Forums of the Megaverse®

Well, it's now time for sub-Machineguns.

While I happen to honestly like The Full sided Uzi SMG with an Avenger sound Supressor. The Sterling SMG is one that I have heard nothing but good about from people who have used them. Yet I have to go with the MP-5 due to the avalible modifications for it.

So what's Your favorite?

PS: Check out Dean's third Post as to one more reason to dislike the MAC-10. The First one is the simple fact that they were designed as a "Use-it and Loose-it" weapon. and as such lack quality.

Uzi. Built to survive in a desert.

I agree with GhostKnight and Rockwolf66. The Uzi is a great firearm all round hands down. The MP5 a close second.
An SMG that has caught my interest is the Ruger MP9. Which the basic design was from the designer of the Uzi Uziel Gal. I've seen the ruger described as an improved Uzi. Does anyone have any experience with with this SMG? What was your impression?
Another that grabs my interest is the Spectre M4. Its got some crazy features a four column mag, double action, and the bolt is designed to push air through the barrel shroud.
It would seem that the future of SMG's is the PDW. As we have discussed here before, I question the stopping power of these small calibers. But it does seem to be the wave of the future.

I find the M4 a very interesting gun. I'm also a fan of the MP5 and it's derivatives and the newer UMP family. I also like the Bizon family, with their huge magazines and robs workings. If they didn't have so many fo the Kalashnikov's bad features I'd say they are world beaters.


Here's a question or you all, where do you draw the line between a carbine, a submachinegun and a rifle?

I forgot about the Bizon. Neat little unit. The negative (so to speak) Kalashnikov features don't bother me as much. But I'm kind of an AK fan. So I'm probably a little biased.

CS Jarhead wrote:I really must know. How many of these weapons have you guys personally handled/fired?

I hear ya' and wonder how many posters here have handled there favorite SMG in RL.

Mind you I’m not trying to spark a debate; it’s just that you really don’t know if a particular weapon is that great until you’ve played with it.

CS Jarhead wrote:http://img168.imageshack.us/my.php?image=p1000352yr4.jpg

That I think is PPSch-41 used by the Soviets in WWII.

Anyhow I've only handled the UZI and Colt 9mm SMG.

I like the Colt 9mm better since it’s just a M-4 chambered to fire a 9mm round, (and unlike the UZI) can safely use hollow point round.

Colt 9mm
http://www.colt.com/mil/SMG.asp

Although I do like the additional safety feature on the UZI, since the weapon will not fire unless the rear of the grip is depressed. This makes sense when you have an open bolt weapon, which could be dropped causing the bolt to go forward and thus possible discharge a round.

Mr. Pook wrote:

Jefffar wrote:I find the M4 a very interesting gun.

Here's a question or you all, where do you draw the line between a carbine, a submachinegun and a rifle?

I like the M4 as well. I have no idea as to the validity of this, but rumor had it while I was in the Corps that one of the primary reasons it wasn't replacing the M16 was that no one could figure out how to drill with an M4.

My simplisic, layman's answer to your question: a carbine is a shorter version of a rifle (no longer than 90cm), a submachinegun is a fully automatic carbine, and a rifle does not posess fully automatic capabilites (otherwise it would be a machinegun). I'm sure, however, that the true afficianados have better definitions.

My ideas of what a SMG, Carbine, and Rifle are as follows. The SMG is pistol cartidge calibered fully automatic weapon. A carbine is a shortened rifle. Although this can also include in the civilian world pistol cartridge chambered short barreled (in comparison to a rifle, but with a longer than pistol barrel) firearm. A rifle is a full length stocked weapon. It can be any action bolt, lever, semi, and fully automatic (including burst settings). Machineguns are always fully automatic. They are designed to deal with heat built up from extended firing. Typically they are bettere used as crew served weapons. By that I mean that they are better in perfomance when at least a gunner and loader work asa a team. These are my general rules as to what falls into what category. But this can be subjective. There are certain weapons that fall between catgorys. Like what do you consider one of those AR-15 pistols? Pistol or Really short carbine?

Actually I was referring to the Spectre M4 9mm from the previous post.

Interesting definitions. Here's what I do.

Rifle - A full sized long arm with a rifled barrel. Automaitc or Manual actions.

Carbine - A compact long arm capable of firing pistol, intermediate or full powered rifle ammunition Automatic or Manual Action.

Submachinegun - A compact long arm capable of firing pistol ammunition on fully automaic.

I've also added a few other classificaitons to my list:

Machine Rifle - A full sized long arm designed for sustained automatic fire.

Assault Rifle - A full sized long arm capable of firing intermediate power rifle rounds on fully automatic.

Automatic Rifle - A full sized long arm firing full powered rifle ammunition on fully automatic.

Assault Carbine - A compact long arm capable of firing intermediate power rifle rounds on full automatc.

An intermediate round would be 5.56x45mm or 5.45X39mm. I believe he has included the Battle Rifles with his straight rifle listing. I think the title of battle rifle when talking about the M-14,G3,FN FAL, and ect. Is a correct classification.

CS Jarhead wrote:I would not consider 7.62x 51 NATO a "intermediate" round. What is an intermediate round anyway?

Does the G3, FN FAL, M14, etc count as assault rifles? Or shall we add the erroneous label of "Battle Rifle" to Jefffars list?

7.62 NATO is a full powered round.

Depending on weather or not the fully automatic mode is equipped, I'd call them a Rifle or an Automatic Rifle. Some of the heavy barrel and bipod versions with fully automatic capability I'd label as a machine rifle.