Ww Ii Submachine Gun Cartridge Comparison

[Sardaukar]

Which SMG cartridge people on this grate site think was most successful in SMG during WW II.

 

I am interested in opinions about performance within normal SMG combat range (usually way under 100m).

[DougRichards]

'Define SMG round and 'SMG''?

 

By ordinary definitions 9mm Parabellum was 'successful' in terms of being used by those on both sides.

 

For stopping power the .45 ACP cartridge was 'successful', except many of those who could have adopted it for their standard SMG round (ie Britain & Empire) chose 9mm Parabellum, even though they had Thompsons to show the way. Having said that, the Brits used the .45 ACP for their De Lisle carbine, which showed they knew the lethal potential of the round.

 

The 7.62 Tokarev gives a flatter trajectory and many many guns were produced to fire it, some of which used 7.62 rifle barrels cut in two pieces to produce the barrels for two SMGs. so that it can also be considered 'successful'.

 

Lastly, the M2 Carbine, firing auto a round derived from a pistol round, can be considered as a SMG, even though many would dispute this. A light weapon firing a 7.62 pistol round at 1,990ft/sec at 850rpm sounds like a damned successful SMG to me.

[Sardaukar]

M3 full-auto carbine was indeed quite interesting and even successful design. But in my mind, it'd go more to realm of assault rifle than SMG.

 

I am in mind myself that 7.62x25 might have been best cartridge for SMG, since SMG by it's virtue is an close combat weapon.

Edited April 26, 2013 by Sardaukar

[DougRichards]

M3 full-auto carbine was indeed quite interesting and even successful design. But in my mind, it'd go more to realm of assault rifle than SMG.

 

I am in mind myself that 7.62x25 might have been best cartridge for SMG, since SMG by it's virtue is an close combat weapon.

 

M3 carbine was the night sight version.

[Sardaukar]

 

M3 full-auto carbine was indeed quite interesting and even successful design. But in my mind, it'd go more to realm of assault rifle than SMG.

 

I am in mind myself that 7.62x25 might have been best cartridge for SMG, since SMG by it's virtue is an close combat weapon.

 

M3 carbine was the night sight version.

 

Ah! So M2 was the regular one?

 

Still, I'd not call .30 Carbine SMG cartridge.

Edited April 26, 2013 by Sardaukar

[Simon Tan]

.30 carbine and .30Tok are not all that dissimilar. I like bottleneck cartridges, they are generally a bit less fickle when it comes to extraction.

[DougRichards]

 

 

M3 full-auto carbine was indeed quite interesting and even successful design. But in my mind, it'd go more to realm of assault rifle than SMG.

 

I am in mind myself that 7.62x25 might have been best cartridge for SMG, since SMG by it's virtue is an close combat weapon.

 

M3 carbine was the night sight version.

 

Ah! So M2 was the regular one?

 

Still, I'd not call .30 Carbine SMG cartridge.

 

M1 carbine - semi-auto

 

M2 carbine full auto - and some M1 were converted to that standard with a kit.

 

The carbine cartridge was not used in a rifle, it was not powerful enough for that: it was used in a light, magazine fed, lightweight weapon that fired light (110 grain) rounds at around 850 rpm from a 30 round mag. What else would you call it but an SMG?

 

The first 'assault rifle' (that is if you exclude the early BAR as that type of weapon), the ST44, fired a heavier round at a higher velocity.

[L.V.]

I am in mind myself that 7.62x25 might have been best cartridge for SMG, since SMG by it's virtue is an close combat weapon.

 

I agree. In my opinion the PPS-43 firing that round was the best all-around combat sub-machine gun.

[Sardaukar]

 

 

 

M3 full-auto carbine was indeed quite interesting and even successful design. But in my mind, it'd go more to realm of assault rifle than SMG.

 

I am in mind myself that 7.62x25 might have been best cartridge for SMG, since SMG by it's virtue is an close combat weapon.

 

M3 carbine was the night sight version.

 

Ah! So M2 was the regular one?

 

Still, I'd not call .30 Carbine SMG cartridge.

 

M1 carbine - semi-auto

 

M2 carbine full auto - and some M1 were converted to that standard with a kit.

 

The carbine cartridge was not used in a rifle, it was not powerful enough for that: it was used in a light, magazine fed, lightweight weapon that fired light (110 grain) rounds at around 850 rpm from a 30 round mag. What else would you call it but an SMG?

 

The first 'assault rifle' (that is if you exclude the early BAR as that type of weapon), the ST44, fired a heavier round at a higher velocity.

 

Yep, I know.

 

I'd somewhat argue that M2 Carbine could be considered as "assault rifle". But in true TN style, we are going 90 degrees off-course already Not that I'd mind.

[Kentucky-roughrider]

DougRichards, on 26 Apr 2013 - 05:14, said:

'Define SMG round and 'SMG''?

 

By ordinary definitions 9mm Parabellum was 'successful' in terms of being used by those on both sides.

 

For stopping power the .45 ACP cartridge was 'successful', except many of those who could have adopted it for their standard SMG round (ie Britain & Empire) chose 9mm Parabellum, even though they had Thompsons to show the way. Having said that, the Brits used the .45 ACP for their De Lisle carbine, which showed they knew the lethal potential of the round.

 

The 7.62 Tokarev gives a flatter trajectory and many many guns were produced to fire it, some of which used 7.62 rifle barrels cut in two pieces to produce the barrels for two SMGs. so that it can also be considered 'successful'.

 

Lastly, the M2 Carbine, firing auto a round derived from a pistol round, can be considered as a SMG, even though many would dispute this. A light weapon firing a 7.62 pistol round at 1,990ft/sec at 850rpm sounds like a damned successful SMG to me.

One reason the British empire made their SMG in 9mm was they capated a very large amount of that ammo at some point early during the war, debating the 45 acp vs the 9mm is a common debate in amoung gun people, Another reason the 9mm was used for that roll was it was better at penetration and lighter ammo, versus the knockdown power of the 45 round and depending on which SMG was build controllability.

 

The Russian 7.62 x 25 mm should come out a poor third compared to the others in terms of knockdown power and few round to take out a enemy soldier.

Edited April 26, 2013 by Kentucky-roughrider

[L.V.]

The Russian 7.62 x 25 mm should come out a poor third compared to the others in terms of knockdown power and few round to take out a enemy soldier.

 

The 7.62 is superior to the two other cartridges in both penetration and velocity. It also has about the same energy as a 9 mm but leaves a larger and more jagged wound channel.

[BabyOlifant]

9mm Parabellum clearly had the most long-term success. It's obscenely popular everywhere in the world, and getting more popular despite competition from the likes of .40 S&W and 5.7x28. There's no denying it was successful in WWII, either.

I'm essentially measuring "success" as "popularity" here. It's not clear to me that any one of these pistol calibers is much better than another; they all pretty much suck for killing humans.

I would also warn against over-rating .45 ACP. Americans have an affectation for this cartridge vs. 9mm that the rest of the world does not share, which as far as I can tell, isn't based on any great body of actual experience. Certainly .45 ACP works, but rumors of its effectiveness may have been exaggerated. Is it better than 9mm? I am skeptical. Both produce similar levels of muzzle energy, and, in FMJ form, both transfer their

at similar rates (if anything, .45 ACP is a bit worse). What is clear is that both cartridges absolutely suck, transferring only about 300 J to the target. Given that 9mm is much lighter and smaller, I have to begrudgingly give it the win for the better cartridge, while noting that everyone should be very happy that 5.56mm carbines have all but replaced sub-machine guns today. Edited April 26, 2013 by BabyOlifant

[BabyOlifant]

 

DougRichards, on 26 Apr 2013 - 05:14, said:

'Define SMG round and 'SMG''?

 

By ordinary definitions 9mm Parabellum was 'successful' in terms of being used by those on both sides.

 

For stopping power the .45 ACP cartridge was 'successful', except many of those who could have adopted it for their standard SMG round (ie Britain & Empire) chose 9mm Parabellum, even though they had Thompsons to show the way. Having said that, the Brits used the .45 ACP for their De Lisle carbine, which showed they knew the lethal potential of the round.

 

The 7.62 Tokarev gives a flatter trajectory and many many guns were produced to fire it, some of which used 7.62 rifle barrels cut in two pieces to produce the barrels for two SMGs. so that it can also be considered 'successful'.

 

Lastly, the M2 Carbine, firing auto a round derived from a pistol round, can be considered as a SMG, even though many would dispute this. A light weapon firing a 7.62 pistol round at 1,990ft/sec at 850rpm sounds like a damned successful SMG to me.

One reason the British empire made their SMG in 9mm was they capated a very large amount of that ammo at some point early during the war, debating the 45 acp vs the 9mm is a common debate in amoung gun people, Another reason the 9mm was used for that roll was it was better at penetration and lighter ammo, versus the knockdown power of the 45 round and depending on which SMG was build controllability.

 

The Russian 7.62 x 25 mm should come out a poor third compared to the others in terms of knockdown power and few round to take out a enemy soldier.

 

I would not make the mistake of conflating caliber with terminal effectiveness.

[bojan]

The Russian 7.62 x 25 mm should come out a poor third compared to the others in terms of knockdown power and few round to take out a enemy soldier.

Theory vs practice.

It is one of few pistol rounds where bullet will tumble reliably, it is very flat shooting and has excellent penetration. For something firing bursts like SMG it is perfectly good round, better then .45 ACP which has rainbow trajectory and hence shorter effective range. I have some data about local SMG* hit probabilities at 25/50/100/150/200m range, will try to find them, but .45 ACP is clear loser of competition.

 

 

5 and 10 rounds burst used at 25 and 50m, 5 rounds burst at longer ranges. Standing shooting position.

Overall P/H worst to best:

Sten, MP-40, Thompson, PPSH-41, Beretta, M56.

 

25m - all equal

 

50m:

- Sten 80% hit ratio

- rest ~95%

 

100m:

- Sten - 50% hit ratio

- MP-40 - 60%

- Thompson - 70%

- rest ~90%

 

150m:

Sten - 30%

MP-40 - 35%

Thompson - 40%

Beretta - 65%

PPSh - 70%

M56 - 80%

 

200m :

Sten - 10%

MP-40 - 15%

Thompson - 15%

Beretta - 25%

PPSh - 35%

M56 - 45%

 

Your mythical stopping power does nothing if you can not hit target.

Edited April 26, 2013 by bojan

[Marek Tucan]

Interesting MP40 is down there... I would have expected it to be better.

 

OTOH Beretta had ratehr long barrel, right?

[EvanDP]

 

The Russian 7.62 x 25 mm should come out a poor third compared to the others in terms of knockdown power and few round to take out a enemy soldier.

Theory vs practice.

It is one of few pistol rounds where bullet will tumble reliably, it is very flat shooting and has excellent penetration. For something firing bursts like SMG it is perfectly good round, better then .45 ACP which has rainbow trajectory and hence shorter effective range. I have some data about local SMG* hit probabilities at 25/50/100/150/200m range, will try to find them, but .45 ACP is clear loser of competition.

 

 

5 and 10 rounds burst used at 25 and 50m, 5 rounds burst at longer ranges. Standing shooting position.

Overall P/H worst to best:

Sten, MP-40, Thompson, PPSH-41, Beretta, M56.

 

25m - all equal

 

50m:

- Sten 80% hit ratio

- rest ~95%

 

100m:

- Sten - 50% hit ratio

- MP-40 - 60%

- Thompson - 70%

- rest ~90%

 

150m:

Sten - 30%

MP-40 - 35%

Thompson - 40%

Beretta - 65%

PPSh - 70%

M56 - 80%

 

200m :

Sten - 10%

MP-40 - 15%

Thompson - 15%

Beretta - 25%

PPSh - 35%

M56 - 45%

 

Your mythical stopping power does nothing if you can not hit target.

Interesting info.

 

Is there similar info for the M1/2 Carbine? It usually replaced the SMG in US service.

[Yama]

Interesting MP40 is down there... I would have expected it to be better.

 

OTOH Beretta had ratehr long barrel, right?

 

Two worst (Sten, MP40) had wire butts. Very unergonomic and generally terrible to shoot.

 

Thompson was used in Eastern Front and found to be...uncompetive.

 

 

I've posted this before, but Suomi SMG acceptance tests. Left target is single shots, right one is 50 shots in bursts. Distance 100 metres...

 

Edited April 26, 2013 by Yama

[Colin]

fired the M3 Grease gun down at Shot, talk about a slow rate of fire!! I did an IPSC match where the high end shooters fired their pistols faster. Accuracy appeared to be fine, despite the sights and condition of the gun.

[BabyOlifant]

The sights on the M3 wouldn't be so bad if the rear hood didn't obliterate the target so much.

[Loopycrank]

WWII SMGs are weird beasts. Single-shot accuracy, if a single-shot mode even exists, is rather poor since almost all of them (save a few oddballs like the Reising and that one Polish resistance design) fire from open bolts. When firing a PPS-43, I found that it made more sense to treat the first shot as a ranging shot, and walk the rest of the burst on to target. I tried aligning the sights perfectly, tried compensating for the jump when the bolt slams home; nothing worked. You have to fire bursts and compensate on the fly.

 

PPS-43s are probably worse than others because of the low ratio of overall mass to bolt mass and the long bolt travel, but I think that in general first-shot accuracy from a standing position is basically non-existent.

 

Best cartridge, then as now, for SMGs was probably 9x19mm, if only because it's practically a worldwide standard. Bottlenecked cartridges don't usually get along too well with straight-blowback actions, the neck tends to iron itself out straight during the initial stages of bolt recoil. People who have made .357 SIG AR-15s have noticed that the brass looks a lot like .40 S&W once it's been fired. Decidedly bad for reloading.

 

Open-bolt WWII SMGs are pretty half-assed weapons in my opinion. Sure, they're fun and there's definitely some interesting history behind some of them. The story behind the PPS-43, for instance, is heroic.

 

However, they're short-ranged, horribly inaccurate, prone to firing when dropped, prone to getting crap in through the open ejection ports, and outdated before they were even fielded in 1918. There were blowback carbines like the Winchester SLR series and the French Ribeyrolle that were scarcely more mechanically complex that mitigated or fixed all of the above objections.

 

So, worrying about what cartridge your SMG was in is pretty superfluous. As long as the cartridge worked well enough, what mattered was that there was enough of it. Since 9mm was the most common in most of the world, 9mm was the best. In the USA .45 was the most common, so for them .45 was the best.

 

Edited for clarity.

Edited April 27, 2013 by Loopycrank

[L.V.]

Two worst (Sten, MP40) had wire butts. Very unergonomic and generally terrible to shoot.

 

Take a look at the SMG that came out on top in the Yugo tests. What could have been the main difference between the M56 and MP40, since they seem to be pretty similar? Was it just the cartridge?

[BabyOlifant]

I would say .45 ACP would be the best if it were more common than 9mm, but it's not, so 9mm it is.

 

I would be well humored to know why you think that.

[Loopycrank]

The mechanically ideal SMG cartridge:

 

1) Is rimless, so it stacks efficiently in box magazines and doesn't rim lock. That means revolver cartridges and semi-rimmed things like .32 ACP are out. Designers seemed to notice this fairly early on, and so there have only been a few attempts at SMGs firing rimmed ammo. All of these are deservedly obscure so I won't list 'em.

 

2) Has moderate case taper. This is a tricky balance; a little bit helps ensure clean extraction, but too much and you start to have the "ironing out" problem that bottlenecked cases do in blowback actions.

 

3) No bottleneck. Obviously.

 

4) Low peak pressure and short overall pressure curve. Otherwise it won't get along with the simple blowback action.

 

5) Low round weight and size. The less inertia the round has, the more reliably it will feed, the more the soldier can carry, and the smaller and lighter the SMG can be.

 

6) Effective terminal ballistics; this is the least important of all the items because a cartridge that meets all the other requirements will necessarily suck at this.

 

 

.45 and 9mm are equal on 1, 2, 3, I think historical .45 comes out slightly ahead on 4, 9mm comes out ahead on 5 and .45 comes out slightly ahead on 6).

 

Almost nobody seems to have thought it worth designing a purpose-built SMG cartridge. Arguably the Hungarians, with their 9x25mm weapons had a unique SMG cartridge. However, this was a pre-existing cartridge design developed for a pistol. The Germans did arguably end up developing a purpose-built SMG cartridge in the 7.92x33 (and even more so in the necked out 10mm variant of the same), but it was very late in the game indeed that they recognized that this could be fired from an unlocked breech.

 

So really, as long as any cartridge was adequate on counts 1-6, the biggest question of all on its suitability for a WWII SMG would be criterion 0) Do we already have lots of it?

[BabyOlifant]

It's worth noting that .45 coming out on top for 6) is established virtually by hearsay only.

It's also worth noting that standard pressure .45 and 9mm have the same bolt thrust, approximately, and thus the only thing you are worried about is 9mm extracting too rapidly for its higher peak pressure. A century's worth of experience with 9mm blowback guns seems to establish that this isn't a great issue at all.

Given these two, and that 9mm has a much flatter trajectory than .45 (it has circa half as much drop at 100 and 200m), 9mm decisively comes out on top.

[bojan]

Take a look at the SMG that came out on top in the Yugo tests. What could have been the main difference between the M56 and MP40, since they seem to be pretty similar? Was it just the cartridge?

 

Relatively low RoF due the rate reducing buffer and shorter bolt travel then most other SMGs. M56 and previous M49 and M51 have more in common with Beretta (general layout) and PPSh-41 (triger group), then with MP-40, other then a folding stock and pistol grip shape..

Everyone that used M56 noted that it is quite accurate for SMG, army used 50 and 150m qualification range with it instead of 50 and 100m with other SMGs. It also pointed naturally and was easy to control in bursts. Fact that it was held with left hand behind mag probably helped with muzzle climb.

Edited April 27, 2013 by bojan