Shotgun Pistol

[Good2Golf]

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]

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]

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]

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

Give them Roman gladii.

 

[Jarnhamar]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[a_majoor]

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.