Favorite Sub-machine gun

lesofprimus · 10-16-2005, 07:32 AM

Ahem...

Well, I tried out most available weaps in combat situations, and it was just too damn big... It was a great weapon, no doubt pD, and if there was fighting in the Sahara or Antarctica, it might be a weapon for a skilled operator to use... The weight wasnt so much of a handicap as to the size of it..

Nonskimmer · 10-16-2005, 09:32 AM

You know, it never even occurred to me to ask any Falklands vets what they thought of it.

I don't know any of the old timers from the British Army or Royal Marines anymore. The guys I know only had SA80 experience.

I seem to recall that there was some misgiving among a lot of British troops about having to give up their SLR's for the SA80's, after the Falklands. Most regular infantry types that I've spoken with in the Canadian Army were only too happy to give up the old C1's for the C7's (licence built, ever so slightly modified M-16).

schwarzpanzer · 10-16-2005, 11:33 AM

I actually like the SLR PlanD, it's just not auto.

The SLR was no good for paras or jungle fighting, though I know a few people who loved it for the latter. Some 'borrowed' Argentinian versions had folding stocks.

Close range it was lethal too, though not nearly as much as an AK47, AR-15 or Sterling.

You could also give someone a good whack with it or when using the bayonet the length was an advantage.

The SA80 is disliked because it is a horrible weapon, worse than the Sten or Chincom 56.

The C7 is good and is full auto, there was a clamour for the AR-15s when it came out despite the unrealiablity because of its weight (and that of it's ammo) and full-auto rifle ability. Though you look after it and it's OK.

plan_D · 10-16-2005, 12:50 PM

The SLR was fine for any kind of combat. My father carried a SLR through Northern Ireland, Falklands and the Gulf. And he was glad he left the RAF before the SA80 came in. In fact, he was the last guard commander at RAF Finningley before it switched to the SA80. "It's not auto..." so what? The British forces are trained for single aimed shots to drop the opponent in one ...the 7.62mm round will drop them in one, especially in the hands of a marksman like my dad. And yes, he has the marksman badge.

schwarzpanzer · 10-16-2005, 02:46 PM

Oh yes, like I said some love it, usually markmen like your dad.

However sometimes compactness and auto fire are vital, would you use it for CQB or hostage situations?

Would the MG42, AK47, MP40 or PPSh41 be as good if they were single-shot?

I know of it's use in Malaya and Aden by friends/family who loved it and I like it but some would pick a Sterling or AR-15 9 times out of 10, and no they're not crap shots.

If you are a crap shot, then the SLR is not really for you either.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 10-16-2005, 03:46 PM

The M-16 and M-4 are not auto and they are just fine. You dont have to be fully auto to be a good gun. In fact for most scenerios a fully auto is a waste of ammo.

Dont go into the M-16 being fully auto either. Yes the older versions were but the A-2, A-3, and A-4 are not fully auto and there is a reason why it was a waste of ammo and if you needed to put out lots of ammo you have 3 round burst.

Nonskimmer · 10-16-2005, 04:06 PM

All of the Canadian versions (C7, C7A1, C8 ) have the auto-fire capability, and there are certainly times when it's good to have. Like any good soldiers, the boys are trained to conserve the ammo as much as possible of course, and single-shot marksmanship is essential. They train that way constantly. Just because the weapon has the automatic setting, it doesn't mean that they don't train to fire in controlled bursts. They do.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 10-16-2005, 04:10 PM

Then Canadian versions are liscence built versions of the M-16 that were early versions - Vietnam era. From the A-2 onwards the US only used the 3 round burst and semi auto selectors on there M-16s.

Nonskimmer · 10-16-2005, 04:13 PM

No, the Canadian versions were modified that way deliberately. They're based on the M-16A2, M-16A3, and M4 but lack the 3 round burst setting and instead have the full-auto setting. That's how the Canadian Forces wanted them. Denmark and the Netherlands use C7's as well.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 10-16-2005, 04:23 PM

Interesting factoid my friend, thank you that I did not know.

plan_D · 10-16-2005, 05:01 PM

The SLR is able in any situation. The only place someone wouldn't want it is in room to room fighting. You don't have to be a crack shot to use the SLR effectively. Not all British forces are crack shots ...but they all loved and used the SLR effectively where ever they went.

The MP40 and PPSh-41 were both designed to be full-auto for room clearing. The MG-42 was a LMG, what kind of stupid question is that? And the AK-47 would still be as good because anyone using it properly would fire it single shot.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 10-16-2005, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plan_D

And the AK-47 would still be as good because anyone using it properly would fire it single shot.

And thats why the Iraqi's did not do too well with the AK because they would just pull the trigger and spray it wildly without aiming and they would not hit a damn thing with it.

Nonskimmer · 10-16-2005, 06:54 PM

A lot like the majority of Russian ground forces. Spray from the hip and hope to hit something. That doesn't make it a lousy weapon, it just means that the soldiers aren't very well trained.

lesofprimus · 10-16-2005, 07:09 PM

The only time full auto should be used, is either for covering fire or withdrawls.....

Any decent operator can hold their weap on target with a 3 round burst...

The AK-47 is actually quite a stable weapon on full auto, if u brace urself with the recoil.... I used mine for several years, in all sorts of situations, and the full auto DID come in quite handy....

Im not a big fan of the M-16....

plan_D · 10-16-2005, 07:43 PM

Unfortunately I cannot talk from personal experience so I'm going to take the opinions of those that have actually used them in combat more to heart. I have read that the Delta in the Battle of Mogadishu were

ed with their CAR-15s because they were shooting the "skinnies" and they would either carry on running or would still fire back. If the Delta there had a SLR or AK-47 then they would have never had that problem.

My dad got a hold of an AK-47 in the Gulf and he says he loved pulling it to pieces and cleaning it. Unfortunately the paper work was too much to get it decomissioned so he could bring it home. It would have taken at least three days and he was flying home the next day he found out. I don't know if he actually fired the thing but he loved the feel of it. "It felt like a real gun..."