Thread: Best SMG?

The Mac-10 and Mac-11 were based off the Thompson SMG.

http://fp.minot.com/cobraydc/history.htm (Warning: this site has some crappy music)

The Mac-10 is the upgrade of the Thompson. The Mac series comes in three calibers: .45, 9mm, .380, and .22. My favorite version of the Mac is the M11A1 .380.

The Mac-10 weighs about 6.26 lbs. When a silencer is mounted on it weighs about the same as an M-16. It has been credited as being the most reliable SMG in the world. It is also credited as having horrible accuracy in full auto, but it is surprisingly accurate in semi-auto.

http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Firearms/Subs/MAC-10.htm

Overall if you use a Mac-10 .45 with a silencer and stock unfolded it has a good amount of weight, higher rate of fire with great firepower, suppressed sound, is highly reliable, has satisfactory accuracy, and can be shouldered comfortibly by holding onto the silencer. I like the Mac series for its small size and great versality. In my opinion it is better than the Thompson, but I have not held a Thompson so I’m not really a credible adviser on that subject.

Originally Posted by Insomniac

The Mac-10 and Mac-11 were based off the Thompson SMG.

http://fp.minot.com/cobraydc/history.htm (Warning: this site has some crappy music)

The Mac-10 is the upgrade of the Thompson. The Mac series comes in three calibers: .45, 9mm, .380, and .22. My favorite version of the Mac is the M11A1 .380.

The Mac-10 weighs about 6.26 lbs. When a silencer is mounted on it weighs about the same as an M-16. It has been credited as being the most reliable SMG in the world. It is also credited as having horrible accuracy in full auto, but it is surprisingly accurate in semi-auto.

http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Firearms/Subs/MAC-10.htm

Overall if you use a Mac-10 .45 with a silencer and stock unfolded it has a good amount of weight, higher rate of fire with great firepower, suppressed sound, is highly reliable, has satisfactory accuracy, and can be shouldered comfortibly by holding onto the silencer. I like the Mac series for its small size and great versality. In my opinion it is better than the Thompson, but I have not held a Thompson so I’m not really a credible adviser on that subject.

I didn't realize the Mac-10 was derived from the Thompson. I had a hard time hiting anything at all with a Mac-10 on full auto. The only time I've ever fired any SMG on semi-auto was to zero the sights or shoot "possums' .

The Thompson is a fine (amazing for an 80 year old design!) weapon if a little heavy. Well made, accurate and with good "pointability". Finding .45 caliher ammo
was problematic ( in the SADF) however.

Originally Posted by Insomniac

The Mac-10 and Mac-11 were based off the Thompson SMG.

http://fp.minot.com/cobraydc/history.htm (Warning: this site has some crappy music)

The Mac-10 is the upgrade of the Thompson. The Mac series comes in three calibers: .45, 9mm, .380, and .22. My favorite version of the Mac is the M11A1 .380.

The Mac-10 weighs about 6.26 lbs. When a silencer is mounted on it weighs about the same as an M-16. It has been credited as being the most reliable SMG in the world. It is also credited as having horrible accuracy in full auto, but it is surprisingly accurate in semi-auto.

http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Firearms/Subs/MAC-10.htm

Overall if you use a Mac-10 .45 with a silencer and stock unfolded it has a good amount of weight, higher rate of fire with great firepower, suppressed sound, is highly reliable, has satisfactory accuracy, and can be shouldered comfortibly by holding onto the silencer. I like the Mac series for its small size and great versality. In my opinion it is better than the Thompson, but I have not held a Thompson so I’m not really a credible adviser on that subject.

The Mac10 is not a development of the Thompson. You have been mislead.

BTW, i've fired full auto Mac-10s on a couple occasions. They are next to useless beyond about 7 yards.

Originally Posted by sappersgt

I didn't realize the Mac-10 was derived from the Thompson. I had a hard time hiting anything at all with a Mac-10 on full auto. The only time I've ever fired any SMG on semi-auto was to zero the sights or shoot "possums' .

The Thompson is a fine (amazing for an 80 year old design!) weapon if a little heavy. Well made, accurate and with good "pointability". Finding .45 caliher ammo
was problematic ( in the SADF) however.

The Mac10 is not a development of the Thompson. You have been mislead.

BTW, i've fired full auto Mac-10s on a couple occasions. They are next to useless beyond about 7 yards.

The Mac-10 beats the Thompson in every area except accuacy. I like to think of the Mac as a scaled down Thompson. The only way you can tell the resemblance between the two are the box-like recievers and the position of the cocking lever mounted on top.

I would like to ask you both if you fired them with the silencers mounted on them. That is the only way you can get any accuracy out of the full auto Mac-10's. I don't think the increased accuracy will match that of a Thompson, however.

If I was in a combat situation I would only use semi-auto for the ranged fights and full auto for close quarters fights.

Originally Posted by Insomniac

The Mac-10 beats the Thompson in every area except accuacy. I like to think of the Mac as a scaled down Thompson. The only way you can tell the resemblance between the two are the box-like recievers and the position of the cocking lever mounted on top.

I would like to ask you both if you fired them with the silencers mounted on them. That is the only way you can get any accuracy out of the full auto Mac-10's. I don't think the increased accuracy will match that of a Thompson, however.

If I was in a combat situation I would only use semi-auto for the ranged fights and full auto for close quarters fights.

The Thompson was agreat weapon for its time. That time has passed. I've never had the pleasure of firing the Mac-10 with a silencer.

I've always tried (albeit sometimes unsucessfully) to avoid firefights at 20' . At that range there was never enough time to change magazines. I always had to resort to my (semiauto) pistol. Sounds like I got it backwards!

Originally Posted by Insomniac

The Mac-10 beats the Thompson in every area except accuacy.

Sometimes i wonder why i even try...

Originally Posted by JBodnar39

The Mac-10/11, UZI, and Colt Model 635 you can toss in the trash and then choose any of the other excellent models. The UZI fires from an open bolt, has a screwy selector switch, and has a hard time handlign anything but ball ammo. The Mac-10 also fires from an open bolt, has not stock work mentioning, and terribel sights. Ergonomically the Colt 635 is a good gun, it is probably pretty reliable if
kept clean, and has better sights than many others - however it is no go because of the magazaines which (unless some improved version has been made) makes the gun a jammatic.

not true, uzi is fine at handling wadcutters too, and the selector isnt that bad at all! a bit pointy but other than that its fine. the only thingswrong with the it is the sight takes about a clip's time to get used to, and the thatcocking action is a bit difficult (if you let it snap back to slowly it will need to have the clip removed and recocked.

Hi Guys,

For "best SMG" I voted for the UZI out of the choices offered.

Of the list provided, the MP5 is certainly "best weapon" but what makes the best weapon "best SMG" doth not neccessarily follow.

Frankly, the UZI is ergonomically poor to my hand and I have a hard time keeping the grip safety depressed but then again the MP5 is not exactly ergonomically friendly to me, either. My hands have generous palms but the fingers are skinny and a hair short.

The UZI is a great SMG and outfitted with the fixed, wooden stock, suppressor and binocular or NVG sight is a real winner.

I would not be to quick to knock the open bolt weapons.

The Colt 635 and variations are really superb weapons.

The MAC 10/11 family is horribly magz dependent and feel cheap but should never be fired without the silencer affixed: they were designed that way. Too, many SMG match "race guns" have been tricked out fearsomely.

Regards,

William

I'd take a Tommy gun over an Uzi anyday.

So would I, if they changed the caliber.

Originally Posted by leibstandarte10

So would I, if they changed the caliber.

That is pretty much my sentiment precisely.

While I hold the big Automatic Colt Pistol cartridge in fairly high regard as a handgun proposition, I consider its use in submachineguns to be inefficient.

Were I to reach for a SMG, it would be to do something I could not do with a sidearm and the magazine capacity, superior pentetration of good 9 x 19 ball ammuntion combined with flatter trajectory in a select fire weapon strikes me as being the superior proposition.

The Kaiser's boys invented the wheel correctly the first time unlocked breech and all

Regards,

William

I find it quite funny that the 9x19 Parabellum (for war in Latin), just a stopgap design, became the most popular pistol round in the world.

Originally Posted by Swift Sword

That is pretty much my sentiment precisely.

While I hold the big Automatic Colt Pistol cartridge in fairly high regard as a handgun proposition, I consider its use in submachineguns to be inefficient.

Were I to reach for a SMG, it would be to do something I could not do with a sidearm and the magazine capacity, superior pentetration of good 9 x 19 ball ammuntion combined with flatter trajectory in a select fire weapon strikes me as being the superior proposition.

The Kaiser's boys invented the wheel correctly the first time unlocked breech and all

Regards,

William

When I got promoted to Corporal I got to choose what weapon I wanted to carry. I used that as excuse to fire every weapon that was in the armory. I fired everything they had including the Thompson, Uzi, Owen, PPSH and even an old MP40. I figured I could always scrounge enough magazines somewhere but since every Sapper carried a 9mm pistol , something the same caliber would be the best choice. Lots of 9mm ammo around.

I'd really like to have a P90.

What do I want? The 1928 hands down-I don't know where anyone gets the idea it isn't accurate (define accurate), You can put pretty much every round into a man-sized target at 50 yards until your out of ammo. What more do you want? At 100 yards, with any experience at all, a good gunner can put a coyote down, easy...