Tbh, they've been out of style for a long time, probably since the 80s when UZIs were the rage.
The only SMG that intrigues me is the 2nd gen Kriss Vector in the relatively compact pistol version. Long barrels with pistol rounds simply aren't worth it.
I would want to shoot it suppressed, so 9mm most likely. I like that they offer it in 10mm though.
If I have the foresight to use FMJ because I am expecting people to wear armor, then I would not want to be bringing 9mm to the fight to begin with. IMHO, SMGs overall are pretty far down the totem pole in importance for SHTF/WROL scenarios. I think you should have maybe 6-7 guns before you are getting an SMG, but maybe I'm wrong.
>The difference in performance afforded by the longer barrel is very meaningful
In full size pistols vs compact, it's a pretty big jump, but the curve smooths out considerably the longer the barrel when you are dealing with a handgun round. On the Vector, the choice is between a 6.5 and 16, where there is not a great difference.
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/9luger.html
You might think that the difference is worth it, I don't, but I'm also a guy who shoots 9mm, not .40 for the extra bit of energy. Not right or wrong, just different priorities. I'll take compactness and maneuverability and lower weight, especially as I would want to use it with a silencer.
>you're a moron
This is 8ch, you might be lost.
My understanding is that the diameter of the projectile has a major effect on the acoustics as it is moving through the air, and larger calibers simply don't suppress as well. That is why .22 lr subsonic really can be very quiet, but once you move up, it starts to get a lot less like the movies. Suppressed, subsonic 9mm is still going to make some noise, but not as much as the equivalent in .45. It's unfortunate, because there is a large selection of subsonic .45 and as far as ballistics, it's .45, but the tradeoff is still more noise. Before I knew this, I was surprised so many people were suppressing 9mm when .45 ACP is the big slow pistol bullet, and it would seem custom-made for suppression.
In theory, I guess subsonic .300 blackout would actually be slightly quieter than 9mm, putting aside any other noise like the gun cycling. Though maybe the overall weight of the bullet factors in as well, I really don't know the physics of it.
>It is used for many good reasons, and CONTRARY to what the testers say ballistics gel DOES show hydrostatic shock.
There is a lot of stuff out there now supporting the notion that, say, 9mm and .357 magnum are about equally effective in the real world, and in general stronger handgun rounds are not worth the cost, lost carrying capacity, and higher recoil. I know this could be a whole thread, but what do you or others have to counter that?
I love Paul Harrell's videos, and I particularly appreciate the long response, but let me focus on what I consider the main argument against the larger calibers. This video gives a good summation: the notion is that the pressure wave caused by a bullet going over 2200 fps leads to permanent disruption and a trail of damage much wider than the bullet, whereas with bullets traveling below that speed, the natural elasticity of tissue means that it bounces back. Now, real world, even if it bounces back, it might still be traumatic, like getting punched in the stomach, and you could say that's a flaw in their methodology, but studies of real world shootings support their thesis.
The general idea is that there are 3 tiers of guns in common use: small caliber (22, 25, maybe 32 acp), normal handgun calilber (.380 to .357 mag), and then typical rifle calibers and shotguns. The idea is that the differences within those groups are quite small, at least on human beings, but the difference between those groups is very significant.
The main counter I have seen to this are anecdotal accounts from hunters, where they describe significant differences in effects between using different calibers on deer.
There are other factors aside from just effects of calibers on human tissue, like expansion and penetration, but the above is the main argument.
Using this criteria, a larger caliber bullet will still do more damage, that's true. This shows a 9mm against a .40 and especially a .45. It's pretty clear that, all else being equal, a .45 will do the most damage traveling through tissue in terms of its diameter. A wider projectile is more likely to damage something important on its path.
Unfortunately, caliber is pretty costly in terms of carrying capacity, and to some extent monetary cost. When the guns are the same size, you see a striking difference in terms of carrying capacity between 9mm and .45. The M&P guns can hold 17 rounds of 9mm and 10 rounds of 45.
https://www.cabelas.com/product/SMITH-WESSON-M-P-CF-PISTOLS/2437572.uts
Whenever you see a high capacity .45 cal pistol, it's simply a big gun, bigger in than its 9mm equivalent. The M&P are I believe about the same size across the 3 calibers.
>By the way, some rounds will cause hydrostatic shock below 2,200 FPS, look up solid soft points for 357 and 44 magnum rifles.
Incidentally, I am going off their arguments about 2200 fps, but I imagine that is a really dumbed-down version of the underlying physics. Dumbing down science for the layperson is very common.
If what they said was 100% accurate, then velocity would be almost everything. Meaning, a .17 Hornet would be used for taking down elk, and a 400 grain 45/70 is something you would only use because of brush.
>Statistics are of the least value in things and subjects that have the least commonality and control in them.
You have to start somewhere though, your choices have to have some basis in what has gone before. That has always held true. Statistics might be a really dumbed-down, low-res way of looking at the problem, but that doesn't mean they don't have merit.
>Capacity has been overblown for a long time as well
In self-defense, yes. In WROL situations, then high-capacity is extremely important. If you are only thinking of the former, sure, but a lot of people would want their handguns, or at least some of them, to be really useful in a SHTF scenario where gunfights could turn into protracted affairs because there are no police on the way.
One problem is that it simply isn't humane to literally test these things. Even doing controlled tests on animals is pretty warped. Handgun hunters do seem to feel that larger calibers matter a lot, but they might not be entirely objective. I suspect a .338 Lapua would be a lot more effective than any of the traditional big game rounds in African hunting, but it doesn't have the aura of the Nitro Express rounds. Also, it's not even legal in most African countries.
I almost don't want my position to be right, since it makes things a little more boring. At the same time, people who have to get Buffalo Bore 10mm or whatever for maximum stopping power, or go to the bother and expense and limitations of rounds like .357 SIG…I don't know, I simply don't think most of that is worth it.
Though it doesn't hit the magic 2200 fps that they describe, I suspect the 7.5 FK is something pretty special and cutting-edge. Not sure about a lot of the other more powerful handgun rounds.
>That's why 357 or 10mm beat 45 hands down.
The fact that it doesn't in terms of what we know based on actual usage against human beings is what is under discussion, so you can't make those assumptions, especially when real world data does not support your case.
>Again, that ignores all other factors involved.
Hence, phrases like "all else being equal."
>My suggestion - don't appeal to temporary things like the state of markets when discussing scientific things like ballistics.
Larger bullets will always cost more all else being equal.
>Compare the mag type, not size - a double stack 45 would hold 3-4 less rounds in a full grip, while a single stack is still thinner.
Large capacity .45 caliber are always large guns. If they approach the capacity of their 9mm equivalents, they are always a bit larger. That is a factor in concealment and reliable carry, and possibly one in terms of usability. I brought up the M&P as a good example of a model where the manufacturer did not build a significantly larger .45 version, and capacity is drastically different.
>>some rounds will cause hydrostatic shock below 2,200 FPS
>Therefore, proving once again this idiotic theory useless.
I'm not a physicist, so I avoid the term hydrostatic shock, but the argument is whether the velocity/energy is enough to cause permanent damage to tissue rather than allowing it to simply bounce back.
>Unless drum mags are involved reload speed would be more important and available ammo on you would be even more important still.
That's being unrealistic. First, life is not like the movies where you can simply jump behind a marble pillar on cue to swap out magazines in your HK P30L. Secondly, the average 1911 owner is probably not going to be carry three extra magazines around, whereas a lot of guys would carry at least one extra mag.
>See >>640405
Nothing there about it being a bad round, only that the BRNO right now is an overpriced boutique gun to pay for their development costs on a military project, and the ammo itself is expensive. My issue with it is that it is proprietary, but I brought it up as a real attempt to bridge the gap between handguns and rifles.
>be ashamed of yourself.
You're not knowledgeable enough to talk down to me. It's easier for me to simply respond than trade insults.
>And the data is completely unscientific bullshit.
It's one data point, one of the best we have. Though it's also not the last word.
>It's not about "making it stay" or "bouncing back" but about damaging it so that it leads to a faster bleedout.
Usually not the primary goal in taking out an attacker, bleeding almost always takes too long. Ideally, you want someone to be immediately incapacitated, or as to close to that as you can get.
>So we should ignore cover whatsoever?
I didn't think my point was too hard to grasp. Put another way, you aren't guaranteed cover, ever. The more rounds you have ready to shoot, the more likely you can reach cover or concealment.
>Except for the fact that it's impractical in every imaginable way they could make it
The round and gun are quite nice, but the price tag simply makes them a toy for the wealthy. I don't care about stuff like that, CZ is one of the best gun manufacturers in the world. Neither do I fault Beretta for cashing in with special edition 92s that are beautiful safe queens.
Good post. I'm honestly trying to get my head around the data I presented earlier. I think it's part of the puzzle, but they infer too much. This stuff always goes in cycles.
>Those of us who have turned small game inside out, into clouds of mist with high power rifles, blown deer legs off, put our hands into the goop that was once its vital organs know more than people who just read the books.
Experience that I don't have either. IMHO, hunters are probably the group that would have the best input on these issues.