Ideas

[VonMudra]

<shrugs> to each his own research. As I have stated, SMGs will be extremely ineffective at all but close range due to the inherent suppression system being built into the game, so your fears are kinda unfounded. And I never once said full auto is highly effective at range. Indeed, my whole point was simply pointing out that in this once case, a SMG was built that was highly accurate at 100 yards. All the rest generally score between 50-100 yards for their accuracy. Also, I would note that, historically, the Finns did indeed arm entire units with much beloved Suomis, the Russians had entire divisions solely armed with the PPsH, and the Germans did experiment with company sized units soley armed with MP40s and MG34/42s. Also, I would note, that the average Finnish rifle squad began the Continuation War with 1 SMG per squad. By 1942, this rose to 2 Suomis per squad, at which point the Finnish ARmy gave the order to up weapons production to equip every squad with a minimum of 3 SMGs, with the mind towards consistently uping the number of Suomis in the squad. This was not to be however, as the end of the war in 1944 stopped all Finnish arms production, so not all rifle units attained the 3 SMG system, though many Jaeger and other elite units had more Suomis than rifles per squad, and some were entirely equipped with them.

In total, you are putting words in my mouth now. Not once did I ever exclaim fully automatic fire to be as accurate as a semi-auto or bolt action weapon. I merely noted that the max accurate ranges were a bit higher than what you suggested, that the SMG sights in WW2 were adjustable or at least made for ranges up to 100 yards to compensate for drop, and that there was one case of a SMG (often considered more akin to a carbine) that was rather more accurate than other SMGs. Indeed, I think an important notation here is that the Suomi was originally supposed to fufill the role of a squad light machine gun! In the end, I have to fall back on veteran accounts and field testing, not on what an instructor who has never handled the weapon says. I will always trust that over those who haven't handled the weapon. The guy I am quoting on it is P.T. Kekkonen, author of Arma Fennica, one of the foremost Finnish-language books on Finnish weaponry in WW2, and an author of a great deal of firearms history and technical data in Finland. I'll take his word on it. Sadly, I can't go contact him, as he passed away a few years ago.

To quote another who has fired the Suomi, "As to be expected, the first impression tends to be how surprisingly heavy this weapon is - due to the extremely robust structure with milled steel parts. Especially the version with muzzle brake is also quite muzzle-heavy. Due to these reasons recoil is minimal. The muzzle climb still exists while shooting on full-auto mode, but considering the high rate of fire it is yet easily manageable and therefore the weapon is easy to control. Accuracy is remarkable to submachine gun firing 9 mm x 19 cartridge - in semiauto mode hitting man size target with each shot from distance of 150 meters is normal. From 50 meters keeping simultaneously four falling-plate type targets down until running out ammunition proved easy. Hitting all four targets with one long burst proved not too difficult either. Sight are simple but effective, aiming proved fast and simple."

So I will reiterate what I said previously:

Yes, SMGs will be wildly inaccurate. Yes rifles will hurt and hurt bad. And yes MGs will be something to be feared, and will be the lifeblood of the infantry squad in combat.

 

[VonMudra]

Also, I would wonder what you would think of this research:

The Truth About Barrel Length, Muzzle Velocity and Accuracy - The Truth About Guns

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/9luger.html

Which did in fact find that barrel length does affect velocity, and that longer barrels do impart higher velocity. It's not critical to accuracy, but it is indeed a thing.

 

[Colonel__Klink]

Your truth about guns article reinforced my statement:

"At each range, handloads were used to seek out advantages given the barrel length by modifying the bullet and powder. "

Basically meaning that when they changed barrel length they modified the cartridge load in order to suit it. Under such circumstance it makes sense that the shorter barrels will have a lower velocity. This is because the SAAMI specifications of safe pressure levels are the same with each barrel length. So ultimately you can only provide so much pressure to accellerate a bullet. Essentially if you want lower pressures in your firearm you go with a longer barrel or a larger bore. Also notice in your "ballistics by the inch" article all of the loads that actually substantively benefit from a longer barrel are +p loads which denotes a more substantial longer burning propellant charge. Look at the federal hydra-shock, it sits at roughly 1000 fps from 5 inches to 18! That's because the powder burned off by 5 inches, and the MINOR velocity gains are due to pressure already built up inside the barrel.

Both of your sources reinforced what I stated earlier.

In total, you are putting words in my mouth now. Not once did I ever exclaim fully automatic fire to be as accurate as a semi-auto or bolt action weapon. I merely noted that the max accurate ranges were a bit higher than what you suggested, that the SMG sights in WW2 were adjustable or at least made for ranges up to 100 yards to compensate for drop, and that there was one case of a SMG (often considered more akin to a carbine) that was rather more accurate than other SMGs. Indeed, I think an important notation here is that the Suomi was originally supposed to fufill the role of a squad light machine gun! In the end, I have to fall back on veteran accounts and field testing, not on what an instructor who has never handled the weapon says. I will always trust that over those who haven't handled the weapon. The guy I am quoting on it is P.T. Kekkonen, author of Arma Fennica, one of the foremost Finnish-language books on Finnish weaponry in WW2, and an author of a great deal of firearms history and technical data in Finland. I'll take his word on it. Sadly, I can't go contact him, as he passed away a few years ago.

You provided shot groups to demonstrate that full automatic fire out of the soumi supposedly fired by a human being can be kept within the size of a dinner plate at 100 yards. Inferring your argument from such a statement indicates that you believe that smg fired by human beings to be of similar accuracy depending on the weapon used. I did not put words in your mouth, I used your argument and drew out its meaning.

My suggestion to shoot James Yaeger a line wasn't about asking him how accurate the weapon was. It was asking him if it was a foolish idea to pull the butt stock away from your shoulder, take your thumb off the grip and place it behind the receiver end cap and shoot like that. Firearms safety 101 will tell you that doing that is moronic.

I found your source though:
Gunwriters' Suomi History 1/2

The opening statement is your statement about how to "properly" use a Suomi. The problem with that statement is that your arms are not as stable nor as strong as your entire body. Nor is your hand as strong as one of your arms. You simply cannot support and control a weapon as well that way. Its like saying "a mp40 is more accurate in full automatic fire if you simply keep the stock folded." That's about on the same level as saying today "if you want to shoot your ak47 with optimum accuracy remove the butt stock" You don't need to be a genius to know that such a statement is pure stupidity. The best I can give the author of that article is that its a quote from a Finnish source. Considering that the military practices in Europe at the time (such as the Russians fighting in the snow in green) its not unbelievable that some stupidity wound up in the Finnish military doctrine.

According to the article the accuracy testing was a bench rest test. Which makes the results MUCH more reasonable. The difference of supporting a weapon on a heavy bench rest is the same as trying to shoulder fire a mg42 and setting it up on a bipod and getting your body properly behind it. Oh wait, would the mg42, or the m240b I trained with be more accurate if I held it away from my shoulder gripping firmly while its on a bipod? No it wouldn't. But anyway, on such a rest the rattle from the open bolt system doesn't have as severe an effect, nor does the recoil because its absorbed by the bench and better directed back into the shooter. Basically the principle problems with the accuracy of the weapon are taken care of.

There is also a difference between having smg assault squads and replacing the rifle with smg altogether. As discussed when talking about windage adjustment European troops probably weren't known for accuracy at a range. Considering accuracy is even worse in combat issuing more firepower to make up for a lack of accuracy is a no brainier. If you think your troops shoot as well as a sub machinegunner anyway then why not have them pour out more rounds? There are also doctrinal things that you talk about, such as smgs operating sort of like a squad automatic weapon. Logistically that is a good idea because the ammunition is less costly, less bulky and weighs less. Yet despite all this the rifle retained supremacy throughout the world because the smg even at the short range of 100 yards still isn't quite as good much less 500.

 

[Miller786]

oh oh, looks like mudra found someone to argue with, place your bets ladies and gentlemen!

 

[Maniche]

It's perfectly fine to have a healthy discussion, gents!

As long as skulls don't get bashed I won't intervene at least, haha!

 

[siben]

It's perfectly fine to have a healthy discussion, gents!

As long as skulls don't get bashed I won't intervene at least, haha!

But we can crack the twin nuts, right?

I like Klink his last centance, especially knowing that there are barely any armies in this word (maybe some third world ones still using the FN Fal) that use rifles as main weapons.

I also like how he is saying that our rifle shooting in Europe is terrible at the range since we cant adjust windage. I think he fails to understand what shooting your rifle at the range is all about. I will give you a tip. You shoot 15 shots, group is checked. Your rifle is adjusted, you shoot 15 more, you are better on target but not yet perfect, your rifle is adjusted again, you shoot 15 shots again right in the middle, your rifle is ready, you keep training with it, you are becoming a good shot and you have a rifle that shoots where you aim. There is almost no way your aim in the riffle will change unless you drop it really badly right on the sight since your sights are friction locked into place with a point impact.

American system, you zero the rifle all on your own, you are super happy with the result, ******* squadmade slightly twists your windage, your whole afternoon of zeroing the rifle is wasted, you go to combat the next day, you have no clue where your bullets will hit.

As you can see, the american system is much superior since you can adjust the windage easily.

Also, i did not bother reading more then 1/4 of this discussion.

 

[Colonel__Klink]

But we can crack the twin nuts, right?

I like Klink his last centance, especially knowing that there are barely any armies in this word (maybe some third world ones still using the FN Fal) that use rifles as main weapons.

I also like how he is saying that our rifle shooting in Europe is terrible at the range since we cant adjust windage. I think he fails to understand what shooting your rifle at the range is all about. I will give you a tip. You shoot 15 shots, group is checked. Your rifle is adjusted, you shoot 15 more, you are better on target but not yet perfect, your rifle is adjusted again, you shoot 15 shots again right in the middle, your rifle is ready, you keep training with it, you are becoming a good shot and you have a rifle that shoots where you aim. There is almost no way your aim in the riffle will change unless you drop it really badly right on the sight since your sights are friction locked into place with a point impact.

American system, you zero the rifle all on your own, you are super happy with the result, ******* squadmade slightly twists your windage, your whole afternoon of zeroing the rifle is wasted, you go to combat the next day, you have no clue where your bullets will hit.

As you can see, the american system is much superior since you can adjust the windage easily.

Also, i did not bother reading more then 1/4 of this discussion.

Every single nation on the planet still uses a rifle as its primary infantry weapon. These rifles generally are "intermediate cartridge" rifles but they are still rifles. Just like a type 38 Japanese rifle is a rifle but it uses a lower energy cartridge. Full automatic firepower is featured on most of them and its primarily a suppressing tool, not a killing tool. Some idjit just firing like crazy wasting cartridges really doesn't scare me with all my experience, its the guy who actually aims that makes me worry. The intermediate cartridge is primarily chosen for logistics reasons, but it also means that its easier to re-acquire a target in close and long range rapid fire shooting.

Short Version
If your telling me that someone cannot consistently correct for wind at all can accurately shoot at 500m or 1,000m (the ranges of infantry training mentioned before) then you don't know anything at all about shooting.

long version
The problem with the European system is it requires an armorer to be on scene working on an individual basis with each and every soldier trying to get their rifle right. The time spent actually getting the rifle all set is minimal. Worse yet most of those rifles don't have an adjustment screw on the front sight (because the rear sight fixed in place on the receiver) so the armorer has to use a sight pusher or a mallet to push it left and right (since its the front sight he pushes it in the opposite direction fo where you want the bullet to go) and then use a micrometer to see if he pushed enough or too far. Its a VERY crude way of doing it. More than that, your soldiers don't learn ANYTHING about shooting other than aim and click. It doesn't matter if their rifle is zeroed quite well, they aren't going to be very good at hitting a 500 meter target much less the 1,000 meter target mentioned before since they aren't adjusting for the wind. Its basically aim in and pray.

Whereas the US system (at least in the Marines, I don't have direct personal experience with the army) you initially spend weeks learning fine marksmanship. When you go to the long distance range you spend an entire week at it. In the course of fire not only do you zero your rifle (and memorize what your zero is as well how to regain your zero if the sights are moved) and learn about wind conditions and how to use the sights to correct for it. Straight out of boot camp I was putting 10/10 shots dead center mass in a man sized target at 500 yards and I'm blind as a friggin bat. Then you go learn closer range combat shooting, y'know easy shooting at less than 100m. Mostly that sort of training is about how to stack up and storm a building ect because the shots are so close its insanely easy. About all you learn is that since your zero is at 25 and 300 meters. Since your not spending time adjusting sights you know that your bullet is going to land high between those two distances. In WW2 the long range training was the same, but there wasn't nearly the focus on close combat training to my knowledge.

 

[Colonel__Klink]

Thought this would be an interesting addition when debating marksmanship training and accuracy. USMC basic marksmanship training:

German modern: (its hard to find one where it isn't cross training with us forces since I don't know german)

You notice the huge differences in training even to this very day. The German system uses very small targets to simulate longer ranges and has a maximum range of 200m. In this training adjusting for environmental conditions really isn't taught because its a non issue at those ranges.

 

[siben]

When you think of it, when you have an army of conscripts, many never went to school and they have 4 weeks to learn all of the skills they need to know then i think that the simple point and click system is best. If you have an army of professionals then windage adjustment is a good idea. Only some US rifles have it also if i am not mistaken.

Still, it's a feature not really used then, the British ShMLE (No1 Mk3) had windage adjustment and it was strictly forbidden for a soldier to touch it. There Must have been a reason for that that we don't know anymore.

And about your army training as reference, same with gunsmithing but probably less, while the basis of it might have been the same, **** tons of things have changed since then, so much in fact that you can state that its no longer the same. Some nations still preferred long round nosed bullets then since they where thought of as better. And they where right, in a way.

 

[Colonel__Klink]

When you think of it, when you have an army of conscripts, many never went to school and they have 4 weeks to learn all of the skills they need to know then i think that the simple point and click system is best. If you have an army of professionals then windage adjustment is a good idea. Only some US rifles have it also if i am not mistaken.

Still, it's a feature not really used then, the British ShMLE (No1 Mk3) had windage adjustment and it was strictly forbidden for a soldier to touch it. There Must have been a reason for that that we don't know anymore.

And about your army training as reference, same with gunsmithing but probably less, while the basis of it might have been the same, **** tons of things have changed since then, so much in fact that you can state that its no longer the same. Some nations still preferred long round nosed bullets then since they where thought of as better. And they where right, in a way.

Certainly I'd agree that the training today isn't the same as yesteryear but tradition reaches a long way. I was just illustrating a point of where we were both coming from. Such as your view of giving soldiers finer sight controls vs mine.

I think we are merging more on agreement here. The conscript thing is what I first latched onto with the lack of adjustment on the rifles. It also seems to be a major reason for the continual pushing for more sub machineguns in military units. Essentially trying to replace competence with firepower. Because the troops are so poor you don't expect them to really be on target based upon anything other than luck anyway so an open bolt weapon is not such a terrible thing from that perspective.

The United States and marksmanship is an interesting story. Culturally more than any other tool we were made by the rifle, I often say quite accurately that there would be no Henry Ford without a Samuel Colt (and no Samuel Colt without John Hall). We were the first country in the world to equip our troops with a breach loading rifle with universal parts (the m1819 rifle) and our armies were generally small volunteer forces. As time went on military approved sights became more complex. Starting in 1894 with the Krag Jorgensen our rifles would have adjustable rear sights.


The krag, springfield, garand, m14, and m16 and all their variants would all feature rear sights that adjust for windage. Essentially the american tradition from 1894 on is that way. The only deviation from this tradition is when we adopted the "acog" rifle optic we adopted a rifle optic that you zero using a screwdriver and then cease adjusting(individual soldiers and marines do this zeroing themselves). This is because visual acuity is actually good enough to use the in optic markings to adjust. But yeah, since 1894 our expectations of marksmanship have been such that troops were issued these sights and taught how to use them.

Side fun historic fact
The John Hall rifle model 1819 not only was the first rifle mass produced with truly universal parts but it was also one of the earliest effective breach loading rifles AND it was one of the world's first rifles intended to be ambidextrous.