[I]f there is a moment when the sub-machine gun achieved something approaching professional reverence, it was during the 1980 Iranian embassy siege in London. When the SAS executed their assault – swift, decisive, and meticulously controlled – they did so armed with the MP5, a weapon that had, by then, refined the sub-machine gun concept to its zenith. What unfolded over those brief, violent minutes was not chaos, but choreography: precise entries, disciplined fire and an almost clinical application of force.
But modern soldiers are no longer facing lightly equipped adversaries. The widespread adoption of advanced body armour, incorporating hardened ballistic plates, has fundamentally altered the dynamics of small-arms engagements. Pistol-calibre rounds, the lifeblood of the SMG, simply lack the velocity and energy required to defeat that protection reliably. In operational terms, that’s critical. A weapon that cannot neutralise a threat when it must is not just limited, it’s potentially dangerous to the man carrying it.
Range, too, has become a defining factor. Contemporary engagements rarely conform to the tight, urban or trench-bound distances of the early 20th century, despite recent reminders from conflicts such as those in Ukraine that close combat has not disappeared. Even there, however, the anticipated resurgence of the sub-machine gun has not materialised in any meaningful way. Soldiers require flexibility, the ability to engage at 50 metres or 300 metres without changing weapon systems. The SMG, by design, cannot offer that.
— Hamish de Bretton-Gordon in The sad death of the sub-machine gun
Unaffordable except for the very rich, no new ones in the last 40 years, not all states allow them. What do you think?
It’s from the UK Telegraph, from a place where civilians (and even most police!) aren’t allowed to do anything with them except look. The thesis of the article is whether there is any *military* purpose for them anymore, and concludes there is not.
And I disagree. Infantry hasn’t used SMG’s for decades, for exactly the reasons posited, but Special Forces groups like Delta Force and the SEALs (who have access to pretty much anything they want in terms of weaponry) still rely on them *when the mission calls for them.* I.e., if they know they will be going up against heavily armored opponents that may be at more than bad breath distance, they go with M4’s of other weaponry. But in CQB situations, even the best body armor ain’t gonna help you if they use an MP5 to send a burst of hot 9mm to your face / CNS, which serious operators like that can easily do.
It’s like any other military weapon — there is no one size fits all, nor is the SMG some sort or magic talisman. In the right situation, it’s the ideal weapon, in others it’s not.
“But in CQB situations, even the best body armor ain’t gonna help you if they use an MP5 to send a burst of hot 9mm to your face / CNS, which serious operators like that can easily do.”
Egg-zactly. And they do, as needed.
Still, it sure would be fun to have the option again to play with them if I wanted to, and a dirt-simple Sten that takes Glock 30-round mags would be a blast at the range or a rural backyard gathering of friends…
The prices and lack of newer models can be blamed squarely on the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. The Hughes Amendment closed the federal registry of machine guns. This meant any machine gun that wasn’t registered on or before May 19, 1986 could not be transferred to a private citizen.
I don’t think the SMG is on its way out; I think it is evolving into the Personal Defense Weapon (PDW), like the FN P90. The 5.7X28 mm round has it detractors but it does offer more potential for penetrating ballistic armor than 9X19mm. The P90’s size offers more accuracy and range than a handgun and more maneuverability than a rifle or carbine, which should make it superior for CQB.
This evolution is likely to take some time. Current SMGs have a high comfort level with users, thanks to familiarity, training, tactics, and protocols. Don’t forget the interchangeability of ammunition.
In all the years I served in the army. I never saw one. They are great in city fighting. But not so much in a forest or open desert.
However in the civilian world yes. Expensive, yes they are. Which is why the bumpstock, FRT, and binary triggers were invented.
I don’t think a true MG or sub gun is really necessary as a civilian. If you can afford one, go for it. You collectors go for it.
But you get the same effect with an FRT. And it’s much much cheaper.
Body armor easily defeated by rebarrel to 6.5 CBJ. Can still use a standard 9mm magazine.
That round defeats Russian APC armor out of a handgun (Glock 19 in video I saw)
Meh. Typical doomsayer on whatever the current “thing that’s now over” is.
They still have uses. Home defense is one – if you have a reasonable expectation of a gang of folks trying to enter your abode.
Of course, you’d have to jump through the legal hoops to get one. /spit/
Heckler & Koch’s MP7, with its 4.6 x 30 mm ammo, easily penetrates body armour. The sub-macine gun lives.