US Army Selects 6 Companies for Sub Compact Weapon Programme

[Borg warner]

The top 6 are: Angstadt Arms, B&T USA, Global Ordnance, Shield Arms, SIG SAUER and Trident Rifles. I kind of like the loos of the SIG MPX-K but I wish Glock would come up with an entry that it could be available as a semi-auto with a collapsible "Brace" and was modular so that it could be chambered in 10mm, 40, 357 Sig and 45 ACP as well as 9mm. https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018/09/17/breaking-us-army-selects-6-companies-for-sub-compact-weapon-programme/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=2018-09-18&utm_campaign=Weekly+Newsletter

 

[TX OMFS]

I like the looks of the B&T but I haven't handled one.

[Collim1]

Anyone know the logic behind a sub machine gun for the army?  Seems to me ammo and SBR AR15’s have come a long way recently. 

AR’s with tiny barrel lengths are actually running reliably and the ammo choices offer much more versatility.  

[AK_Stick]

8 minutes ago, Collim1 said:

Anyone know the logic behind a sub machine gun for the army?  Seems to me ammo and SBR AR15’s have come a long way recently. 

AR’s with tiny barrel lengths are actually running reliably and the ammo choices offer much more versatility.  

 

The money isn’t in finding a new gun, the money is in always looking for a new gun. 

[minervadoe]

I thought the prevailing train of thought was that firing a rifle cartridge from a short barreled gun like an M4 was far more effective than firing a pistol cartridge from a sub gun. 

This selection process seems to suggest otherwise. 

 

[AK_Stick]

5 minutes ago, minervadoe said:

I thought the prevailing train of thought was that firing a rifle cartridge from a short barreled gun like an M4 was far more effective than firing a pistol cartridge from a sub gun. 

This selection process seems to suggest otherwise. 

 

Probably more along the lines of niche roles where the SBR’d M4 is prohibitively large.

Like plain clothes CID officers or VIP/exec protection details, and/or extreme close quarters work.  

 

[syntaxerrorsix]

12 hours ago, Collim1 said:

Anyone know the logic behind a sub machine gun for the army?  Seems to me ammo and SBR AR15’s have come a long way recently. 

AR’s with tiny barrel lengths are actually running reliably and the ammo choices offer much more versatility.  

For the same reasons that have been pointed out multiple times.  Lighter ammo/mag, far easier to suppress and less over penetration. 

[Fnfalman]

Why would the Army worry about over penetration?

 

and someone should weigh a 9mm  against a 5.56 cartridge to see which is lighter. 

[minervadoe]

16 hours ago, AK_Stick said:

Probably more along the lines of niche roles where the SBR’d M4 is prohibitively large.

Like plain clothes CID officers or VIP/exec protection details, and/or extreme close quarters work.  

 

I was thinking more along the lines of 5.56X45 in a bullpup configuration.  I know people aren't crazy about the triggers, but we are talking about a CQB gun. 

 

Mtar

[Collim1]

Have they stated how many units they are planning to contact for?  I can’t imagine it’s a big number. 

[AK_Stick]

9 hours ago, minervadoe said:

I was thinking more along the lines of 5.56X45 in a bullpup configuration.  I know people aren't crazy about the triggers, but we are talking about a CQB gun. 

 

Mtar

I don’t think our military will ever seriously consider a bullpup. 

I think a bullpup in 300 BO like your pic would be a great choice for a small PDW for exec protection and the like, but I have a feeling someone has already made up their mind that they want an SMG, and reality isn’t a factor in those decisions. 

[minervadoe]

14 hours ago, AK_Stick said:

 I have a feeling someone has already made up their mind that they want an SMG, and reality isn’t a factor in those decisions. 

Concepts of pistol cartridge sub gun effectiveness are cemented in some folks minds after a lifetime of watching our Hollywood heroes effectively wave them at the enemy.

[AK_Stick]

Yep. Same reason we (stupidly) re-fielded the M-14 when we went to Iraq and Afghanistan. 

 

Guys had grown up with them in West Point and VMI, and listened to the myth of how they were such great guns, and leapt to them when there was the slightest suggestion that the M-16 wasn’t enough. 

 

And then we finally realized they still weren’t that accurate after pouring money into them, and removed them from service again. Where as the Marines never had the mass issue we did because they issued ACOG’s to our Aimpoints, and SAM-R and DMR/SPR rifles with scopes.