Effective SMG range, Help grogs

[Georgie]

There seems to be a vast difference in the stated effective range of SMGs. Varying from sling shot range to assault rifle range. And also varying depending upon the source of the data. Does any one know of a single source where they are rated according to the same test criteria?

[Erwin]

check CM1 data windows.

[dieseltaylor]

I have looked and you are right that they do vary very considerably giving useless things such as "sighted to" though it was known to be inaccurate at half that range!. I have never found a single source that just gives effective ranges .... and if it did I would want to cross-check : ).

I think 80 metres seems to be the concensus for effective range though I think the Thompson should be less AFAIR. One other thing is actually how much ammo did they have and did doctrine require them not to waste it. If you are going house clearing letting fly with half your ammo at fleeting targets 150 metres away would not impress the lads.

These comments on a HK MP5 - 1960's designed SMG may be of interest :

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-235173.html

AK103K

November 17, 2006, 09:17 PM

My MP5(with a Beeman SS-3 on a claw mount) will consistently shoot 4-6" groups at 100 yards using Federal 115 grain 9BP's. At 15 yards it shoots ragged little holes on semi, and ragged little groups of holes on full. Ammo does make a big difference in accuracy. I've had the best luck with Federal, and the worst with the old "China Sports" Norinco stuff. The Norico is fine for blasting, but would only do about 12-15" at 100 yards. Using iron sights, and depending on the gun, I would think 100 yards is reaching the maximum realistic range, especially with an open bolt gun. I think 200 yards would be pushing it. Your going to get the best longer range accuracy from the closed bolt guns. I tend to agree with the 50 yards and under estimate for pistol caliber guns.

Full auto fire is a close range thing, if you want to be effective. 25 yards is about it, and 15 and under is better. Even with full auto only open bolt guns, its pretty easy to squeeze off single shots on demand once your familiar with the gun, and accuracy can be quite good. If you want to take a deliberate, longer range shot, you dont have to shoot in bursts, although it is difficult to do with the higher rate fire guns like the MAC's.

[Michael Emrys]

Has there ever been a rigorous universal definition of 'effective' in re SMGs? My sense of it is that different people have different ideas, all of them quite reasonable based on the experiences they've had firing such weapons. For one thing, I would not be surprised to find that effective range on a shooting range is three or four times as great as effective range against live soldiers popping up in an urban environment to take shots at oneself.

Michael

[ArgusEye]

There's a big difference in what people call effective range. Do we speak of effective range as in:

-the range at which the bullet can still hurt targets?

-the range to which the weapon is sighted?

-the range at which the accuracy of the weapon is such that it can reliably hit a man sized target?

-the range at which a soldier can reliably hit a man sized target?

-or perhaps the range at which an average soldier on an average battlefield is better off firing than not firing?

Some of these are a lot easier to quantify than others.

[mikewhol]

I was in the Army, and with my trusty M-16 I could hit targets at 300m fairly well, but those were picked shots at a range. A man size target at that range are NOT easy to pick up visually. and even harder to engage quickly. Now at 100m I could pick up the target, and engage it in the 4 to 6 second time frame the Army was telling me I should be able to do. The 50m target was easy as heck to engage quickly, and accurately. That was using single shots,over iron sights.

On full auto, I couldn't hit ANYTHING after the first few rounds down range! I was getting pretty close, and if that would've been a real person down range I am sure they would've went to ground.

In conclusion, most weapons will shoot further than an average person can pick up a target and engage it over iron sights. In WWII, all you had were iron sights, and I know there are plenty of Grogs that wil beat me up over this but the average "Joe" just isn't going to do a lot of shooting at anything over 300m. I've fired an M1 Garand and Carbine, M16A2, M2, M60, and last but not least an AK47. With the exception of the M16, they will kick the crap out of you. Out of those, when firing on automatic, anything after 100m will be as much luck as anything else. If the game is anything like my experience, anything 100m and in, fear the SMG, longer than that its just not your day if you get hit.

I am sure that a lot of you have seen the You Tube vid of 2 Sheriffs having a shootout with 2 felons at a range of 10 feet, and no one was hit!

Anyone can get their hands on a MP40? Would love to fire a clip or 2 from one!

Mike

[Erwin]

Las Vegas (at least) has gun stores that stock a lot of automatic weapons that you can fire in their store ranges, including MP40's.

[Lt Belenko]

Las Vegas (at least) has gun stores that stock a lot of automatic weapons that you can fire in their store ranges, including MP40's.

California gun ranges won't rent a gun unless you bring a friend. You "friend" is can be either another person or your own gun. ... "Say hello to my little friend."

[Duckman]

In conclusion, most weapons will shoot further than an average person can pick up a target and engage it over iron sights. In WWII, all you had were iron sights, and I know there are plenty of Grogs that wil beat me up over this but the average "Joe" just isn't going to do a lot of shooting at anything over 300 m.

This was the conclusion they reached in WWI as well. They started the war with high-powered rifles that were supposed to shoot salvo fire out to 1000 m, but quickly found out that at those ranges artillery (using direct-fire airburst shrapnel) dominated. Thus started the evolution towards trenches and, eventually, modern infantry weapons and tactics.

By the time of WWII it was recognized that the MG provided the bulk of the squad's firepower and the role of the riflemen shifted towards carrying ammo for the MG, protecting the MG, and close assault. The odd man out was the US with the Garand.

[Michael Emrys]

There is another factor which I don't think has been mentioned. In most types of squads, the SMG is given to the squad leader. There is a reason for this, actually a couple of reasons. First of all, he is expected to be the most mature member of the squad and the most likely to exercise fire discipline and ammo conservation. Secondly, his primary job is not to use his personal weapon all the time, but to direct and control the fire of the rest of his squad. Most of the time, he would be expected to use his weapon only in "the whites of their eyes" situations, either in attack or defense. All this adds up to a tendency to fire the SMG within 50 m and only occasionally beyond that range. How you tell the AI when to fire it beyond 50 m is a tricky question I won't pretend to have all the answers to. Probably it would largely depend on the cover of the terrain the target unit occupies and what it is doing. A group of men running through open terrain would certainly invite fire even at 100 m. A unit prone in trees, probably not.

Michael

[Doug Williams]

There's a big difference in what people call effective range. Do we speak of effective range as in:

-the range at which the bullet can still hurt targets?

-the range to which the weapon is sighted?

-the range at which the accuracy of the weapon is such that it can reliably hit a man sized target?

-the range at which a soldier can reliably hit a man sized target?

-or perhaps the range at which an average soldier on an average battlefield is better off firing than not firing?

Some of these are a lot easier to quantify than others.

Good points.

I can tell you from experience on the firing range that firing full auto has a tremendous negative impact on the accuracy of small arms. Back when I trained with the M16 (full auto version), I was pretty good at hitting the man sized pop up target at 300 meters from the prone position on semi auto. On full auto, it was difficult to keep rounds on a man sized target at 50 meters.

[JasonC]

WWII era submachineguns are all firing pistol ammo. They are not assault rifles firing carbine ammo, and their effective range is not set by difficulty picking up a target and focusing through iron sights. Their effective range is much shorter than that, and is set by the bullet drop their pistol rounds experience at anything like carbine ranges.

Pistols cartridges were not designed with any concern over bullet drop in mind, because you cannot physically hold a pistol steady enough to hit accurately at even 50 meters with any consistency. The best shots in the world with special match pistols on a good day, with all the time in the world and no one shooting at them, maybe, that is about it. So pistol cartridges do not care what happens to the round, ballistically speaking, after about 25 yards.

SMGs do have longer barrels than pistols, which helps some. Stens or grease guns less than PPsH or Thompsons, but all of them get a bit more muzzle velocity out of the cartridges than a 4 inch pistol barrel would. But nothing like rifle or even carbines speeds.

Out of an 18 inch barrel, a 9mm gets about 1500 feet per second, vs 1150 or so from a pistol. The Russians are the best off on this score, since the 7.62x25 (itself a copy of the German Mauser 30 round originally designed for their "broomhandle" semiauto pistols of WWI) is a significantly faster round to start with, and the PPsH puts it through a full length barrel with shoulder stock stability etc. Those might get up to 1800 feet per second, which is within 10% or so of carbine speeds. The Americans start out in the basement because the 45 ACP round is slow, getting all its energy from mass rather than velocity (twice the mass of a 9mm, but only 850 to 900 feet per second).

When some are comparing their experience with an M-16 in the service, keep in mind that is firing a very light bullet at full rifle speeds - up to 3000 feet per second. The reason a 200 yard shot seems easy with those is the trajectory is flat to such ranges, since the bullet is covering it in about 1/5 of one second. The bullet drop from apex is 16 feet times seconds of flight squared, or a little under 8 inches for that shot. The apex will be 3-4 inches above the straight line to target for a 100 yard zero.

Compare 200 yards with a 45 ACP going only 850 FPS. The flight time is 7 tenths of a second, and the bullet drop is not 8 inches, it is 8 feet (16 x .7 x .7). You are "golfing" at that distance - you'd have to hold the SMG point of aim way up in the air, completely unable to see the target through the sights, and rain arcing bullets down on the target like a garden hose. And you need the range pretty close, or you will miss under or over, even if you have the correct "line", left to right.

At 150 yards with 1350 FPS from a longer than pistol barrel shooting 9mm, the flight time is one third of one second, and the drop will be about 21 inches from apex or a foot and a half from point of aim. That is pretty much right at the limit for aimed fire - if the guy is standing up at least. It is as hard as a 300 meter shot with an AR - marginally worse on the drop, maybe a bit better side to side from larger apparent width of the target.

With 45 ACP even 150 yards isn't going to happen - 75 is more like it, maybe 100 yards at the most. With a PPsH, you might reach 200 yards. For all the above figures, dropping the number by 50 yards will give a much flatter shot, more like the fifth of a second flight times that "feel" like direct, flat shots with rifles (200 yards or so with those).

The fifth of a second ranges are 60 yards with a Thompson, 90 yards with an MP40, and 120 yards with a PPsH. With full auto on short bursts to help hit, those are practical combat ranges for WWII era SMGs.

I hope that helps.

[winkelried]

again from a RL perspective (80s to mid 90s):

we sometimes selected SMGs (e.g. Uzis) instead of assault rifles when we expected fire fights to be below 100m or when we were engaging in urban areas. Usually at least one guy in a squad kept an assault rifle (normally sighted) to handle long distance and sharp shooter stuff together with the Minimi of the squad.

The main advantage of the SMGs in our eyes was that they were significantly lighter and shorter than assault rifles. So they were easier to move to fight fast moving short opportunity targets - as are modern assault rifles. We trained hard (I remember quite a few days fulfilling norms on the short distance moving target range) to be consistently able to hit fast moving targets at short ranges (0-100m). There was also a feeling that the 9mm ammo the SMGs fired had a better stopping effect than the 5.56 the assault rifles we got in the 80s. Accuracy was never an issue (on distance below 100m at least). The training for SMGs as for assault rifles focussed both on firing with the shoulder support and from the hip (which was significantly harder to manage to be accurate).

Coming back to CMBN

So in a WW2 context we have to understand that usually the light MG was the main weapon of the squad and the SMG was around mainly (except maybe some units which were equipped heavily with SMGs - see below) for the form factor (e.g. U.S. tank crews had the grease gun AFAIK) and for NCOs to increase fire density in short range combat.

I think that the same idea to increase fire density in short range combat and the form factor of the SMG was the motivation for some units to be equipped mainly or heavily with SMGs - e.g. Soviet tank riders were certainly better off with SMGs than with the longer LMGs or normal rifles. Same holds to some extent for paras which could drop with the SMGs and where it would not be a good idea to jump with the heavier LMG. Could also be that one of the ideas behind these SMG heavy units in pre-assault rifle times, was that the loss of one individual weapon (like the LMG) in a drop would not compromise the whole firepower of the squad.

Anyway - to come back to the original question. Based on my own experience I assume that SMGs would rarely have been used above 100 meters in combat with an effect.

[Doug Williams]

Great post, JasonC.

I've never fired an SMG. There is a local indoor shooting range that will rent out Thompsons, Uzis, and maybe some others for customers to shoot in their range. I've been meaning to go have some fun one weekend. I imagine one would go through ammo rather quickly.

[Georgie]

Again,Great post JasonC. Answers a lot of the questions that I had and puts WW2 smgs into the proper perspective for me.

[John Kettler]

One can but marvel at the depth and breadth of JasonC's groggery. What a library he must have! And would he'd write a book to grace our libraries!

winkelried,

I think the M16's bullet would've been much more effective stopping someone than a 9mm. The VC hated the "black rifle" because of the horrendous wounds it caused when the bullet tumbled on impact. The 5.56 round was an adaptation of a varmint round and was marginally stable, but became very unstable upon penetration. Also, at close range, the impact stresses were so great the bullet broke at the cannelure (the crimp). This was evident from Panamanian medical reports during Operation Just Cause (Invasion of Panama) in which there'd be one entrance wound and two separate and distinct wound channels.

Would I be correct in concluding you're a combat vet? If so, with whom and where? As for the Uzi, I've never fired one full auto, but it's a pig in semiautomatic fire (civilian at an indoor gun range) and all but useless from the hip (couldn't hit a head & torso target at 50 feet) when operated in that way. I believe there was an incident in the 1967 War in which charging Israeli paratroopers attacked dug-in Egyptian soldiers armed with AK-47s and were shot to pieces before they could get close enough to use their Uzis. Want to say this led to the Galil's development, but memory's hazy.

Regards,

John Kettler

[JasonC]

I don't have an Uzi, but I do own a Hi Point 9mm carbine (semi auto), and it is quite accurate at 50 yards. But then it has a 16.5 inch barrel, more like a modern MP5 than either the 8 inch barrel Uzi or the 10 inch barrel MP40. With the Hi Point, I can put every round in a 10 round mag into the same ragged hole about an inch and a half across at that distance - semi auto of course. But I wouldn't try it at 100 yards. I mean, I could probably "golf" with it a bit and get it to work - at a range, firing braced or supported, with nobody shooting at me. But I wouldn't want to bet my life on it, let's put it that way. (Give me a 308 at that range and I'm happier...)

That gun is rated for modern +P ammo, higher pressure stuff, and can get 1500 FPS with the hottest +P loads, and gets 1300 with standard stuff, thanks to the longer barrel. With MP40 lengths, 1250 is more like it. What you'd have going for you with the MP40 would be short bursts, 3-5 rounds, but individually the accuracy would be well below the Hi Point carbine.

FWIW...

[Killkess]

In CMx2 Mp40s open fire at up to 280m if given direct fire orders which one cant avoid if a single SMG is within the firing unit.

Just for reference

[JasonC]

Killkess -yes, that is Too Far . :-)

[winkelried]

In CMx2 Mp40s open fire at up to 280m if given direct fire orders which one cant avoid if a single SMG is within the firing unit.

Just for reference

I think that BF will have to look at this kind of complexity, if they haven't done it already. In units with a mix of weapons used on different effective ranges the soldiers should open fire only when the target is within the range of a particular weapon. This is not just true for the SMGs, but probably also for LMGs and rifles, where one could also argue that they have different effective ranges. They consider effective range already for other weapons eg the short ranged Panzerfaust or rifle grenades.

[Doug Williams]

I don't have an Uzi, but I do own a Hi Point 9mm carbine (semi auto), and it is quite accurate at 50 yards.

At the risk of a derail, I am seriously considering purchasing the .45 caliber version of that weapon. The internet provides me with mixed reviews. What is your take?

[JasonC]

Doug - you can have fun at the range, but 45 ACP is kinda slow for a carbine in my opinion. You won't get much more muzzle velocity from the longer barrel with that round, either. (Maybe with +P varieties, but only marginally so).

A reference - http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/45auto.html

The pistol round that benefits the most from a carbine length barrel is actually the 357, which gets up to true carbine speeds out of a 16 to 20 inch barrel. The best pistol caliber carbines IMO are the old lever guns in that caliber. Now that is a 100 yard rifle. And you can also shoot 38 special out of it if you want...

Ergonomically, the fun of the Hi Point is that it can be tricked out with accessories like an AR - you can easily double the entry price on such fluff. Frankly, it is more than the gun needs or merits, it is just a so-so carbine. I liked trying out modern red dot sights on it and such, but I don't consider it a serious rifle.

Main reason I wanted it was to plink more cheaply at the range than I can with my 308 ($1 a round, ouch, and that was before the recent madness), and I already had 9mm for pistols, so I figured it made sense. But whoops, then the price of one round of 9mm jumped from 20 cents to 67 cents, and that idea became nearly pointless...

When ammo pricing sanity returns (or is that if?), it might make sense again. For now I'd hold off. YMMV.

[Vark]

Surely target shooting is different to effective combat range? Before it was decided, in the UK that pistols could corrupt all those who fired them, I shot 9mm, 45, 357, and 38, both target and full power. I could regularly hit, centre mass of a man sized target at 25 yards, grouping was 3-4 inches. I am under no illusion than in a combat environment I'd be able to hit probably 5-10% at half the distance!

The Red Army re-enactors said that they could hit targets at 200m with their Ppsh-41's, which surprised them and an after war survey by the British found an average infantryman was as accurate with a Sten as a rifle at 200 yards. which either reflects well on the Sten, or poorly on the average rifleman!

I have a BBC 2 documentary on the invasion of Crete, where the reporter is given a vintage MP-40 to fire at a target (man sized rock) at 80-100 metres. He hits it with his second short burst, again though if in combat how accurate would he be?

Jason, though you might have a laugh with this one.

[JasonC]

Mostly it reflects horribly on the riflemen. 200 yards under range conditions with a .303 rifle is an easy shot, if the rifle has ever been properly zeroed and the operator has any idea what he is doing. In combat? Agreed, another story. But it would be with a Sten too. If they are just spraying and praying, more bullets thrown might be marginally better, but from dismal to horrible. Just take the rifle and actually aim...

[winkelried]

Mostly it reflects horribly on the riflemen. 200 yards under range conditions with a .303 rifle is an easy shot, if the rifle has ever been properly zeroed and the operator has any idea what he is doing. In combat? Agreed, another story. But it would be with a Sten too. If they are just spraying and praying, more bullets thrown might be marginally better, but from dismal to horrible. Just take the rifle and actually aim...

IMHO that's why MGs, SMGs and assault rifles were invented in the first place: To get an appropriate fire density into the area of a (moving) target. So that the hit probability increases - not for the single bullet, but for the burst.

Semi-automatic weapons like pistols and semi-auto rifles go into the same direction: usually you would fire a quick sequence of several shots at a target.