coyote, there is lots of room for C7/C8.

As for Naval boarding parties, I bow to his logic.  I oonly have to store mine in a tight space - he has to USE his in a tight space.

Tom


----------



## KevinB (8 Apr 2005)

I am not trying to tell Ex-D how to suck eggs - I've used the MP-5 a bit (20-30k rounds) and am confident in them - that said I know what it will and won't do.  I sent an IM with my rationale.  

I've done Boarding Party - circa 1994 - could not pay me enough to willingly do it as a job.

 My primary concern is the fact NBP is limited to ball amo - as are the conventional side of the forces.  9mm ball is not a great performer in soft tissue - and it tends to overpenetrate - it also tends to skip down the ships structure when fired inside the hull.

My second issue is having spent a dreadful period 11years ago being taught how to seize ships that I think every longarm on the boarding party must be suppressed - the reduction in burning gas at the muzzle being the primary, some of the engine spaces are full of fumes - mostly diesel but some you never know and with all those spots its just a shitty place to fire a weapon. - also firing in closed space is no fun.

The USN Spec War folk use the R2LP 5.56mm round with its reduced richochette and limited penetration (hence R2 LP) for naval encounters.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (8 Apr 2005)

I think its a give and take situation. Is there ammo we could use that we could use safely onboard a ship that would run the risk of pentration of a bulkhead _and_ damaging critical components tht we may need later and on the other end of the spectrum we have ammo that runs the risk of richochet. What about glaser safety slugs or something similiar to the ammo used by the Air marshals that won't penetrate the airliner?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (8 Apr 2005)

LOL Damn you Infanteer....this was gonna be a project this afternoon


----------



## Infanteer (8 Apr 2005)

I'm quick on the draw, Ex-D


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (8 Apr 2005)

LOL is that your GF tells you too?  >


----------



## Infanteer (8 Apr 2005)

Go shoot your MP-5 and leave me alone....


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (8 Apr 2005)




----------



## Navalsnpr (8 Apr 2005)

I'm going to throw in a couple observations here.

First about the SMG. I remember back in the days doing CQB in Hohenfels, West Germany that there was a known problem with the SMG. The problem being that if it there was a round chambered, the safety was off and it struck a hard surface then the weapon would fire and sometime expend the entire magazine. Though I never witnessed this myself, I did here this from a few members of 3 RCR at the time. Based on that information and the fact that we search close spaces made from steel, it would be a logical thing not to choose this weapon.

From what I understand, HK's MP-5N and FN's P-90 were the two choices that were seriously being looked at. As the P-90 is chambered for 5.7X28mm and mainly uses SS190 AP ammunition, this ammunition type could easily penetrate bulkheads (walls) and put in danger other members of your team. I gather an obvious choice was then made to go with the HK.

Sure the MP-5N has a "LCF", but due to its size, ease of use, ammunition type and being made by an extremely reliable malefactor, it definitely was a great choice for the Navy.


----------



## TCBF (8 Apr 2005)

"First about the SMG. I remember back in the days doing CQB in Hohenfels, West Germany that there was a known problem with the SMG. The problem being that if it there was a round chambered, the safety was off and it struck a hard surface then the weapon would fire and sometime expend the entire magazine."

Your memory ain't that good.  The SMG fires from an open bolt, and therefore a chambered round that has not fired is called a "Stoppage."

After that poor guy shot himself in 1970 jumping off the back of a Deuce, the trigger mech was modded.  Try as I may to emulate the stories, I never could bang it hard enough to get the bolt to go fwd when it was on S.

Tom


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Apr 2005)

If the SMG had the bolt forward and the safety off and the butt was struck on the ground or similar, the bolt would only have to come back a few inches to pick up, chamber and fire the round. It had a fixed firing pin that fired the round when it would not seat any further in the chamber. The recoil would expend the casing and send the bolt all the way back to be held by the sear. If your not holding the trigger, it won't come forward and pick up another round. It won't run away and empty the mag.

The 30 rnd runaway scenario was from the Sten, which we used before the SMG. It was built for about 99 cents during WWII. Didn't have the safety selector nor the better trigger mech found on the SMG. Crude, unsafe, but very effective none the less in close quarters. We still had them in the Reserves in the late sixties.


----------



## Navalsnpr (9 Apr 2005)

TCBF, the last time I saw a SMG was back in '89, so I guess my memory is fading regarding that particular weapon!!

On another note, the C1 Stirling's magazine protruded from the side of the weapon. This would be a problem for searching below decks in tight areas.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Apr 2005)

Navalsnipr said:
			
		

> On another note, the C1 Stirling's magazine protruded from the side of the weapon. This would be a problem for searching below decks in tight areas.



That's why we had a ten round mag for the SMG! ;D (OK, I know it wasn't much good, but we had 'em)


----------

