I'd take a German-made SMG over a Uzi anyday. WW2 relics. Also, reject modernity, embrace tradition. Post your favorites.
Why tf are SMGs so underrated?
I'd take a German-made SMG over a Uzi anyday. WW2 relics. Also, reject modernity, embrace tradition. Post your favorites.
>SMGs
>underrated
What do you mean? They are still widely used.
I know, but people think they're outdated on the battlefield.
for what purpose would you equip a group with SMGs over automatic rifles?
what would the group be doing that would make the SMG a good option?
Rear echelon and vehicle crews.
Why is it so important that a VEHICLE CREW have these things?
Instead of, uh... CREWING THE VIC?
And rear echelon... why do they need these MORE than the same rifle everyone else gets?
They don't. They're outdated in concept.
>vehicle gets destroyed
>oh fug
every army gives their vic crews guns anon
>why do they need these MORE than the same rifle everyone else gets
Cheaper and shorter barrels because rear echelon are more likely to be fighting in confined spaces
>Why is it so important that a VEHICLE CREW have these things?
>Instead of, uh... CREWING THE VIC?
Because vehicles get damaged and disabled, and you want your vehicle crews to be able to do things besides die or surrender like a cuck.
Even so there's a desire to equip vehicle crews with carbines or PDWs rather than old style SMGs.
because the vehicle crew aren't infantry and incapable of accurately handling fully automatic intermediate cartridges fired from a short barrel
have a nice day retard
>Larger magazine sizes without having to compromise weight
>stability while having a equal amount of rounds
>widely available small arms caliber
>depending on what you have you'll have easy disassembly
>dual wield without having to compromise stability
>general accurate and high accuracy
That's all I got off the top of my head
>Larger magazine sizes without having to compromise weight
5.56 and 9x19 weigh pretty much the same
>stability while having a equal amount of rounds
Blowback SMGs recoil pretty much as heavily as 5.56 rifles due to the heavy recoiling mass.
>widely available small arms caliber
So is 5.56
>depending on what you have you'll have easy disassembly
So does any modern rifle.
>dual wield without having to compromise stability
What
>general accurate and high accuracy
They're fucking useless beyond 150-200m tops and generally no more accurate than a rifle up to that point
What fucking fresh ESL noguns hell did you crawl out of you moronbrain
the B8 filled one thanks for the (you) and your time, I'm off to another thread now
bet
> I've gotten so proficient at playing the fool that people now believe me incapable of anything else
have a nice day eurotard
They are outdated, obsolete even, and I say this as a guy who loves SMGs.
>Pistols can now have high cap mags and full select-fire
>Rifles can now be super compact and light
>PDWs exist
SMGs died on some battlefield in the second world war. I've already gotten over it. You should too.
I guess I should have more pity for tankaholics because I am an SMGaholic and I can copium with how they are still useful.
>Pistol select fire will be terrible in aim
>PDW is another caliber to worry about if shit like MP7
>Okay I can't copium out of how an SBR does what a SMG does. Overpenetration is, outside of SWAT stuff, a fucking copium huff.
I know it's all a lie but I can't help it. I do think there's still plenty of life for a grip-magazine 'pistol on steroids' like an Uzi or MP7, but yeah a proper Mp5 or Mp40 kinda SMG is redundant.
there's no purpose for pistols either if you are able to carry a rifle
I wouldn't go that far, since they still find it useful to assign pogs and vehicular people with smaller arms (See the garden gnomes). The problem is the SMG beaten in the niche of carryable but better than a pistol by the PDW and SBR. And hell, the bullpup too ahhhhh
I guess cost-benefit gets into the whole production question because judging from the US market it's stupid easy to shit out a short barrel AR and an AR lower. That said you're right that in some stalingrad/garage guerilla shit they'd make blowback SMGs. Sadly I don't think there's any regular pistol caliber that'd let you do the 'cut a mosin barrel in half and use both because your pistol round is the same diameter' unless I am wrong and 9mm or .45 would work with some popular round.
Damn you, Stoner, your genius knows no bounds and you're fit to be a fucking reincarnation of John Moses Browning at this point.
If the SMG itself can manage to be cheaper than an AR, cost could be a factor. Maybe the marginal weight savings and smaller mag dimensions of 9mm over 5.56 so you can carry more rounds? As long as they're not armored it's fine to just hose 'em, right? Not like 5.56 achieves optimal ballistics in an SBR anyway.
> SMGs died on some battlefield in the second world war.
Why were they used in multiple wars since then?
anything can be "used in a war" while still being obsolete or generally inferior
Obsolete means something different to what you think it means.
out-of-date
outmoded
neglected in favour of something newer
How do I love thee? Let me count the ways
Obsolete doesn’t mean useless, it means it has been replaced. You can still use it, there are just better options. SMGs were dominant before intermediate cartridges were really common. 556 now fills that role.
>it means it has been replaced.
That’s an esl definition. Obsolete does indeed mean useless. For example turboprop fighter aircraft were obsolete once jet technology was perfected.
>Obsolete does indeed mean useless
Find me one(1)[single] dictionary definition defining obsolete as synonymous with useless
That’s not true, though. Almost nothing is useless. Muzzle loading firearms are considered obsolete in a military context, but you could still be shot and killed by it.
>esl definition
Every single definition I looked up said “replaced” or “no longer in use.” You must be the esl one if you don’t know what obsolete means. Not one definition said useless because almost nothing is in a state of total uselessness, just less useful than other things.
The only definitions for obsolete that include “it means it has been replaced” are from the USA, and so can be described as an esl definition.
Being found/seized in a warzone =/= being used in a warzone.
You are trying so hard, it’s fucking pathetic. Here’s a Bri’ish innit definition and it says exactly what I said. Also, by no stretch of the imagination is American English “esl” because esl means you learned English as a second language, which Americans don’t.
>American English is esl
Then you’re either esl or a bong, in which case, fuck off noguns
No, it doesn't. It doesn't mean whatever you think it does.
Just because mosins still show up on battlefields globally doesn't mean they aren't obsolete.
were they used in combat in a war or like by the janitorial staff in a war?
Used in combat.
That'd be because they are. An M4a1 is the same size as an Mp40, weighs about two pounds less, has less recoil, causes more trauma, and its effective range is hundreds of yards greater
What does an smg do that an sbr doesn't?
are you sure there might be an underlying reason as to why you think that anon?
all SMGs are relics, especially those in use by police shitters.
>Why are SMGs so underrated?
>I'd take an SMG over an SMG anyday.
What a profound and relevant second sentence.
The Bundeswehr used the Uzi for almost 50 years, even the Germans think your a retarded wehraboo .
Yeah that was definitely a decision made on merit.
If you have to have a WW2 era SMG, at least get one that is fun to shoot and easy to load.
That's a fucking UZI mag in the gun. WTF?
IMA being IMA,
Reminder that not only was the MP-40 not particularly reliable, it managed to do it while weighing nearly as much as an M1 Garand.
It was reliable though. Are you retarded?
The mags were the only questionable bit, just because you could not hand load them. You needed a loading tool. But this was not unusual for a lot of WW2 era SMG's.
Otherwise they had no major issues, other than the folding stocks getting wiggly.
Neither of those things are true.
What? have you ever loaded one?
Go look at the mag pouches, there is a little pocket, just for a loading tool. (pictured).
Just like the Sten or Lanchester, you cannot fully load the mag, without using a tool.
And yes, the stocks loosen.
You can absolutely load them without a tool, it's just a major pain in the ass, same with any WWII double stack, single feed SMG mag.
One of the major advantages the PPS-43 brought over the PPSh was a double stack, double feed mag.
It's more than a pain in the ass; unless you have absurdly strong thumbs, it's all but impossible to get more than 15~20 rounds in.
Stens, Lanchesters, MP38/MP40/MP41, M3 /M3A1 all were issued with a tool for a very good reason. In the case of the M3 it was part of the gun.
It wasn't exactly an experience I would care to repeat very often but I managed, are you a woman by any chance? These tend to have a bad time loading double stack single feed mags from what I've seen.
The key is not to apply pressure with JUST the next round alone because you WILL slip and you WILL fuck up your hand.
When you are faced with loading dozens of mags over the course of a three day MG shoot, you use the fucking loader and save your hands.
vatnik slide thread detected,
have a nice day
Mcx in .300blk makes all smgs obsolete
Sick suckers suck.
I'll admit that my love for the SITES Spectre stems entirely from Black Ops 1.
Saw one for sale at a gun show last month, but couldn't justify nearly $3k for it.
I must admit I'd like to try out a Sterling and see what the fuss is about; apparently the Army liked it a lot
>I'll admit that my love for the SITES Spectre stems entirely from Black Ops 1
That's okay; mine stems entirely from it being Petrushka's weapon of choice
Sterlings point very well, the mags are an absolute joy to load, and the thing is very well balanced.
The folding stock can give you a lovely blood blister if you're not careful when folding it, and the sights are a little primitive, but it's utterly reliable.
Sadly, as transferrables they are also scarce.
It looks so much smaller than I thought it would.
Also it never fails to activate my autism knowing that nearly all the guns in Black Ops 1 are anachronistic, most of them are from about the 80s to 90s.
The first mission for example. The year is 1961, Bay of Pigs. The first gun you use, the ASP, was only produced from the early 70's and was only in the design phases during the 1960s. The M16 was not yet in service at the time, but it could be argued that it was just an AR-15 that was converted to full auto. The M203 it comes with, however, also didn't come to be until the 1970s. The KS-23, too, is a 70s gun. The FAL is alright as it was being produced since the 50s, and surprisingly it seems they were actually used by the Cubans during the Bay of Pigs invasion like the game shows. Only other gun I really remember from that mission is the M60 used in the plane part, which is fine as it was produced since 1957. A lot of other guns in later missions are more egregious, stuff like the Spas-12, Galil, Spectre, Famas, AUG, WA2000, M202, CZ75, and many others are all weapons of the 70's and 80's. The G11 existed only on paper and as a few crude prototypes in the 80's before finally being built in the 90's and then dropped by the military's testing program.
Don't get me wrong, I like the game, I just can't unsee it. I feel that could have been made a plot point, the various inconsistencies with Mason's story regarding the weapons may have just been wrong and were considered superfluous to finding out about the numbers. The continued presence of these anachronistic guns in the final mission could just further show that Mason's still not right in his head and may actually be recalling this information at a later time. It's cope but I'd like some kind of extra layer of mind-fuck on top of everything that explains the shit that doesn't make sense at first. It's the one thing I actually liked about Cold War's story even though the rest of the game was kinda shit.
Yea and it's dumb too because there were plenty of historically correct cool guns they could have chosen for the time period.
Call of Duty knows its audience doesn't give a fuck about historical accuracy.
It didn’t, until that game was a success. Previous games had made a serious effort to be accurate.
>just an AR-15 that was converted to full auto
the AR-15 was originally full auto. The M16 name is simply the military designation that they gave the AR-15 after they adopted it. The Air Force still has their original Armalite rifles, still marked AR-15, still as full auto as the day they were made.
Huh, I never knew about that. Neat
i spend a lot of time thinking on garage ass pipe guns and even i dont want a shitty SMG.
>noo i'll take an outdated shit smg with worse sights over an smg LITERAL NAZIS DESCIDED WAS LEAGUES BETTER THAN THE MP40
>reject modernity
>embrace modern firearms anyway
>Defacto banned in America
>Wimpy cartridge topped by some handguns
>can’t be concealed carried while some hg with devastating loads are easy to hide
If you want to buy me a Pepesha, great.
Otherwise keep things realistic.
rifles got smaller. Old carbines and smgs fill the necessary gap between pistol and full power rifle. Today's rifle is very much a carbine thus the gap is smaller.
yeah because you're a teenager
SMG has been outclassed by the assault rifle which is simply better.
What's wrong with the Uzi?
i guess being objectively better than any german SMGs
Real MP40s cost a lot more than an Uzi. There’s that GSG clone thing that’s pretty cool but it isn’t exactly an MP40.
They are about the same price, give or take a couple of thousand.
Transferable MP40's run around 19 to 25K , and transferable Uzi's run around 18 to 20K.
You'll see a greater spread in Uzi's depending on who made it, and what variant it is.
The MP40 is an unreliable POS and there's a reason it's not used anymore.
You get all your gun knowledge from vidya.
rush
rush
They're still used in some cases. Even a few Ukrainian volunteers have been seen with the cz scorpion
>Why tf are SMGs so underrated?
because people decided to stand farther away from one another coincidentally outside of their effective range