tell me what you think and why.

my personal opinion is "no". they've gone the way of the do-do for most military and policing organizations for reasons ranging from ballistics, to simple logistics.

now, i happen think that the pistol cal SMG is just about the *perfect* firearm for home defense (good capacity, good ballistics for in-home ranges, low recoil and blast, etc.), but considering that there aren't many countries in the world where the average person can even own a gun, let alone a sub-gun, and even here in the US the regulations and cost associated makes owning one an impossibility for most people, and any argument about personal and home defense falls by the wayside pretty quick.

For most applications I think a short rifle caliber carbine (mk 18) would be better, but I still think they have their place (suppressed scenarios).

Suppressed.

Quoted: Suppressed.

This is probably the last reason (and a very good one) for the persistence of this class of weapon: ease of suppression.  I guess they will become more and more of a specialist's tool and designs will stagnate with what we now have on hand.  The Micro Uzi is getting to be a pretty old design, for example, but still uniquely puts a lot of rounds downrange quietly and quickly when you're limited to a tiny weapon.  You won't see a rifle caliber firearm doing the same thing, no matter how much you cut it down.

They're a niche weapon. As everyone has said, suppression is the key. Very difficult to adequately suppress a rifle-caliber weapon.

Other than that, I'm with you. A good carbine performs just as well as a submachine gun with superior stopping power.

Of course there is so much cawk-love for HK and the MP5 in the gun community that most people will never admit that.

Quoted: Quoted: Suppressed. This is probably the last reason (and a very good one) for the persistence of this class of weapon: ease of suppression.  I guess they will become more and more of a specialist's tool and designs will stagnate with what we now have on hand.  The Micro Uzi is getting to be a pretty old design, for example, but still uniquely puts a lot of rounds downrange quietly and quickly when you're limited to a tiny weapon.  You won't see a rifle caliber firearm doing the same thing, no matter how much you cut it down. img.photobucket.com/albums/v717/Guevera/IMG_3464.jpg

very good points, but how useful is anything that is suppressed past "hearing safe"? while not necessarily comfortable, my suppressed SBR AR's are "hearing safe", which i would think is more then enough for home / self defense. is being able to suppress MORE necessary?

ETA: that micro setup is very lusty!

Still viable for certain uses.
I like a 16" carbine in 45 ACP. Low blast and flash, without a can. Good for home defense without dealing with Class III weapons.

Quoted: Quoted: Suppressed. This is probably the last reason (and a very good one) for the persistence of this class of weapon: ease of suppression.  I guess they will become more and more of a specialist's tool and designs will stagnate with what we now have on hand.  The Micro Uzi is getting to be a pretty old design, for example, but still uniquely puts a lot of rounds downrange quietly and quickly when you're limited to a tiny weapon.  You won't see a rifle caliber firearm doing the same thing, no matter how much you cut it down. img.photobucket.com/albums/v717/Guevera/IMG_3464.jpg

That picture is dead sexy.

Im not ashamed to admit that Ive used it as a background ever since I got my HK P7 last spring. Thanks Tirador!

IMO, no, they really don't do anything that can't be done better with something else.  
The comment on "hearing safe" is an interesting point. What do you envision as the point to firing the SMG with the suppressor ? Is it so that you and the people with you decrese hearing damage, decrese the shock of firing a weapon indoors, and all the other advantages of using a suppressed weapon ? Or is it because you are trying to conceal your pressence from the enemy ?
If it is the first, then a suppressed AR15 (or something similar) accomplishes the same thing. If it is the latter, I don't really think it is going to be quiet enough for the most part to matter. With a SMG, the range is going to be short, you arn't sniping people from 400 yards. So, if they are in the next room, or the same house they are going to hear the suppressed SMG anyway.
I am not sure what "ease of suppression" means. They are all easy to suppress. And, the suppressors are all pretty damn effective. I own a couple rifle suppressors. They work great. With full bore, supersonic ammo they sound like you are shooting a .22LR. Granted they are not as quiet as a suppressed 9mm, but what do those extra dbs do for you ?  I don't see where they comment about it being diffucult to adequtely suppress a rifle comes from ?

Kind of a side comment:
I am not any kind of big baller or anything, but I do own one SMG. And, I occasionally shoot it in our local machinegun match; including the one last weekend.  Now don't get me wrong, I realize the people in this match are not "trained operators". I realize that they are not using state of the art guns maintained by factory trained armors. I realize the senarios in these matches are not real shootouts................. But, every time I shoot in one of these matches I come away from it wondering how anyone ever survived combat using an SMG and why anyone would choose this weapon for any serious purpose.
First of all, it seems like about 75% of getting a good score is just keeping your gun running through the whole stage. The guns used in these matches have horrible reliability. If your gun runs throughout the match without any kind of malfunction, you are 3/4 of the way to winning it.
Second, it takes a lot of time and ammo to neutrilize the targets. At the distances we are shooting (less than 20 yards), I feel certain that I could beat most of the people there if I was using a handgun and they were using their SMG. I feel certain that if I was using an AR15 with an optic, on semi-auto I could hit all the targets far faster than I could with my SMG.
Third: The ergonomics on these SMGs are (for the most part) terrible. Just one example, the HK MP5. You have no last round bolt hold open. When the gun doesn't fire, you don't know if it is out of ammo or you just had a malfunction. You could do a tap/rack drill like you would with anything else, but the odds are, with the MP5 you are just out of ammo. So, you do a mag change but in addition to changing the magazine you also have to run the bolt since it is down. And that is the best of the SMGs, with my Sterling, you have the same problem PLUS it is a PITA just to get the magazine out of the gun.
Keep in mind that they guys shooting these matches are just amateurs, shooting their own guns. But, they take this seriously and tinker with the guns and try their best to keep them running. They also train/shoot them enough to try to win these matches. I realize none of this puts them on the level of a SWAT team or anything but I think it says something about SMGs in general.
It is kind of intesting to stand there and think: "imagine if I was going into combat and this is what I got for a weapon". You look down at it and it doesn't give you much confidence. Imagine hitting the beach on D-Day for example holding a Sten.

I think the fact that military and police organizations are moving away from them at a rapid pace should tell you something in reference to your question.

I think in specific, limited circumstances they have their place.  I think in most situations a rifle caliber is much more appropriate.

The SMG, just like the lever action and the revolver are excellent designs and no less effective then when they first came out.

However as the face of fighting changed, weapons choices changed.  The Short barreled rifle and carbines(M4/AK) has taken the place of the submachine gun doing what the subgun could do well, with extended range.

Quoted: That picture is dead sexy. Im not ashamed to admit that Ive used it as a background ever since I got my HK P7 last spring. Thanks Tirador!

Thanks - when I posted it earlier somebody commented that it looked like the suppressor was wearing a sexy lace-up corset.  Never thought of it that way, just didn't want to burn up my hand.

As far as the issue of degree of suppression, I guess I was thinking of serious applications rather than recreational hearing protection with my comments about high volume automatic fire.

The little Micro is surprisingly accurate on semi with aimed fire as a little carbine, but again, the size is what would sell it.  I'm the first one to admit that a rifle would be better in 99% of situations.   I sure as hell wouldn't want to be leaping out of a landing craft and waving a Micro Uzi at the cliff top, no matter how cute it is in its little black lingerie.



 

Only as a pistol replacement.

Quoted: Only as a pistol replacement.

with some of the M16 varients being as small and light as they are, i don't know if i'd pick a pistol cal SMG over one.

if you are going to be losing "concealability" amd gaining weight, you might as well be slinging 5.56 instead, no?

Viable yes but with carbines getting smaller and smaller as time moves on they are more often than not the better option

Pistol caliber smgs gay unless they have burst and are short! These new 9mm ARs are useless.

Quoted: Pistol caliber smgs gay unless they have burst and are short! These new 9mm ARs are useless.

that's why i specified SMG's...

Quoted: IMO, no, they really don't do anything that can't be done better with something else.   The comment on "hearing safe" is an interesting point. What do you envision as the point to firing the SMG with the suppressor ? Is it so that you and the people with you decrese hearing damage, decrese the shock of firing a weapon indoors, and all the other advantages of using a suppressed weapon ? Or is it because you are trying to conceal your pressence from the enemy ? If it is the first, then a suppressed AR15 (or something similar) accomplishes the same thing. If it is the latter, I don't really think it is going to be quiet enough for the most part to matter. With a SMG, the range is going to be short, you arn't sniping people from 400 yards. So, if they are in the next room, or the same house they are going to hear the suppressed SMG anyway. I am not sure what "ease of suppression" means. They are all easy to suppress. And, the suppressors are all pretty damn effective. I own a couple rifle suppressors. They work great. With full bore, supersonic ammo they sound like you are shooting a .22LR. Granted they are not as quiet as a suppressed 9mm, but what do those extra dbs do for you ?  I don't see where they comment about it being diffucult to adequtely suppress a rifle comes from ? Kind of a side comment: I am not any kind of big baller or anything, but I do own one SMG. And, I occasionally shoot it in our local machinegun match; including the one last weekend.  Now don't get me wrong, I realize the people in this match are not "trained operators". I realize that they are not using state of the art guns maintained by factory trained armors. I realize the senarios in these matches are not real shootouts................. But, every time I shoot in one of these matches I come away from it wondering how anyone ever survived combat using an SMG and why anyone would choose this weapon for any serious purpose. First of all, it seems like about 75% of getting a good score is just keeping your gun running through the whole stage. The guns used in these matches have horrible reliability. If your gun runs throughout the match without any kind of malfunction, you are 3/4 of the way to winning it. Second, it takes a lot of time and ammo to neutrilize the targets. At the distances we are shooting (less than 20 yards), I feel certain that I could beat most of the people there if I was using a handgun and they were using their SMG. I feel certain that if I was using an AR15 with an optic, on semi-auto I could hit all the targets far faster than I could with my SMG. Third: The ergonomics on these SMGs are (for the most part) terrible. Just one example, the HK MP5. You have no last round bolt hold open. When the gun doesn't fire, you don't know if it is out of ammo or you just had a malfunction. You could do a tap/rack drill like you would with anything else, but the odds are, with the MP5 you are just out of ammo. So, you do a mag change but in addition to changing the magazine you also have to run the bolt since it is down. And that is the best of the SMGs, with my Sterling, you have the same problem PLUS it is a PITA just to get the magazine out of the gun. Keep in mind that they guys shooting these matches are just amateurs, shooting their own guns. But, they take this seriously and tinker with the guns and try their best to keep them running. They also train/shoot them enough to try to win these matches. I realize none of this puts them on the level of a SWAT team or anything but I think it says something about SMGs in general. It is kind of intesting to stand there and think: "imagine if I was going into combat and this is what I got for a weapon". You look down at it and it doesn't give you much confidence. Imagine hitting the beach on D-Day for example holding a Sten. I think the fact that military and police organizations are moving away from them at a rapid pace should tell you something in reference to your question.

Great post!

Full of actual first hand knowledge, with real-world examples, tempered with some opinion mixed with genuine humility.  Are you sure you belong on this board ?

A silenced MP5 is a specialized tool that is very unlikely to be replaced any time soon.

Frankly my MAC11 clone with a 32rd mag looks like a better option then any handgun for house defense.

Also if you could take a real MAC and fit it with a three round burst and no stock,just get a two hand hold like a regular handgun,and you'd have a hell of a close range self defense weapon for concelment in a bodyguard setting.

If you want to hide it under a coat and limit ranges to about 50yds then the subgun has a place still.

No cop or army just a guy giving his two bits.

Urban areas...female shooters (face it, blast and recoil are issues...yes, I know training fixes it.  Most ARFCOMmers are fat.  Training fixes that, too.  But people refuse to do it.)

Ammo commonality.  People in vehicles and aircraft.  People who want a shoulder weapon that is low-observable.

Plenty of good reasons a SMG is not a bad weapon.

SMG's viable? Yes still very viable, they will do most anything a assault rifle will do, but not a preferred weapon.

In most urban scenarios, I wouldn't feel outgunned with an AR 9mm or MP5.

To my way of thinking  pistol caliber carbines serve two functions. 1 They allow me regular practice at an indoor range. Where I live is increasingly difficult to find an outdoor range. 2. If you have a carbine and pistol using the same magazines, you always have magazines for both guns. If not it can still be handy to have two arms using the same ammunition. But for me it is mainly just easier to find a indoor range,for regular practice.

Show me a weapon that is powerful and quiet and I'll show you a suppressed SMG.

Just Think about the Magpul FMG-9  suppressed, or in 9x25 Dillion. That should answer the question right there.

Page 2 is mine!

I would be much more concerned about placing one shot, center of mass with a rifle round than putting multiple rounds in a burst with a pistol caliber.
This of course doesn't even take the body armor factor into account.

Quoted: Kind of a side comment: I am not any kind of big baller or anything, but I do own one SMG. And, I occasionally shoot it in our local machinegun match; including the one last weekend.  Now don't get me wrong, I realize the people in this match are not "trained operators". I realize that they are not using state of the art guns maintained by factory trained armors. I realize the senarios in these matches are not real shootouts................. But, every time I shoot in one of these matches I come away from it wondering how anyone ever survived combat using an SMG and why anyone would choose this weapon for any serious purpose. First of all, it seems like about 75% of getting a good score is just keeping your gun running through the whole stage. The guns used in these matches have horrible reliability. If your gun runs throughout the match without any kind of malfunction, you are 3/4 of the way to winning it.

To be fair, many of the transferrable SMG's out there are ANTIQUES. They probably need to have springs freshened up, magazines with good feed lips in them, and probably a good cleaning. Most of these guns are simple open bolt, blow-back weapons-it's pretty hard to fuck that up from a design standpoint.... All of these guns have had to go thru acceptance trials at a time when the various militaries knew what a malfunctioning weapon could mean, so I'm betting that your experiences are more to do with the operators.

Hell, I see guys that can't even control a SMG due to proper firing technique... If they aren't serious enough to learn how to employ the weapon, chances are that they aren't going to be stellar when it comes to cleaning and maintenance, i.e. I'll work on it when it doesn't run anymore.

Subguns are just as effective today as they were the day they first came out.
They have a niche where they work better than anything else. Try to use them as a rifle (or assault rifle) and they will be less than optimum. What would you want to have if you were storming the beaches at normandy? an M3 greasegun, M1 rifle, M1 carbine or (courtesy of time travel) an M4 carbine? What if you were going room to room in Stalingrad? How about fighting Rommel (or Montegomery, your choice) at El Alamein?
DIfferent tools for different jobs, that's all I have to say.

Not much a SMG can do that a modern semi auto pistol can't, including shooting suppressed.  Full auto is over rated except belt fed or suppressing enemy fire.  

Quoted: Not much a SMG can do that a modern semi auto pistol can't, including shooting suppressed.  Full auto is over rated except belt fed or suppressing enemy fire.

Full Auto is overrated, but I think there is a place for it for guys who need a Room Broom. Rather do it with a pistol caliber than an M4 etc. I can't imagine firing a burst inside an occupied dwelling and not causing hearing damage to myself or others... Muzzle flash on a SMG is much less intrusive also.

Quoted: Quoted: I would be much more concerned about placing one shot, center of mass with a rifle round than putting multiple rounds in a burst with a pistol caliber. This of course doesn't even take the body armor factor into account. Body armor is a very good argument and something I hadn't taken into consideration. That said, my beliefs when it comes to terminal ballistics do not mesh with most arfcommers, and the whole rifle caliber vs. pistol caliber thing doesn't mean as much to me as to most here. And really, what I'm trying to say is that I think it's both easier and faster to score a leathal hit(s) with a short burst of automatic pistol caliber fire than it is with rifle fire (automatic or semi-automatic) - at close ranges. But still, the body armor argument closes the door on the SMG in most scenarios.

while this is a good point, AP ammo exists in many pistol flavors. that said, it does tend to factor out civilian utility (something i was trying to keep in this discussion) since AP pistol ammo is difficult to come by for those of us not in the employ of the .gov...