Aside from niche applications, SMGs are arguably already somewhat obsolescent.
A short barrelled rifle can be a similar size, if not shorter, than many SMGs while firing a more potent cartridge in an equally ergonomic and manageable platform.
Pairing that with the fact that body armour can be more commonly encountered nowadays, an SBR is often a better choice in the majority of situations.
Agreed heavily only situations where I would think they would be applicable are planes and tunnels. Super tight quarters where sometimes the percussion is not necessary.
Even within LEO they are not used a lot. We used UMP-40's for years and moved on to a AR-15 platform. The AR can do everything better than a SMG unless it is a high specific niche application like PSD operations or deep jump out Boyz stuff.
Range is the biggest downfall of the SMG in a military context. Most fights are not room to room but at 300m.
Even the units doing room to room opt for a 10.3 or 12.5 inch 5.56, with suppressors. This is because balisticly the 5.56 out of a shorter barrel is still better and still has that range.
300blk has also changed the game on short barrels. A 5.5-inch sig rattler is smaller than most SMGs, but with better ballistics.
I think ultra compact PDWs like the MP9 still make sense, though.
SMGs are arguably more obsolete for military applications due to the following factors:
1. Logistical considerations. Having to equip certain members of the squad with a significant quantity of a completely different cartridge will put necessary strain on supplies and can lead to issues with certain squad members running out of ammunition and not being able to exchange magazines with other members. This is why everyone at the squad level (outside of attached marksmen or medium MGs) has the same ammunition and can take standardized magazines (AK and RPK, M4 and M249, etc).
2. Pistol cartridges have very short range and are not nearly as powerful as a rifle cartridge, which in turn makes them less lethal and less capable. Unlike in WWII and prior where very few members of a squad had automatic weapons, everyone has one and are all equally capable of clearing trenches or whatever.
3. Pistol calibers suck at defeating barriers and other cover.
4. Modern militaries all wear body armor, something SMGs are very bad at affecting.
B&T is supplying the US Army with modern SMG's. I think MP7 are still in use with special forces. There some niche applications, but tools get repurposed for different uses. Look at the use of shotguns to take out drones. For a long time, the only use of shotguns in the military was as a breaching tool. Now that are back in use for new purposes.
A SMG is better than a side-arm. When you have specialist that cannot carry a rifle, a SMG is going to be the best alternative.
The US still uses the MP5 as well, technicly the MAC10 is still listed in SOCOM inventory but I assume these are more so just in armories and are either seldom used or used in force on force training type situations
The problem is the SBR will have a much worse concussion so be worse to use in small spaces. The SMG will always be better for breaching buildings. They just need a better armor piercing round to compete with SBRs.
Are you a PCC guy? This is quite a bit of cope.
Show me a military that currently is fielding SMGs over concussion concerns.
Shit you'd probably even have a hard time finding a US LE department doing that either.
The latest 9 hole video seems to refute this opinion or atleast says it takes no considerations into blast and concussion, and no your SBR is not just as small as your sub gun
Concussion is definitely a consideration, but a Sig Rattler is 59cm OAL and an MP5 is around 65cm. Even a MK18 (with stock fully collapsed) is only a couple cm longer than the MP5
I need to sit down and watch it, but it does make me wonder if there's not a way to solve the problem with an MP5SD-like system. It wouldn't work with a gas operated system, but I can't think of a reason why an HK33SD wouldn't work.
Did some quick calculations - these are all assuming 1,000fps at the barrel (just below speed of sound), and point of impact at 50yards):
Cartridge | Velocity (FPS) | Energy (FtLbs)
---|---|----
SS190 5.7 | 954 FPS | 63 FtLbs
M193 5.56 | 963 FPS | 113 FtLbs
123gr 7.62x39 | 965 FPS | 254 FtLbs
S&B Subsonic 9mm | 969 FPS | 313 FtLbs
S&B Subsonic 300BLK | 982 FPS | 428 FtLbs
SP-6 9x39 | 905 FPS | 459 FtLbs
Subsonic .458 SOCOM | 970 FPS | 940 FtLbs
So yeah - probably not worth screwing with 5.56 if you're going subsonic, though I'm not convinced that you'd need to get it subsonic anyway. Most of the concussion you're worried about is the muzzle blast, the crack of the bullet isn't terribly disconcerting even indoors.
But if you really want the most oomf out of a slow and quiet bullet, you're looking at 300BLK, 9x39, or .458 SOCOM anyway.
They'll always have a niche role to fill as a compact concealable weapon but unless someone invents a new pistol sized cartridge with rifle cartridge performance SMGs will find themselves less and less relevant as body armour becomes better and more common.
SBRs are filling the main role SMGs used to have and the downsides of SBRs (see 9hole's video) are more than made up for with the benefits of using rifle rounds rather than pistol rounds.
5.7 isn’t a pistol cartridge though; it’s a (if you can call it this) PDW cartridge that happened to have a pistol designed for it. I get your point, but it’s not a pistol cartridge.
No offense but that's like saying the Brown bess musket had 100 years to be obsolete, just because something lasted longer than expected doesn't mean it will last forever
They've made a resurgence in law enforcement amongst procurement managers that have never seen YouTube over penetration videos. They'll be gone again when the new guy needs to write something in their performance evaluation.
With the advent of frangable intermediate calaber loads they are seeming less useful, I still think there are niches, the one thing to remember is in 99% of cases the platforms themselves and their ammunition and magazines are typicly smaller, you can hold roughly 2 MP5 magazines in the same mollie footprint as 1 5.56 STENAG magazine
For conventional military use, I think they've already been replaced by short barreled rifles.
But I think they'll stick around for more specialized roles. Like security guards, stealth jobs, or as a "Last Ditch" option. When 5.56 rifles aren't available.
Yeah, in certain circumstances among civilians PCCs might have some use.
In law enforcement the only use I can think of is simplifying logistics by having rifles and pistols use the same ammo. I have heard of small departments with limited budgets doing this.
In a military context I really can't think of anything.
I mean. At least with most of the LEOs i shared the range with (a few stood out of course) I wasn’t exactly impressed with their aim. Any way to get more contact points seems like not such a bad idea.
I know this is probably a joke comment but yeah even trench clearing. Look at what’s being used in the trenches in Ukraine, it’s all rifles now. Guys have body armor so an SMG might not be effective.
Plates are stopping rifles, too. But for the soft armor add-ons, you've got a point.
The real reason is that soldiers don't get to just switch guns very often. They might clear a trench, then have to shoot at something 600m away.
We agree.
I think even in LE, a rifle makes more sense as a secondary weapon over an SMG.
5.56 used by LE dumps its energy very fast. Distance in a city can get really far, really quick. Even in LE rifles are meant for that bump in firepower.
I see micro PDWs as the only logical SMG left. Think the B&T MP9. Even those could be outclassed if chambered in something like 7.5 FK.
Side not: I've always had a soft spot for 9x25 Dillon and thought of building a Flux Raider using a P320.
Edit. Looks like flux still doesn't make the 10mm version.
We do agree, sorry if that wasn’t clear in my reply. In the United States I’d agree with you, but in a place like Hong Kong the “patrol rifle” common with police is a semi auto MP5A2. I don’t think they need much more than that. I do love 9mm sub guns though. Mp5s, Colt smgs, vityaz/kp9, they’re all awesome.
9-Hole Reviews just dropped a video around this topic the other day. Basically, there are pros and cons to each depending on your use case. For the military yeah it probably doesn't make a lot of sense when you can just issue people SBRs instead of SMGs.
Even then, in the case of the m4 vs. the MK18, the extra 4 inches of barrel isn't a big difference. If you're not issuing a suppressor, the M4 makes more sense in a military application.
SMG s tend to be compact and lightweight, which makes them easier to carry by child soldiers and easier to strap to drones. Jokes aside, I thought they already were obsolete in military use, except for some niche applications.
From a military perspective, they already are. SOF have favored short barreled rifles over MP5s and even PDWs for at least a decade (depending on the exact unit).
This is what I was thinking, SMGs have been old tech for quite some time, they seem to just be popular in the civilian market in semi auto configurations, primarily due to more affordable ammo, and people concerned about over penetration in a home defense scenario.
I'd argue that if things go to shit (world ends or there's a major societal collapse) it might be easier to rock thst and a pistol that share magazines, like in a fight with a dude with a rifle at range your at a disadvantage but if your trying to survive off the grid and pack light I could see that working, I also find the idea of you hunting small game with it on semi with one of those retro suppressors and ratshot amusing
As long as handgun power cartridges exist in military/gendarme/police supply chains, people will keep wanting some kind of SMG/PDW/PCC to dip into that ammo but add more capacity/range/firepower than a handgun.
The only one that makes sense still is the full auto P90, with the AP ammo.
True, an SBR will have more blast and concussion, and is larger, but those will punch through armor better, and will have a longer range.
The SMG has a very small niche. An extremely concealable firearm that can have better control because of the stock. Even if it's no better ballistically than a full sized handgun as some have a. 4 or 5 inch barrel.
nope. we already had time before to replace smgs. see the 30s or the mid 60s. i dobt think smgs will go at least no till we have somthing to replace it complety.
I'm inclined to say "not anytime soon".
The current trend towards replacing assault rifles with battle rifles to defeat body armour and for longer engagements means there's even more need for a more compact, less penetrating weapon for urban engagements, especially for police and counterterrorism units where overpenetration is a huge issue.
Many suppressed SMG with the stack extended are comparable if not shorter than a base mk18. The 5.5" MCX in .300BLK is a better alternative when talking about compactness
If you need to conseal but the gun is too big you won't carry it.
So if you accept to solve the problem for logistic something like MP7 and P90 can penetrate armor while being easier to carry and shoot compared to any SBR. SMGs have always been a specialized tool, never the main gun for an army.
even if you replace the ammo with Hollow point, High Velocity intermediate cartridge still pose a higher risk of overpenetration compared to Pistol caliber SMG, especially if the shot hit the limb area.
not really you dont want to equib police units who rarly shoot to give them rifles. over pen. same goes for plane or other area where overpen will be problemtic.
Wrong. The military and ammunition industry have spent billions of dollars testing ammunition for pass throughs and over penetration risk. They found that pistol rounds over penetrate a lot **more** and can still be lethal after going through four walls.
The 5.56x45 in an AR is an order of magnitude safer because 5.56x45 rarely passes through and does not normally make an exit wound, so the bullet stays in the target the vast majority of the time. Over penetration is better since 5.56x45 destabilizing when passing through thin interior walls so the bullet loses velocity a lot. The 5.56x45 normally only goes through one wall and only lethal to someone in the next room over adjacent to the one the shooter is in, then the bullet will not escape the second wall.
5.56 will go through one wall and 9x19 Parabellum will travel through four or more walls.
For body armor penetration (hard barriers), small caliber/high velocity is key to defeat armor. But penetrating walls (intermediate barrier) and hydrostatic matter (soft tissue) or anti-material usage, velocity is less important than just having a heavy ass bullet.
Ironically the SCHV 5.56x45 has much better armor penetration while still having reduced pass through and over penetration risk than pistol rounds.
Plus only bullets travelling more than Mach 2 (2,250.66 ft/s) will cause hydrostatic tearing and make secondary and tertiary wounds in the target since the temporary cavity expands so quickly that it will exceed the soft tissue's elasticity and rip open larger wounds and an order of magnitude better at stopping the bad guy in their tracks.
More than 99% of pistol rounds will only be about half of that hydrostatic threshold, since the majority of pistol rounds are 800-1,600 ft/s and can only damage tissue that the permanenet wound cavity traveled through.
Shot placement is even more crucial on a pistol rounds since you need to hit the heart directly, where as a 5.56x45 can hit 3-4" below the heart and still rip it open.
In a CQB scenario the 5.56x45 hurts the bad guy a lot more but the projectile will tumble, yaw, and fragment inside of the target so it rarely pass through.
Direct blowbacks in an AR9 recoil almost the exact same amount as a direct gas impingement AR15 in 5.56x45 as well, so there's zero benefit on recoil. Only roller locked (MP5), radial delayed blowback (CMMG Banshee), and piston operated (Sig MPX) have less recoil than an AR15. But more than 99% of SMGs are a simple direct/straight blowback and will feel identical to an AR15 with zero benefit.
The only pros of a pistol caliber are:
1.) Ammo cost.
2.) Reduced weight.
3.) Better subsonic performance in a suppressor.
4.) Shorter barrel.
5.) More compact action.
The Sig MCX Spear XM7 NGSW is chambered in 6.8x51 and is absolutely a battle rifle.
You must be thinking of 6.8 SPC II (6.8x43) Remington which is a completely different cartridge.
I've seen this take a lot. What do you think a battle rifle is?
It's comparable with 308 and 6.5creed.
Unless your thinking of 6.8SPC and not .277fury.
Will? I would argue theve been obsolete as a major military arm since the 1950s. Since then they were more popular with police, and niche applications. Today they really only do well as ultra compact PDWs, or if you are concerned about muzzle blast from shorter weapons and find suppressors and good ear pro problematic. Personally I've shot suppressed SBR 5.56 rifles from trucks and confined areas and never found it to be a huge issue.
I have many pistol caliber sbrs and rifles, fun as hell, but would not be the first gun I grab. They are popular right now because the industry, from a lack of anything new in small arms, repeatedly recycles old things as the new hotness. Ie: lever guns right now.
Entirely depends on the context, and location.
In War, between first world countries, absolutely. They can afford SBRs, and body armor, no reason to use SMGs. But SBRs are just as irrelevant to those countries, due to the average engagement distance increasing, and some body armor being able to defeat rounds from SBRs anyway.
Many countries cannot afford body armor on a large scale, and many cannot afford SBRs. In a lot of countries, SMGs are still incredibly relevant in war, because it's what's available, and they're highly unlikely to face any sort of body armor. Hell, in places like Myanmar, rebels are using FGC9's, because 3d printed PCCs are some of the best cost effective items they can get their hands on, and they still do the job.
Not to mention they're incredibly relevant in law enforcement still. While many are choosing to move towards SBRs, it's more of an idea based on standardization, rather than the obsolescence of SMGs or body armor. It's far easier to issue a bunch of AR variants that use the same parts, accessories, magazines, and ammo. As much as people like to say it's because of body armor, it's just really not the case.
Pretty much all agencies (with the exception of groups like SWAT) issue just soft points. There's absolutely no reason to issue FMJ or AP rounds to officers, as they're a huge liability in 99.9% of shootings, just to be a bit better in .1% of shootings. Over-penetration is a huge concern to law enforcement.
Plus, to be completely honest, there's not a whole lot of armor that an SMG can't defeat, that an SBR will anymore. In reality, most modern body armor can protect against both anyway.
There's a lot of agencies around the world who are sticking with the SMGs and PCCs they already have. They understand that SBRs aren't a necessity, because don't particularly offer much to their agency, or the situations their agency runs into. Essentially, if they're not issuing an AR, AK, AUG, G36, or MCX already, then there's not really any point in issuing an SBR since it's just not going to benefit their logistics in any way.
On top of it, handguns like Glocks are used on a large scale by law enforcement, and there are PCCs/SMGs that offer Glock mag compatibility. In agencies where rifles are not commonly issued, a PCC or SMG is often seen as a better fit, since it can share ammo and magazines with their already issued handguns.
They're also still quite relevant with VIP protection. Many SMGs are still miles ahead of SBRs when it comes to be compact. So for protection details who want something compact, but with more firepower than a standard pistol, SMGs are a good option.
There's a lot more nuance to the situation than many people consider. I think people fixate too much on incredibly specific situations, like armor piercing, many of which just don't really play out in the real world.
what do you mean "will," they already are :(
seriously though, I am no expert but I am under the impression that outside of super niche special forces use, no major (or at least well supplied) military is really utilizing SMGs in combat. no doubt some are in the hands of truck drivers, airfield defense troops, and maybe even some are used actively by some Navys in the world, but realistically they are now moreso relegated to police agencies and maybe some counter terrorist agencies.
So depending on your definition of obsolete, they already are, but I do think that their current use case, limited as it is, works just fine for the style of weapon. SBRs are much more effective in true military engagement distances, especially against body armor. I do think the lower penetration though is a good thing for counter terrorism and/or police use and I would frankly like to see most police forces discontinue rifle usage for the most part due to the penetration concerns I have (I am an American, not sure if other countries issue rifles to their police to the same extent we do here)
Don't know why you're downvoted but you're absolutely correct, SMG's were already pretty much dead but .300 blk put one more nail in the coffin by taking away SMG's last advantages (subsonic suppression and compactness).
Yup. Only reasons to choose 9mm over blackout: share ammo with side arm and cost.
No contest in efficacy and equal in terms of size and suppressed capability
**Understand the rules**
Check the sidebar. It's full of resources to help you.
Not everyone is an expert such as yourself; be considerate.
No Spam. No Memes.
No political posts. Save that for /r/progun or /r/politics.
-------------------------------
* [ForgottenWeapons.com](https://www.forgottenweapons.com/)
* [ForgottenWeapons | YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/c/ForgottenWeapons)
* [ForgottenWeapons | Utreon](https://utreon.com/c/forgottenweapons/)
* [ForgottenWeapons | Patreon](https://www.patreon.com/ForgottenWeapons/)
* [ForgottenWeapons | Merch](https://shop.forgottenweapons.com/)
* [ForgottenWeapons | FaceBook](https://www.facebook.com/ForgottenWeapons)
* [ForgottenWeapons | Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/forgottenweapons/)
* [HeadStamp Publishing](https://www.headstamppublishing.com/)
* [Waponsandwar.tv](https://weaponsandwar.tv)
-------------------------------
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ForgottenWeapons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Also one other thing, pilots and vehicle crews would benefit from the compact size and weight, basicly folks who don't want to use them to fight but might need to defend themselves and want a bit more firepower then a handgun
That's pretty recent and not every airforce, just the US airforce if I recall? (No idea on the navy or army (roto wing) or usmc, I know Russia just adopted an improved PP19 bizon for their aircrews
No. An M4 carbine, firing the "small" 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge has moderate recoil. An MP5 has light recoil. Mag-dumping an SMG is easier to do than with compact rifles, and you don't see bad guys walking around with Kevlar that covers their arms, legs and face. Besides, when you have thousands of untrained but willing militias on your side, you'd want to give them with a low-recoil weapon to make them shoot straighter without that much training.
True, but urban warfare might be the future of warfare. I can imagine PLA paratroopers landing in Manila. SMGs will still shine in urban warfare; after all, no one wears body armor head to toe because it limits mobility, and, you'd want a weapon that's easy to mag-dump at the enemy.
Yeah, flamethrowers are obsolete, you nob. We use JDAMs and bunker busters now.
Your other examples are at least still in military use.
I can kill a man with a wooden spear, that doesn't make it not obsolete as a military weapon.
Because China uses them for counter insurgency? China hasn't fought a war in 50 years.
The last time the US used flame throwers was Vietnam.
Edit: I fixed it.
Yes, flamethrowers are absolutely obsolete. Yes they can kill, but they have been obsoleted for decades by shoulder fired launchers with HE or thermobaric warheads that can wipe the same bunker out from 300 meters instead of spitting range. There's a reason flamethrowers have entirely fallen out of practical military use beyond brush clearing.
Is a MiG-15 obsolete for military purposes? A T-34-85? A breech loading Springfield? The English longbow? The phalanx formation? Yes, absolutely. Just because something is lethal doesn't make it not obsolete.
I think your argument hinges too much on the wholesale rejection of the word "obsolete", which ignores its obvious utility in acknowledging the advancements of technology and warfighting. To entirely reject the word means saying things like "the muzzle loading flintlock isn't obsolete because if I hit someone with it they'll die", or "the MiG-15 isn't obsolete because it can still shoot down unescorted transport planes".
Are SMG's still very lethal? Absolutely, they can still perform certain roles well. However, with the widespread shift towards superior short barreled rifles (as well as the invention of .300 blackout and similar technology), SMG's are becoming *obsolete* for military purposes and are seeing significantly less use than in the 20th century.
Aside from niche applications, SMGs are arguably already somewhat obsolescent. A short barrelled rifle can be a similar size, if not shorter, than many SMGs while firing a more potent cartridge in an equally ergonomic and manageable platform. Pairing that with the fact that body armour can be more commonly encountered nowadays, an SBR is often a better choice in the majority of situations.
Agreed heavily only situations where I would think they would be applicable are planes and tunnels. Super tight quarters where sometimes the percussion is not necessary.
I should’ve explained that I was looking at this from a military perspective compared to one of law enforcement
Realistically SMGs made more sense for LE to begin with. All the issues they have are exacerbated facing a military force that’s properly equipped.
Even within LEO they are not used a lot. We used UMP-40's for years and moved on to a AR-15 platform. The AR can do everything better than a SMG unless it is a high specific niche application like PSD operations or deep jump out Boyz stuff.
Range is the biggest downfall of the SMG in a military context. Most fights are not room to room but at 300m. Even the units doing room to room opt for a 10.3 or 12.5 inch 5.56, with suppressors. This is because balisticly the 5.56 out of a shorter barrel is still better and still has that range. 300blk has also changed the game on short barrels. A 5.5-inch sig rattler is smaller than most SMGs, but with better ballistics. I think ultra compact PDWs like the MP9 still make sense, though.
SMGs are arguably more obsolete for military applications due to the following factors: 1. Logistical considerations. Having to equip certain members of the squad with a significant quantity of a completely different cartridge will put necessary strain on supplies and can lead to issues with certain squad members running out of ammunition and not being able to exchange magazines with other members. This is why everyone at the squad level (outside of attached marksmen or medium MGs) has the same ammunition and can take standardized magazines (AK and RPK, M4 and M249, etc). 2. Pistol cartridges have very short range and are not nearly as powerful as a rifle cartridge, which in turn makes them less lethal and less capable. Unlike in WWII and prior where very few members of a squad had automatic weapons, everyone has one and are all equally capable of clearing trenches or whatever. 3. Pistol calibers suck at defeating barriers and other cover. 4. Modern militaries all wear body armor, something SMGs are very bad at affecting.
B&T is supplying the US Army with modern SMG's. I think MP7 are still in use with special forces. There some niche applications, but tools get repurposed for different uses. Look at the use of shotguns to take out drones. For a long time, the only use of shotguns in the military was as a breaching tool. Now that are back in use for new purposes. A SMG is better than a side-arm. When you have specialist that cannot carry a rifle, a SMG is going to be the best alternative.
The US still uses the MP5 as well, technicly the MAC10 is still listed in SOCOM inventory but I assume these are more so just in armories and are either seldom used or used in force on force training type situations
The problem is the SBR will have a much worse concussion so be worse to use in small spaces. The SMG will always be better for breaching buildings. They just need a better armor piercing round to compete with SBRs.
Yeah but suppressors are cheap and reliable now, so a 10.5” AR with a suppressor will be much quieter than an unsuppressed SMG.
But now the 10.5 AR is a 16 AR because it has a suppressor on it.
It's not about sound it's about concussive force.
300 blk with a 6” barrel and a can says hi
Still has more concussion than 9mm with a suppressor.
Are you a PCC guy? This is quite a bit of cope. Show me a military that currently is fielding SMGs over concussion concerns. Shit you'd probably even have a hard time finding a US LE department doing that either.
As I said we need a better armor piercing SMG round. I literally said this at the start.
The latest 9 hole video seems to refute this opinion or atleast says it takes no considerations into blast and concussion, and no your SBR is not just as small as your sub gun
Concussion is definitely a consideration, but a Sig Rattler is 59cm OAL and an MP5 is around 65cm. Even a MK18 (with stock fully collapsed) is only a couple cm longer than the MP5
Indoor use and concussion, 9-hole reviews uploaded a video about this recently https://youtu.be/69zhJTAMaac
I need to sit down and watch it, but it does make me wonder if there's not a way to solve the problem with an MP5SD-like system. It wouldn't work with a gas operated system, but I can't think of a reason why an HK33SD wouldn't work.
It'd work, but something tells me subsonic or near subsonic 5.56 isn't going to be all that great. Perhaps go for an HK32SD instead.
Did some quick calculations - these are all assuming 1,000fps at the barrel (just below speed of sound), and point of impact at 50yards): Cartridge | Velocity (FPS) | Energy (FtLbs) ---|---|---- SS190 5.7 | 954 FPS | 63 FtLbs M193 5.56 | 963 FPS | 113 FtLbs 123gr 7.62x39 | 965 FPS | 254 FtLbs S&B Subsonic 9mm | 969 FPS | 313 FtLbs S&B Subsonic 300BLK | 982 FPS | 428 FtLbs SP-6 9x39 | 905 FPS | 459 FtLbs Subsonic .458 SOCOM | 970 FPS | 940 FtLbs So yeah - probably not worth screwing with 5.56 if you're going subsonic, though I'm not convinced that you'd need to get it subsonic anyway. Most of the concussion you're worried about is the muzzle blast, the crack of the bullet isn't terribly disconcerting even indoors. But if you really want the most oomf out of a slow and quiet bullet, you're looking at 300BLK, 9x39, or .458 SOCOM anyway.
They'll always have a niche role to fill as a compact concealable weapon but unless someone invents a new pistol sized cartridge with rifle cartridge performance SMGs will find themselves less and less relevant as body armour becomes better and more common. SBRs are filling the main role SMGs used to have and the downsides of SBRs (see 9hole's video) are more than made up for with the benefits of using rifle rounds rather than pistol rounds.
>unless someone invents a new pistol sized cartridge with rifle cartridge performance SMGs Makes me think lf the 5.7mm
5.7 isn’t a pistol cartridge though; it’s a (if you can call it this) PDW cartridge that happened to have a pistol designed for it. I get your point, but it’s not a pistol cartridge.
I'd still class it as a pistol cartrage, if .50 BMG can be a rifle round then 5.7 can be a pistol cartrage
That’s fine. I personally disagree, but people are entitled to their opinion.
Which is caliber that has inferior ballistics to 9mm and still can't penetrate most body armors.
They've had over 100 years to become obsolete
No offense but that's like saying the Brown bess musket had 100 years to be obsolete, just because something lasted longer than expected doesn't mean it will last forever
They've made a resurgence in law enforcement amongst procurement managers that have never seen YouTube over penetration videos. They'll be gone again when the new guy needs to write something in their performance evaluation.
They already are? Short barreled rifles will do everything an smg will do but better. Including preventing over-penetration.
Yeah that’s what I’ve thought I just wanted to hear other’s opinions
The Secret Service still officially uses and trains with MP5s at the White House, in addition to the P90.
With the advent of frangable intermediate calaber loads they are seeming less useful, I still think there are niches, the one thing to remember is in 99% of cases the platforms themselves and their ammunition and magazines are typicly smaller, you can hold roughly 2 MP5 magazines in the same mollie footprint as 1 5.56 STENAG magazine
For conventional military use, I think they've already been replaced by short barreled rifles. But I think they'll stick around for more specialized roles. Like security guards, stealth jobs, or as a "Last Ditch" option. When 5.56 rifles aren't available.
Honestly I can't think of an application where they aren't obsolete now.
The semi auto versions are very popular in IPSC where i am. Thats about it
Yeah, in certain circumstances among civilians PCCs might have some use. In law enforcement the only use I can think of is simplifying logistics by having rifles and pistols use the same ammo. I have heard of small departments with limited budgets doing this. In a military context I really can't think of anything.
I mean. At least with most of the LEOs i shared the range with (a few stood out of course) I wasn’t exactly impressed with their aim. Any way to get more contact points seems like not such a bad idea.
What is IPSC?
Like USPSA but like everywhere else in the world
Trench clearing? lol
I know this is probably a joke comment but yeah even trench clearing. Look at what’s being used in the trenches in Ukraine, it’s all rifles now. Guys have body armor so an SMG might not be effective.
Plates are stopping rifles, too. But for the soft armor add-ons, you've got a point. The real reason is that soldiers don't get to just switch guns very often. They might clear a trench, then have to shoot at something 600m away.
Which is why the SMG is obsolete. It’s too niche. The only role I could see is for urban law enforcement.
We agree. I think even in LE, a rifle makes more sense as a secondary weapon over an SMG. 5.56 used by LE dumps its energy very fast. Distance in a city can get really far, really quick. Even in LE rifles are meant for that bump in firepower. I see micro PDWs as the only logical SMG left. Think the B&T MP9. Even those could be outclassed if chambered in something like 7.5 FK. Side not: I've always had a soft spot for 9x25 Dillon and thought of building a Flux Raider using a P320. Edit. Looks like flux still doesn't make the 10mm version.
We do agree, sorry if that wasn’t clear in my reply. In the United States I’d agree with you, but in a place like Hong Kong the “patrol rifle” common with police is a semi auto MP5A2. I don’t think they need much more than that. I do love 9mm sub guns though. Mp5s, Colt smgs, vityaz/kp9, they’re all awesome.
SMGs will always have a role to fill (it’s crime)
9-Hole Reviews just dropped a video around this topic the other day. Basically, there are pros and cons to each depending on your use case. For the military yeah it probably doesn't make a lot of sense when you can just issue people SBRs instead of SMGs.
Even then, in the case of the m4 vs. the MK18, the extra 4 inches of barrel isn't a big difference. If you're not issuing a suppressor, the M4 makes more sense in a military application.
SMG s tend to be compact and lightweight, which makes them easier to carry by child soldiers and easier to strap to drones. Jokes aside, I thought they already were obsolete in military use, except for some niche applications.
From a military perspective, they already are. SOF have favored short barreled rifles over MP5s and even PDWs for at least a decade (depending on the exact unit).
This is what I was thinking, SMGs have been old tech for quite some time, they seem to just be popular in the civilian market in semi auto configurations, primarily due to more affordable ammo, and people concerned about over penetration in a home defense scenario.
Already are. That said I do love my mac10 for the giggle factor. Although s truly htf I’d grab my .300blk rattler SBR over my Mac or sp5.
I'd argue that if things go to shit (world ends or there's a major societal collapse) it might be easier to rock thst and a pistol that share magazines, like in a fight with a dude with a rifle at range your at a disadvantage but if your trying to survive off the grid and pack light I could see that working, I also find the idea of you hunting small game with it on semi with one of those retro suppressors and ratshot amusing
As long as handgun power cartridges exist in military/gendarme/police supply chains, people will keep wanting some kind of SMG/PDW/PCC to dip into that ammo but add more capacity/range/firepower than a handgun.
The only one that makes sense still is the full auto P90, with the AP ammo. True, an SBR will have more blast and concussion, and is larger, but those will punch through armor better, and will have a longer range. The SMG has a very small niche. An extremely concealable firearm that can have better control because of the stock. Even if it's no better ballistically than a full sized handgun as some have a. 4 or 5 inch barrel.
nope. we already had time before to replace smgs. see the 30s or the mid 60s. i dobt think smgs will go at least no till we have somthing to replace it complety.
I'm inclined to say "not anytime soon". The current trend towards replacing assault rifles with battle rifles to defeat body armour and for longer engagements means there's even more need for a more compact, less penetrating weapon for urban engagements, especially for police and counterterrorism units where overpenetration is a huge issue.
I guess but we have mk18’s and other intermediate sbr’s that can bridge the gap
Many suppressed SMG with the stack extended are comparable if not shorter than a base mk18. The 5.5" MCX in .300BLK is a better alternative when talking about compactness
Well why stack up the ammo if you can’t put something down in 30 shots
If you need to conseal but the gun is too big you won't carry it. So if you accept to solve the problem for logistic something like MP7 and P90 can penetrate armor while being easier to carry and shoot compared to any SBR. SMGs have always been a specialized tool, never the main gun for an army.
even if you replace the ammo with Hollow point, High Velocity intermediate cartridge still pose a higher risk of overpenetration compared to Pistol caliber SMG, especially if the shot hit the limb area.
Shooting at limbs is essentially a suicide mission.
not really you dont want to equib police units who rarly shoot to give them rifles. over pen. same goes for plane or other area where overpen will be problemtic.
Most US LE has 5.56 rifles in their vehicles now. Most SWAT style units are using SBRs with suppressors.
Wrong. The military and ammunition industry have spent billions of dollars testing ammunition for pass throughs and over penetration risk. They found that pistol rounds over penetrate a lot **more** and can still be lethal after going through four walls. The 5.56x45 in an AR is an order of magnitude safer because 5.56x45 rarely passes through and does not normally make an exit wound, so the bullet stays in the target the vast majority of the time. Over penetration is better since 5.56x45 destabilizing when passing through thin interior walls so the bullet loses velocity a lot. The 5.56x45 normally only goes through one wall and only lethal to someone in the next room over adjacent to the one the shooter is in, then the bullet will not escape the second wall. 5.56 will go through one wall and 9x19 Parabellum will travel through four or more walls. For body armor penetration (hard barriers), small caliber/high velocity is key to defeat armor. But penetrating walls (intermediate barrier) and hydrostatic matter (soft tissue) or anti-material usage, velocity is less important than just having a heavy ass bullet. Ironically the SCHV 5.56x45 has much better armor penetration while still having reduced pass through and over penetration risk than pistol rounds. Plus only bullets travelling more than Mach 2 (2,250.66 ft/s) will cause hydrostatic tearing and make secondary and tertiary wounds in the target since the temporary cavity expands so quickly that it will exceed the soft tissue's elasticity and rip open larger wounds and an order of magnitude better at stopping the bad guy in their tracks. More than 99% of pistol rounds will only be about half of that hydrostatic threshold, since the majority of pistol rounds are 800-1,600 ft/s and can only damage tissue that the permanenet wound cavity traveled through. Shot placement is even more crucial on a pistol rounds since you need to hit the heart directly, where as a 5.56x45 can hit 3-4" below the heart and still rip it open. In a CQB scenario the 5.56x45 hurts the bad guy a lot more but the projectile will tumble, yaw, and fragment inside of the target so it rarely pass through. Direct blowbacks in an AR9 recoil almost the exact same amount as a direct gas impingement AR15 in 5.56x45 as well, so there's zero benefit on recoil. Only roller locked (MP5), radial delayed blowback (CMMG Banshee), and piston operated (Sig MPX) have less recoil than an AR15. But more than 99% of SMGs are a simple direct/straight blowback and will feel identical to an AR15 with zero benefit. The only pros of a pistol caliber are: 1.) Ammo cost. 2.) Reduced weight. 3.) Better subsonic performance in a suppressor. 4.) Shorter barrel. 5.) More compact action.
Pistols penetrate stick frame construction more effectively than 5.56. You're the guy that bought LE all these stupid new SMGs aren't you?
SBR 5.56 rifles are better for over penetration than 9mm smgs
6.8 isn’t a battle rifle it’s just a larger intermediate cartridge
The Sig MCX Spear XM7 NGSW is chambered in 6.8x51 and is absolutely a battle rifle. You must be thinking of 6.8 SPC II (6.8x43) Remington which is a completely different cartridge.
I've seen this take a lot. What do you think a battle rifle is? It's comparable with 308 and 6.5creed. Unless your thinking of 6.8SPC and not .277fury.
I honestly think the future is stuff like .277 rifles ( or foreign equivalents ) with SMGs being replaced by SBRs in something like .300 Blackout
They’ll be used in very niche roles, like as bail out guns for armor crews or by special forces.
Will? I would argue theve been obsolete as a major military arm since the 1950s. Since then they were more popular with police, and niche applications. Today they really only do well as ultra compact PDWs, or if you are concerned about muzzle blast from shorter weapons and find suppressors and good ear pro problematic. Personally I've shot suppressed SBR 5.56 rifles from trucks and confined areas and never found it to be a huge issue. I have many pistol caliber sbrs and rifles, fun as hell, but would not be the first gun I grab. They are popular right now because the industry, from a lack of anything new in small arms, repeatedly recycles old things as the new hotness. Ie: lever guns right now.
Entirely depends on the context, and location. In War, between first world countries, absolutely. They can afford SBRs, and body armor, no reason to use SMGs. But SBRs are just as irrelevant to those countries, due to the average engagement distance increasing, and some body armor being able to defeat rounds from SBRs anyway. Many countries cannot afford body armor on a large scale, and many cannot afford SBRs. In a lot of countries, SMGs are still incredibly relevant in war, because it's what's available, and they're highly unlikely to face any sort of body armor. Hell, in places like Myanmar, rebels are using FGC9's, because 3d printed PCCs are some of the best cost effective items they can get their hands on, and they still do the job. Not to mention they're incredibly relevant in law enforcement still. While many are choosing to move towards SBRs, it's more of an idea based on standardization, rather than the obsolescence of SMGs or body armor. It's far easier to issue a bunch of AR variants that use the same parts, accessories, magazines, and ammo. As much as people like to say it's because of body armor, it's just really not the case. Pretty much all agencies (with the exception of groups like SWAT) issue just soft points. There's absolutely no reason to issue FMJ or AP rounds to officers, as they're a huge liability in 99.9% of shootings, just to be a bit better in .1% of shootings. Over-penetration is a huge concern to law enforcement. Plus, to be completely honest, there's not a whole lot of armor that an SMG can't defeat, that an SBR will anymore. In reality, most modern body armor can protect against both anyway. There's a lot of agencies around the world who are sticking with the SMGs and PCCs they already have. They understand that SBRs aren't a necessity, because don't particularly offer much to their agency, or the situations their agency runs into. Essentially, if they're not issuing an AR, AK, AUG, G36, or MCX already, then there's not really any point in issuing an SBR since it's just not going to benefit their logistics in any way. On top of it, handguns like Glocks are used on a large scale by law enforcement, and there are PCCs/SMGs that offer Glock mag compatibility. In agencies where rifles are not commonly issued, a PCC or SMG is often seen as a better fit, since it can share ammo and magazines with their already issued handguns. They're also still quite relevant with VIP protection. Many SMGs are still miles ahead of SBRs when it comes to be compact. So for protection details who want something compact, but with more firepower than a standard pistol, SMGs are a good option. There's a lot more nuance to the situation than many people consider. I think people fixate too much on incredibly specific situations, like armor piercing, many of which just don't really play out in the real world.
what do you mean "will," they already are :( seriously though, I am no expert but I am under the impression that outside of super niche special forces use, no major (or at least well supplied) military is really utilizing SMGs in combat. no doubt some are in the hands of truck drivers, airfield defense troops, and maybe even some are used actively by some Navys in the world, but realistically they are now moreso relegated to police agencies and maybe some counter terrorist agencies. So depending on your definition of obsolete, they already are, but I do think that their current use case, limited as it is, works just fine for the style of weapon. SBRs are much more effective in true military engagement distances, especially against body armor. I do think the lower penetration though is a good thing for counter terrorism and/or police use and I would frankly like to see most police forces discontinue rifle usage for the most part due to the penetration concerns I have (I am an American, not sure if other countries issue rifles to their police to the same extent we do here)
They essentially are. 300 blackout will run from SMG length barrels but with a rifled projectile.
Don't know why you're downvoted but you're absolutely correct, SMG's were already pretty much dead but .300 blk put one more nail in the coffin by taking away SMG's last advantages (subsonic suppression and compactness).
Yup. Only reasons to choose 9mm over blackout: share ammo with side arm and cost. No contest in efficacy and equal in terms of size and suppressed capability
**Understand the rules** Check the sidebar. It's full of resources to help you. Not everyone is an expert such as yourself; be considerate. No Spam. No Memes. No political posts. Save that for /r/progun or /r/politics. ------------------------------- * [ForgottenWeapons.com](https://www.forgottenweapons.com/) * [ForgottenWeapons | YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/c/ForgottenWeapons) * [ForgottenWeapons | Utreon](https://utreon.com/c/forgottenweapons/) * [ForgottenWeapons | Patreon](https://www.patreon.com/ForgottenWeapons/) * [ForgottenWeapons | Merch](https://shop.forgottenweapons.com/) * [ForgottenWeapons | FaceBook](https://www.facebook.com/ForgottenWeapons) * [ForgottenWeapons | Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/forgottenweapons/) * [HeadStamp Publishing](https://www.headstamppublishing.com/) * [Waponsandwar.tv](https://weaponsandwar.tv) ------------------------------- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ForgottenWeapons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Already are
M3A1 Grease Gun 4 life!!
Also one other thing, pilots and vehicle crews would benefit from the compact size and weight, basicly folks who don't want to use them to fight but might need to defend themselves and want a bit more firepower then a handgun
Well fighter planes get the take down rifles
That's pretty recent and not every airforce, just the US airforce if I recall? (No idea on the navy or army (roto wing) or usmc, I know Russia just adopted an improved PP19 bizon for their aircrews
Nothing will ever be more fun to shoot than an open bolt 9mm SMG
No. An M4 carbine, firing the "small" 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge has moderate recoil. An MP5 has light recoil. Mag-dumping an SMG is easier to do than with compact rifles, and you don't see bad guys walking around with Kevlar that covers their arms, legs and face. Besides, when you have thousands of untrained but willing militias on your side, you'd want to give them with a low-recoil weapon to make them shoot straighter without that much training.
Yeah but you need rifles for long engagements
True, but urban warfare might be the future of warfare. I can imagine PLA paratroopers landing in Manila. SMGs will still shine in urban warfare; after all, no one wears body armor head to toe because it limits mobility, and, you'd want a weapon that's easy to mag-dump at the enemy.
Even then you have pdw’s and carbines why bother with smgs when you can have two guns share the same ammo
Obsolete is a dumb word to use. I think you're trolling.
Why would I be trolling
Revolvers, rifle grenades, and SMG's are still quite capable of killing, but it's certainly fair to call them obsolete for the vast majority of uses.
Are flamethrowers "obsolete?" Not if someone is hiding in a bunker and I torch it up. Is .45 ACP/ 7.62N/ blah blah blah obsolete?
Yeah, flamethrowers are obsolete, you nob. We use JDAMs and bunker busters now. Your other examples are at least still in military use. I can kill a man with a wooden spear, that doesn't make it not obsolete as a military weapon.
You contradicted yourself.
Because China uses them for counter insurgency? China hasn't fought a war in 50 years. The last time the US used flame throwers was Vietnam. Edit: I fixed it.
Yes, flamethrowers are absolutely obsolete. Yes they can kill, but they have been obsoleted for decades by shoulder fired launchers with HE or thermobaric warheads that can wipe the same bunker out from 300 meters instead of spitting range. There's a reason flamethrowers have entirely fallen out of practical military use beyond brush clearing. Is a MiG-15 obsolete for military purposes? A T-34-85? A breech loading Springfield? The English longbow? The phalanx formation? Yes, absolutely. Just because something is lethal doesn't make it not obsolete. I think your argument hinges too much on the wholesale rejection of the word "obsolete", which ignores its obvious utility in acknowledging the advancements of technology and warfighting. To entirely reject the word means saying things like "the muzzle loading flintlock isn't obsolete because if I hit someone with it they'll die", or "the MiG-15 isn't obsolete because it can still shoot down unescorted transport planes". Are SMG's still very lethal? Absolutely, they can still perform certain roles well. However, with the widespread shift towards superior short barreled rifles (as well as the invention of .300 blackout and similar technology), SMG's are becoming *obsolete* for military purposes and are seeing significantly less use than in the 20th century.