My recent video proposing a particular set of definitions for three generations of submachine gun design generated a lot of comments about the H&K MP-7 and FN P90. I focused largely on the first and second generation guns in that video – as they were the bulk of what I had available to use as examples – and I neglected what should have been those two obvious modern examples. To quickly recap:
Gen 1 – The first SMGs, made with primarily milled components to a high standard of craftsmanship and expense.
Gen 2 – The economization of SMGs. Designs using stamped materials at first, and polymer more recently.
Gen 3 – Designs emulating rifle handling. Generally closed bolt, but featuring the controls, layout and handling copied from modern rifle platforms.
I believe that both the MP-7 and P90 are solid examples of what I define as a 3rd generations SMG. The MP-7 takes most of its cues form the G36 rifle, and the P90 takes its from the F2000 rifle. I don’t think that the smaller-than-typical calibers used by these guns qualifies them as a new generation, nor does the clever and unusual magazine system of the P90. Neither is quite as perfect of an example as the MP5 in taking virtually every characteristic form a parent rifle design, but I think both are close enough to qualify as Gen 3 submachine guns.
My original video:
Perhaps the concept of the term of a machine pistol is of more relevance to such, and more course these two “Old” weapons a large compared with the newer ones of recent years, Chinese come to mind.
My apologies for the disjointed message(?)
Perhaps the concept of the term of a machine pistol is of more relevance to such weapons, and more of course these two “Old” weapons are far larger (complex) compared with the newer ones of recent years, Chinese manufacture come to mind.
Ian is characterizing SMGs by their general construction. That’s reasonable. I think one could characterize them by their mission and get pretty much the same three categories, because their construction followed their mission and the technology of the time.
If we categorize by mission, I think the first generation SMGs were intended for limited use by shock troops and the like. They were expensive because cheapness and speed of manufacture hadn’t reached that market yet, and that may be why their mission was limited.
The second generation SMGs were intended for mass issue. Entire units of the Russian Army were armed with PPSh41’s, for example. Their cheapness and speed of manufacture made this possible, and World War II made it necessary. When the Nazis are marching your way and you disarmed after WWI, you need a lot of guns and you need them right then.
The third generation SMGs were intended for police and military special units. They had advantages in urban warfare over the assault rifles that had supplanted the Gen2 SMGs as mass issue weapons. In a way, they were returning to a mission something like the first generation SMGs, except that fine accuracy (and therefore operation from a closed bolt) was at a premium.
These generations aren’t perfectly coterminous with Ian’s. I think the Beretta 38 was designed for the Gen2 mission but had a mix of Gen1 and Gen2 construction characteristics.
Anyway, I don’t make a case for one categorization versus the other. Just noting that it’s possible to divide things up along more than one axis.
“When the Nazis are marching your way and you disarmed after WWI”
Werent the “nazis” (germans) only nation disarmed after the ww1? U got something mixed up
In most classic gun literature, iirc ww2 smgs are gen.2, and post ww2, uzi style, bolt wrapped around barrel are classified gen. 3.
I’d mostly agree with that, this Ians I do not,
I’d put gen.4 at this “emulating rifle handling”, mp5 would be in that category, and other closed bolts like Calico, ar15 9mm conversions etc.
The Germans were disarmed under the terms of their surrender. Other countries, like the UK, actually got rid of their stockpiles of weapons after World War I. They had to arm themselves quickly.
1sr gen SMGs were meant to be portable machine guns which lay automatic fire on enemy trenches etc.
Second generation is meant to be cheap lead slinger, and are more like an automatic carbine, or a bike what an assault rifle is supposed to be.
1. Automatic weapons designed to fire pistol bullets so that they are controllable and man portable… e.g. “Gen. 1”: At first, there is confusion about how to use these and employ them and various fiascoes related to legacy cartridges and equipment: a) the Villar Perosa is an aircraft weapon with extremely limited range, and a poor LMG… the Italians work it out into a “true” shoulder weapon or SMG, b) the German Stoßtruppen M.P.18,I has to use the “trommelmagazin” of the artillery Luger, and a chest of these is lugged around by a “loader” in support of the Frontschwein so equipped, c) the “Annihilator” or “Trench broom” of John Taliaferro Thompson arrives too late, but is used in U.S. labor conflicts, the IRA gets some for the Irish Civil War, and gangsters find them just the thing once they can afford to upgrade to them from cheaper shotguns, followed by police agencies and law enforcement, and eventually by Smedley “Old Gimlet Eye” Butler’s “racketeers for capitalism” the USMC.
rifle-type stocks, gun-maker’s artistry, machining, blueing, all sorts of oddities like bipods, long-range sights, variable magazine configurations, etc.
Gen. 2–To Ian and others, the fully-automatic, pistol caliber, man portable weapons of military Fordism, i.e. WWII: cheap, very rapid manufacture, compact size, folding stocks, etc. Caliber options largely disappear to primarily three: 9mm, .45 acp (because of the U.S.) and 7.62mm (Soviet): M3/M3A1, PPSh-41/PPS-43, MP-38/MP-40, Beretta M38/42 and /44, Sten Mk.I, II, III, V. Ian insists that many post-WWII/ pre-“assault rifle” SMG designs properly belong here, e.g. Danish Madsen M-50/53, Hovea/ Swedish kpist m/45, KP-44, DUX, Czechoslovak sa 23,24,25,26, Israeli/Belgian Uzi, French MAT-49, Spanish Z-45 & 63, Portuguese FBP, British Patchett/Sterling, Australian F1, etc. etc. etc. Everyone is used to received gun literature that has it that a telescoping bolt and magazine well in the pistol grip like the Italian Armaguerra prototype OG-42, Japanese prototype Nambu, Soviet prototype Rukavishnikov, Austrian Steyr MPi69, Israeli/Belgian Uzi, Czechoslovak samopal, Polish PM-63, Italian PM-12 (ok, conventional layout, but a telescoping bolt, no?),all constitute a “Gen. 3” but Ian disputes this, in favor of lumping these all together as “Gen. 2” latecomers, yes? Meanwhile, we have pistol-caliber rifles like the MP5, Colt SMG, and similar closed-bolt or otherwise specialized SMGs constituted a “true” Gen. 3.
So. What about assault-rifles with shortened barrels like the AKSU-74, or the Vietnam War XM177 CAR, HK53, HK36 kurz kommando, or, for that matter, about half the current French armee de Terre’s HK416s with 11.5″ barrels and so on? Are shorty assault rifles a variant of assault rifles, or of a different type of SMG, or both?
Then, finally, we get to the so-called PDW–ignoring that the PM-63 was just such a type of weapon using an ordinary 9x18mm pistol cartridge–in which all sorts of armor-defeating hyper-velocity cartridges designed to defeat body armor are rolled out…prototype Colt SCAMP, Colt Mars, FN P90 5.7mm, HK P7 4.6mm, Chi-com 5.8x21mm, various Russian prototypes and heavy 9mm weapons, etc. Are these a form of SMG? Or something different… yet?
Ian appears to be arguing that use of stampings, bent metal, folding stocks, telescoping bolts, compactness, etc. are a sufficient continuity between WWII-era “military Fordism” and post-WWII weapons such that these are not separate “Generations” but that making things out of polymer plastic materials is a true division between them. But what of calibers? From true pistol calibers to hyper-velocity assault rifle cartridges, to entirely new micro-caliber “SMGs?”
What of firearms that are neither fish nor fowl? Interesting discussion.
Aksu: range via wikipedia says 300 m, Ak74: range 500 m +, M1 carbine: 270m, Ppsh: 250m, 4.6mm Mp7 thing: 200m, Mp40: says Ppsh range. Fn90: 200m… Thus a Pdw has less range than a Smg. Sooo… Is that how they are “distinguished” I.e. Between a pistol and a Smg in regards range. Think the reduced range is to do with the body armour penetrating wee rounds… Osamas favorite gun 6lb or so probably minus the big mag thing he liked, Mp7 pushing 5lb…
Decent taste in Guns old Osama really, if not much else…
Rak63 75-150m via Wiki… Says max 200m for a Stechkin… Bit of luck etc, might hit 750rpm aim off… Both being Pdws not pistols nor an smg per say.
Can see why they went for the Ak74su really.
Per se, I say.
“Can see why they went for the Ak74su really.”
Are you suspecting planners in Soviet Union of such long-ranging planning and steel faith in everything will went as intended to slate replacement of weapon which production ended in 1958 with weapon which would went into production in 1979?
Ppsh quite a handy wee carbine… Smg… Good calibre. Very effective mass issue “rifle” U.S folks in the Korean War, noted it as being; damm fine so to speak.
Wee carbine, machine pistol thing… He he.
Having fired an Ak74 su briefly I do like that: I prefered it over the Hk33, in full auto. You could smg it with a aksu, spray etc. Unlike with the 7.62x39mm version, I don’t know who thought that could be an Smg; theres a real question, when is an assualt rifle not an Smg… In an Ak47. Should have kept the Daddy.
So to round up, the calibre is important in these discussions. 🙂
Thus negating the point of the Ak47 in away… Given the Sks, and Ppsh existed… At least untill the calibre change to 5.45… Can’t say I have fired 7.92×33 full auto, or at all… Offhand I think that is less potent than the Russian idea, thinking blackout etc; I could check but won’t… Point being maybe, the assault rifle worked in 7.92 kurz… And would have been handy in 1919 for ze Kaisers victory parade.
5.56 is fine in full auto in comparison, but is like seldom used… So like, the concept of an assualt rifle should perhaps be revisited… Ww1 Germany having lost, no?
The victory parade could have been like this but wearing pointy helmets “as in sign language, for a German” yes, wear your poppy with pride.
Alternatively they knew that, it wasn’t much of smg but the cal was good; in semi auto as a rifle. Which it was; likely that. Just say aye its am smg also, if anyone asks. So the Ak47 is a carbine really, a good one. One rifle.
Anyway point being why do we keep making Assualt rifles. In 5.56 a better cal for spraying… But nobody does, really.
Just stop doing it. He he.
Assualt rifles are ww1, aye. That never came.
A better carbine, than the sks. We now, keep up this assault rifle facade essentially to permit U.S Ar’s to not be such.
For $$$ in private sales; when everyone knows they are as deadly, as the military don’t even use full auto. Meh, yeah? Well.
Em2 in .243 26″ barrel etc; pop said perp who may well wear a turban in Afghan etc.
Meh, heard less plausible covid, etc, etc, theories.
These guns are all shit.
Zip it. Zip.
I am saying. We should develop ultra high quality semi autos.
Yes forget about full autos, for the military who never use them, thus you “the designer” and we the user can benefit from an excellent trigger, you put all your work into; instead of trying to work around some… Whatever, aye. That.
Which nobody ever uses in the military, like 99% never.
“(…)Which nobody ever uses in the military, like 99% never.(…)”
Are you sure this figure does well represent actually usage of such mode of fire by Russian forces?
Anyway, as old saying goes: you can not have enough ammunition, only not enough but unable to carry more.
I think that weapons like the Colt SCAMP, the MP-7, and the P90 fall into a category of their own, the specialized Personal Defense Weapon (PDW).
All three use specialized ammunition unique to themselves (except for the P980 which shares the 5.7 x 28 round with the FN Five-Seven handgun).
In all three cases, even the SCAMP predating the others by nearly half a century, the objective was to combine killing power equivalent to a standard service pistol (9 x 19mm), with the soft-armor defeating capability of a service rifle at short range (5.56 x 45mm), plus controllable full-automatic fire, with or without a burst control. Plus a large enough magazine capacity to make autofire practical without constantly having to call “time out!” to reload.
So really, they are neither SMGs, of any generation, or strictly speaking even “machine pistols”, in that they do not fire standard pistol ammunition, or even notably pistol-like ammunition.
And no, the 5.7 x 28 out of the Five-SeveN pistol barrel does not deliver the same energy to the target that it does from the considerably longer P90 barrel. This shouldn’t surprise anybody; the .22 WMRF shows similar characteristics in pistol vs. rifle-length barrels.
These are a separate category of small arm, and it’s rather contra-intuitive to try to classify them as “pistols”, “SMGs”, or whatever else than what they actually are.
Learned something else other than fan-wankery “which was important” This day just keeps giving, and giving he he.
My understanding is that during the 1970s microcaliber research fad, the Germans cooked up the spoon-tip/ loeffelspitz 4.6x36mm carbine, but the outgrowth of the experiments was intended ultimately to be a “PDW” with a matching “UCP” pistol to go with, a bit like the FN P90 and Five-seveN pistol. The 4.6x30mm was found to have lackluster ballistics out of a pistol, and the MP7A1 was apparently enough “pistol like” to obviate a service pistol in the caliber.
Anyone remember the GIAT “ADR” with two triggers? Apparently that was tested in a raft of .223 and .224 cartridges… 5.7x22mm, etc. and at one point had dual triggers–one for full auto, the other for semi-auto–but then settled on two triggers that had to be simultaneously pressed in order to fire? Do I have that right?
Back before KelTec there was the odd Swedish Interdynamics MKB 4.5mm prototype, that was basically a .22 WMR bull-pup.
“(…)ultimately to be a “PDW” with a matching “UCP” pistol to go with(…)”
Interestingly, before UCP there were works done on case-less Closerangeweapon:
it would use cartridge similar to, but tinier than that of G11. Development of this was shelved alongside G11.
Krieg der Stern, nicht war?
.17 HMR bullpup, you meant?
“I think that weapons like the Colt SCAMP, the MP-7, and the P90 fall into a category of their own, the specialized Personal Defense Weapon (PDW).
All three use specialized ammunition unique to themselves (except for the P980 which shares the 5.7 x 28 round with the FN Five-Seven handgun).”
MP-7 had companion automatic pistol developed – code-named UCP
it was unveiled at dawn of 21th century but apparently did not make into mass production so far.
Dave – Ian’s “Gen 3” definition is primarily about scaling down a rifle system for a pistol cartridge.
“What about assault-rifles with shortened barrels like the AKSU-74(…)Are shorty assault rifles a variant of assault rifles, or of a different type of SMG, or both?”
Firstly – consider what A in AKSU-74 means. Secondly – there was in 1970s Soviet Union contest code-named Bouquet which were to yield sub-machine gun and results were greatly different from said AKSU-74, though none went into production at that time.
Dragunov’s entry (PP-71) – see 1st photo from top: https://en.topwar.ru/11034-pistolet-pulemet-dragunova-pp-71.html – would later be revived to result into KEDR, but PP-71 never went into production due to… ambitious goal regarding hit chance vs distance.
I gotta echo the folks in the earlier discussion who asked the question “What’s the point…?”.
Categorizing weapons like this fails the test of utility, in that it adds little to the discussion, and actually adds more points of contention to distract people with.
When you talk about a lot of the other issues in weapons terminology, you can find points where there are actual reasons and some utility to discussing the various points–The national differences in machinegun terminology spring to mind. The controversies over what makes an LMG vs. an Automatic Rifle serve to elucidate and bring out the differences in vision for the role and purposes served by these weapons, and thus, there’s some utility to discussing the finer points.
Whether a submachinegun belongs to an imaginary “generation”? All that really amounts to is mere pedantry that doesn’t do much to further either discussion or general knowledge about the weapons.
I would also submit that it would be far more useful to address the training and doctrinal issues surrounding the weapons, as well as the influence of economic realities that form the matrix around their adoption and use. Instead of saying that a first-generation SMG was characterized by high-quality machining and pre-WWI notions of what a weapon required, I would suggest that it’s more important to recognize the fact that these weapons were tactical and operational prototypes built to the old standards of construction, representative of the transitional thinking going from the era of the mass-issue magazine rifle and bayonet as primary infantry weapons to the era where it was far more dependent on mass-issue firepower devolved to the lowest level. These weapons were succeeded by variants which were far more amenable to mass production, and essentially expendable mass-issue weapons more akin to the Chauchat than things like the Lewis or the BREN gun. It wasn’t so much a technological shift as a shift and an advancement in the thinking of the men equipping the armies.
Arguably, there’s a fairly significant difference between something like the STEN and the later Uzi, which were essentially handed out to supplement the firepower of the squads, and something like the modern MP-7, which is seen as a PDW for limited issue to specialist troops. Tactically, there’s a major conceptual difference, even if the weapons seem to be very similar, on the surface–Nobody is going to be handing an infantryman an MP-7 in lieu of a G-36 the way you saw the Brits handing out the Sterling in place of the FAL for some roles and personnel.
In the final analysis, most of this discussion is essentially fan-wankery. There’s no real utility to the whole thing, and it really doesn’t aid in much of anything, to include discussing the role and purpose of the entire weapon class we think of when we say “Submachinegun”.
“Nobody is going to be handing an infantryman an MP-7 in lieu of a G-36 the way you saw the Brits handing out the Sterling in place of the FAL for some roles and personnel.”
Not in the general infantry*, but it *is* being done in Special Operations as well as in police contexts.
*And in the Bundeswehr, we are talking about the actual infantrymen only.
Squad leaders and support personnel in infantry units are often handed an MP7 just like they were handed an MP2 (Uzi) when the G3 was the standard rifle.
The thought process is the same: They are not meant to participate in combat as shooters, but have other tasks and are given the gun only for self-defense purposes.
That is the doctrinal though behind it, not my opinion – I’d rather have “too much gun” than just enough (i.e. very close to too little) in most situations. When I was in, the MP2 was almost gone while MP7s were still as rare as hens’ teeth and everyone (except for the machine gunners) carried a G36, which I found light and compact enough (with the stock folded) to not be in the way when doing things other than shooting.
That bit about the G36 being “light and compact enough” to serve in lieu of the old SMG for specialist positions is what I’m talking about.
Although, in the 1980s, I only saw vehicle drivers and tankers in the Bundeswehr carrying the UZI; everyone else, including squad leaders, was carrying the G3. Maybe I wasn’t seeing the right units, since we mostly worked with the second echelon types, and the reservists?
Conceptually, I find the PDW a different kettle of fish than the SMG–PDW is meant to serve as a better pistol, and the things like the STEN and MP40 were issued in lieu of the rifle. In that, the MP-7 belongs in a category with the M1 Carbine, not the M3 “Greasegun”.
In the WWII era, the SMG served mostly as a firepower “add-on”, to put volume of fire down into the squad for low-level combat actions. In that regard, we no longer issue the SMG for that purpose, and the PDW isn’t either. The so-called “assault rifle” has totally supplanted that role and mission…
Well, there is envisioned use and actual use.
The M1 Carbine and the M3 SMG might have belonged in different categories, but frontline units were quite fond of the M1 Carbine (and even more so of the M2 Carbine).
Likewise, when the MP7 was introduced in the Bundeswehr, the first users were not some rear echelon units but the high speed low drag KSK.
Other nation’s special forces soon followed suit and several special police units use it, too.
It might have been developed as a PDW, but it was and is used as an SMG, i.e. a primary weapon for offensive purposes, too.
Of course, this does lead to some “interesting” constellations like the SEK or GSG9 man wearing level 4 armor with additional shoulder, neck and lower body protection and the most protective and heavy helmet he could find – and carrying an MP7 “to retain mobility” 😀
“Categorizing weapons like this fails the test of utility”(C)
I am ready to subscribe under every word.
Machine gun – a mechanical device for throwing bullets, with an automatic main mode.
The pistol is a compact machine gun for constant carry for the purpose of self-defense with a single main mode.
The submachine gun is a compact machine gun for constant wearing for the purpose of self-defense with the main automatic mode.
The MP7 definitely matches the hallmarks of a submachine gun.
With increased reach and penetration, which translates it into the PDW class.
P90. Just a weird SMG.
If the designers were a little more far-sighted, they would have adapted it to the German cartridge and would have received a quite decent carbine…
But some body did not allow them.
Probably pride. 😉
I figure that a lot of this is due to your age
I’m a boomer born 1952 and I grew up with cowboy and gangster films and later Ian Hoggs books 3 generations of smg’s made sence to me in the 1960’s
1969 was when I got my dad to buy me a legal sten mk111
typical gen 2 gun rough and ready
I never fired an ar 15 till the late 70’s
So now I’m an old fart set in my ways
Dont mind me keep up the discusioon it really makes my day
Fan-Wankery: Well they do say you learn something everyday.
The anti-intellectualism is strong, apparently. Creating typologies and noting certain technological and production shifts does aid historical analysis and appraisal.
Once upon a time, in the 20th century, the desirability, tactical use, and employment of a short-range automatic weapon was doubted. What possible military use could it serve? The hide bound Limey officer corps even rejected such inefficient, short range weapons as “gangster guns” at one point.
The worst sequel ever, namely the resumption of World War in the 1930s and 1940s saw a handful of SMGs used by NCOs and specialist troops like Fallschirmjäger… And then every army kept acquiring and adopting more and more SMGs. In the German army, from a single burp gun in a squad of machine gun ammunition carriers lugging short Mauser bolt action rifles, one sees ever greater numbers of automatic weapons being added. The Soviet Union made greater use of SMGs than any other combatant. Arguably, Japan made the least, resorting to lavish use of LMGs, MMGs, and even repurposed aircraft weapons instead. The war of military Fordism’s use of swifter, less labor-intensive processes, cheaper materials, fewer resources may seem like a total “no brainer”… and yet…
Postwar, there was a period where new SMG designs typically failed to get much traction since there were plenty of ex-WWII SMGs available, and the age of the assault rifle was nigh. Yet, a few designs did emerge, tellingly: The Uzi was compact. The Sterling was not a Sten. The MP40 continued in use for a time with France, the Israeli Haganah/ETZL/Palmach, Czechoslovakia, Poland, the DDR, Austria, and Norway, and begat the Yugoslav JNA M56, Spain’s Z-45, Portugal’s FBP-48, etc. before giving way to guns like the Uzi and assault rifles.
Some writers essentially dismiss SMGs as a dead-end development akin to the muzzle loading rifle muskets of the 19th century. The dominant path lay in breech loading, metallic cartridges, and reliable repeaters, not single shots. But these co-existed for a long time, just as, say, SMGs and assault rifles.
“(…)Creating typologies and noting certain technological and production shifts does aid historical analysis and appraisal.(…)”
Ok, but then classification as put below:
“(…)Gen 1 – The first SMGs, made with primarily milled components to a high standard of craftsmanship and expense.
Gen 2 – The economization of SMGs. Designs using stamped materials at first, and polymer more recently.
Gen 3 – Designs emulating rifle handling. Generally closed bolt, but featuring the controls, layout and handling copied from modern rifle platforms.(…)”
is partially orthogonal. Whilst belong to 1 and belong to 2 are mutually exclusive, but belong to 1 and belong to 3 are not.
Take for example Brøndby Maskinpistol Model 1933
which like self-loading rifle of same designer was gas-operated
which clearly does have shape (balance) of rifle of given era and open sights scaled from 100 m to 1000 m in 100 m increments – this is to say the least optimistic for 9×19 Parabellum cartridge, but make sense if you mimic rifle.
Therefore these full-fill conditions to be in 1 and in 3, so it requires bugfix saying: “does belong to 1 win with does belong to 3” xor “does belong to 3 with does belong to 1”
How can the FN P90 be derived from the FN F2000 rifle when:
1. The P90 went into production in 1990, and the F2000 design work did not start until 1995?
2. The list of dissimilar part/system on these 2 firearms is much longer then the similar list?
PDW Gen 2: Rifle-velocity purpose-built ammunition-consuming firearms designed specifically for defense against body-armored adversaries.
Sure, still a sub-set if SMG so as they say in the taxonomic community: “lumpers and splitters”. Lumpers, Gen 4, Splitters PDW Gen 2
How could it be? that Ian’s criteria for t’ turd generation, actually describes the progenitor of the whole lot…
Delayed blowback, chambered for a cartridge with less recoil than a 9mmP and with the rate of fire, controls and handling of something much bigger…
Let’s look instead of winky wanky “”””generations”””””
At wtf people were using the things for, or at least wtf they were supposed to be using them for in combat.
In that sense, the likes of the later Stens and Sterlings were being issued to the chin-less, in lieu of the (disastrous if it had ever been issued) EM2, for full auto supressive fire while the squaddies did a flanking manoeuvre armed with No4s or semi auto FALs.
What exactly was that role when compared with other armies?
Was it the equivalent of the BAR in American usage?
The same as the Mg34 and 42 in WWII Wermacht usage?
Or can it be downgraded to the usage of the M1,2,3 and 4 carbines by Americans- for drivers and potato peelers?
If you want:
“Delayed blowback, chambered for a cartridge with less recoil than a 9mmP and with the rate of fire, controls and handling of something much bigger…”
then get ČZW 438
There’s a lot to be said for the never tried in action sub calibres
.221 Remington fireball (that overweight. 22 hornet- check it out, calibre, length and rim diameter are all too close for coincidence)
.22 Johnson spitfire and 5.7x? FN are within the length and the loading table specs for .22 K hornet and Ackley Hornet.
All have good potential for piercing body armour and helmets, along with vastly reduced recoil and muzzle blast compared to anything SMG or assault rifle
They Also have good potential for use in blowback designs of reasonable weight, and excellent accuracy.
Attempts to stick to the technological aspect (for classifying weapons) are completely useless.
SMGs emerged as a response to the inability of the industry to produce sufficient quantities of normal LMGs.
No one has ever (except ATF) seen a serious weapon in the SMG that could replace a rifle or machine gun. And it is right.
They became widespread only during WW2, when it was necessary to urgently patch up the supply holes that arose after the total failures of the outbreak of the war.
This was most clearly demonstrated by Britain and the USSR.
Which were able to quickly equip new units to compensate for losses.
Therefore, there are as many systems and designs as there were factories.
If it were not for such failures as Dunkirk and other boilers of the early years, the SMG would have remained special police equipment.
Perhaps MP7, so far, is the only PDW that has taken place.
He is made by his ability to withstand in close combat (if not on equal terms, then at least worthily) to an enemy armed with normal rifles.
Although they had to pay for it, literally. 😉
P90 is far from the role of PDW as from the near edge of the universe.
The USA fought WWII, in essence, without an LMG. I mean, sure, there’s the bipod-M1919 Browning, but that is hardly a GPMG like the MG34 or MG42. Most nations’ armies did in fact see the SMG as a replacement for a manually-operated bolt action rifle if a self-loading rifle or select fire rifle was not going to be arriving any time soon… e.g. look at the SMG in the TO&E early war, mid-war, late war…?
It took a while for the assault rifle to eclipse the earlier rifles and earlier SMGs, hence the post-war plethora that began to recede in the 1970s and 1980s.
Is the Kriss Vector based on a rifle platform?
And isn’t the P90 older than the F2000 platform?
Kriss Vector was created on the platform of the belief of some part of the population that if you put six wheels on a car, it will drive one and a half times better. LOL
This is a quasi-high tech design.
When they take something ordinary, turn it upside down, add a few bows and a bell…
And then they look for suckers who can suck it in at double the price. Do not forget to hang up a label with a 50% discount. LOL
Just like other similar, super-duper “revolutionary” designs like Alien and others.
Bait for suckers.
The P90 and FN2000 were obviously designed by one team, headed(?) by Rene Predazzer.