MP5 - gun of the past?

[C150J]

Hey all,

Seems like many, MANY tactical teams are ridding themselves of MP5s and acquiring M4s. Has HK lost its niche? Are there any good reasons to continue using MP5s?

Stay Safe,
J.

[sigy]

Our tactical team uses both the MP-5 and the M-4. I'm not sure if they have any plans to change. We also use the MP-5 on patrol and there has been talk of the powers that be replacing them all with M-4's. I certainly will welcome the change as I'd like at least a slight upgrade in firepower from the 9mm MP-5.

Sigy:destroy:

[Shamrock0211]

My opinion

M-4's might have more firepower but I believe the 5.56 round is not at all suited for CQB ops. It has a strong history of over penetration and not being able to down a perpetrator who is "not right in the head" shall we say. This was well documented in Somalia and other places.

In other words it might kill them, but might not knock them down. Which is what I was always taught should be the purpose of any round in a CQB situation.

This being said I LOVE the M-4 for all around carry and general day to day ops. Just not room clearing. Give me a large slow moving round that will knock the hell out of them and put them down. I do not want a super sonic round going through the bad guy through the wall and through 2 more people in the next room. Plus given military CQB ops (many teams have gone to M-4's as well) clearing places like a ship, I do not want a 5.56 zinging around in metal compartments when a nice soft 9mm or 45 in hollow point will hit a wall, mushroom out and stop.

The purpose behind the shift in the USMC and I suspect most of DoD (although no one wants to admit it) is purely financial. H&K requires folks who work on their weapons to attend a H&K specific training course. This course is not cheap. Plus parts for an MP are twice as much as they are for the Colt. If you want performance, you have to pay for it. You wouldn't buy a Porsche if you couldn't afford the service on it.

As you might be able to tell I really disagree with the Shift from the MP-5. I was always taught you select the right weapon for the right job. You wouldn't use a Red Rider to take out a barricaded suspect just like you wouldn't use a bazooka to shoot cans. What I see many in the government doing is changing over to the M-4 for purely financial reasons.

Something to think about.

Shamrock

[kennethm3]

HK quit building the MP-5 in favor of the UMP. The UMP is more expensive than the Colts so I figure the "bean counter effect" is one of the reasons you are seeing fewer of the HK models around. As for the UMP, it is a sweet shooting SMG, everyone should have one.

[GRG]

A lot of the problem with the M-4/M-16 stems from a transition to a NATO standard round, designed to penetrate body armor. The previous round, that Viet Nam guys are familiar with, was designed to tumble and inflict maximum damage. Theory was that you would shoot someone in the chest and it would just spauld like a wrecking ball-if it didn't kill you, you were certainly down for the count.
The new round came about so NATO would have a standard round, and given humanitarian concerns not be so "destructive" (no I'm not making this up-the Swedes really had a problem with the old round). We didn't object b/c of the advant of Kevlar and figured we just be shooting Kevlar clad Ruskies in the Fulda Gap.
Gee, if we only had a crystal ball.

So that's how it came to be there, Norm
Gee, thanks Cliff and pass the beer nuts.

S/F GRG

[LeeRoy]

When I went to rifle instructor school at the Alameda County Sheriff's Office in Dublin, CA the instructors were very big on the 5.56 as both a patrol rifle and a CQB round. They stressed selection of your bullet is very important as matching the bullet weight to the barrel length and twist rate was critical in preventing over penetration and ensuring accuracy. They report the properly matched hollow point bullet penetrates less than the 9mm or 40 cal out of the MP-5 or any other 10"+ barrel carbine.

These guys really seemed to know their stuff.

[Shamrock0211]

1. Does 5.56 come in Hollow Point? I have never seen this if it does.

The only way I could see stopping over penetration of a 5.56 round is to slow the round down by decreasing the powder in the casing. Then what you wind up with is essentialy a .22 round on steroids. Not what I want with a meth addict coming at me.

2. I still am not a firm beliver that the 5.56 has the knock down power needed for a CQB situation. Like I said it will kill them, but unless you nailed brain stem shot, it might not knock them down. Especially when comparing a 5.56 with a .45 from one of the new UMP's there is no way I can see the two being similar as far as power in tight quarters.

S

[UncleSugar]

Originally posted by Shamrock0211
2. I still am not a firm beliver that the 5.56 has the knock down power needed for a CQB situation. Like I said it will kill them, but unless you nailed brain stem shot, it might not knock them down. Sorry, Shamrock this knockdown thing doesn't make sense. Simple physics dictates that if the energy transfered to a man size target were enough to knock it down, the equal and opposite reaction on the shooter would knock the shooter down too. The only immediate stops, regardless of caliber are direct hits to the CNS. Everything else will leave the BG still operating at least for a short period of time. Wait till you see the video of the BG who attacks the state trooper with a knife, it's an eye opener on many levels. The cop shoots him in the gut with .45 and the guy keeps fighting for several minutes after the shot. It took the cop and a passerby who saw the cop was in trouble to subdue the guy who had been shot at close range with a .45. No knock down. I'll let the serious gun enthusiasts debate whether one is better than the other, but I'm not buying a knock down from small arms.

[jaybird]

I've heard a lot of talk about using the frangible ammo. Not sure if they make it 5.56, but who knows. I don't see why it can't be.

[Shamrock0211]

UncSug

So if this your physics theory is true than NO Round could take a man off his feet without taking the shooter off his?

So if I slam a BG with 000 buckshot center mass with an 870 from 2-4 feet away, he will not be taken off his feet without is knocking me down as well? I would like to see that!

I will be at FLETC soon, do you want to volunteer while I am on the shotgun course to come out with your AFOSI sanctioned vest and test your theory:) I will buy the rounds and the winner buys the beer afterwards, although I think you might be a little sore when we are finished and not in much of a mood for conversation.

Seriously no one round will take everyone off their feet. A .45 to the gut will in all likelihood do less to do so than a well placed 5.56 center mass. BUT, and its a big but, a larger caliber round placed correctly will do more to take a BG off his feet than a smaller high speed round. This is especially true if the BG is high or crazy or both. The difference is like getting hit by a Flyweight guy twice really fast or Mike Tyson once. Both will mess you up in the end but Tyson will do more to take the wind out of your sails.

I've seen 5.56 rounds in Afghanistan enter the wrist and come out the shoulder blade and pretty much turn everything in between to scrambled eggs. I've also seen them hit center mass and kill the guy but he still ran to cover and died behind a rock. .308 rounds on the other hand had a tendacy to drop the guy where he stood. Lots of times the 7.62 of an AK did the same thing (although the AK did lack the penetration power of the 5.56). I am not denying the lethality of the 5.56 round as it is incredibly wicked. I am saying when someone is charging me I do not care as much about killing him as I care about dropping him quickly and with one well placed round.

My point is I do not want to clear a house and put one into a BG and kill my buddy in the next room.

S

[CanineCop]

No small arms round will knock someone off their feet. A round placed above the center of gravity may break the shootee's balance enough to make them fall over but then again it may not. A large slow moving projectile or the multiple pellets of a 12ga might do more to disturb balance than a faster, smaller round.
As far as over penetration goes a former dojo mate of mine who was (or is) on a CT / hostage rescue team in northern VA said that his team changed from MP5s to M4s specifically because the .223 penetrated less sheet rock (due to tumbling) than a 147gr 9mm HP. I just can't get over the damage to my ears that several teammates firing .223s inside while standing next to me would cause. I personally would take a rifle sighted 12ga for CQB with the caveat that I be authorized slugs as well as shot.

[UncleSugar]

Originally posted by Shamrock0211
So if this your physics theory is true than NO Round could take a man off his feet without taking the shooter off his?
Newton's laws not theories. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Because there is only the force produced in the gun to propel the round(s) downrange there is an equal and opposite reaction transferred to the gun, and shooter. If that bullet, or pellets, carried enough energy to knock down the BG, then the equal and opposite reaction would also knock down the shooter. A full load of buckshot center mass at 2-4 feet will likely cause enough trauma to the CNS to shut down a BG immediately, but it's not the force that will knock him down. It's the laws of physics not theory. I stand by my assertion that the only immediate one shot stops are direct hits to the CNS.

[mdawson]

Newton's law does not take into account guns that are built to handle recoil. I shot a Barret .50 cal and was still standing afterwards. I guarantee if I hit someone with that shot, it would knock them down. The reason? The muzzle is vented and directs that "equal and opposite reaction" away from the shooter. Remember, gunmakers understand physics too.

[MechMan]

Very well put.

MechMan

[UncleSugar]

Why is it whenever there is a discussion of firearms everyone thinks the laws of physics somehow don't apply? ;)

The difference is the energy is transferred to over a greater area to the shooter. The fact that the round punctures the target is a function of the energy being distributed over a smaller area. I agree a COM shot with a .50 cal would be like the aforementioned buckshot at close range. The trauma to the CNS would likely put down your target. But if it won't knock down the shooter it won't knock down the target, in fact since the round is likely to penetrate the target completely, actually there is less energy transferred to the target than the shooter.

Mech Man you're an engineer this should all make sense to you. :o

[UncleSugar]

Or as one of our older, wiser, more experienced mods put it a few threads back:

Originally posted by AFT SAC on 1-27-2003

I always subscribed to Robert C. Ruark's axiom to use enough gun. However, when talking about stopping power in a handgun, ain't happening. You have to balance two options that don't work well as a team. One is placement, put it in the oval true and consistent and the central nervous system is shut down and it is over. That may run contrary to controlled pairs depending on you. The second is bleed out. Bleed them out fast enough and they go unconscious, that argues for size more than anything or the old controlled pairs and thirds. That takes a lot freakin' longer sometimes than you want to be engaged which argues for consistency of placement.

Newton's law applies here. If it doesn't put you down it can't put someone down at the other end. Most non-mortally wounded persons go down because they have been trained to go down by watching Dirty Harry movies. I mean you can bust a leg and put someone down and not out. (emphasis added)

Agency issue is usually a compromise of factors. Everybody can use it well; it will not level the city or bound down Broadway; and consistency of how it is used. Choices? Close, gotta love all those pellets; distance like above .30, medium can get a lot of 9 or .223 into your sorry self; close and surprised think .40 or plus is about right for most folk. Whatever, use it fast and well and more than once and then find a hole while they bleed.

If you'd like the whole thread Stopping Power? (http://www.911jobforums.com/vB/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=17903&highlight=newtons)

[mdawson]

A shot in the shoulder or the hip (or many other places) from a .50 cal , while not hitting the CNS, will still knock a person down, period.

[MechMan]

I am an engineer.

I responded to the previous post a little hastily perhaps. There are two equations that need to be considered. F=M*A is one of them. The other is T=I*alpha, where T is torque, I is the mass moment of inertia, and alpha is the angular acceleration. One thing that is certain is that the bullet will exert a force on the object that it impacts (obviously). Perhaps overlooked is the fact that the bullet will also exert a moment (torque), which is most likely why someone would be knocked off their feet. The point force alone will not do it.

As has been mentioned, the bullet penetrates an object because the ultimate stress of the material the object is made of has been exceeded.

I have to believe that the sheer trauma of being shot is another reason why a person would be knocked off their feet. My wife can be knocked off her feet with a good kiss, which has no mass as far as I know. Whether it's elation or trauma is for her to decide.

I don't think I have written anything false. Someone please correct me if I have.

MechMan

[DoD NucE]

I've seen it on a video done in the early 80's. Bad Guys don't fall down because of any sort of inherent knockdown power, they fall down because the internal damage may shock them, or they may feel intense pain, or something along those lines, but the power of the gun isn't what knocks them down. MechMan's point with regards to a really big round like a .50BMG or a 20mm is an interesting idea, but I still believe that you would find the moment would be too small to knock someone down. The best illustration I saw of this was the aforementioned video I saw. Richard Davis, the founder of second chance shot another gentleman whose name escapes me, with a 7.62 NATO FAL from perhaps a foot away. The "victim" was wearing a level IV vest which prevented him from shot through with the bullet, but he was able to stand on 1 foot and take the hit without falling over. Modern ballistic theorists believe that the instant incapacitation that occurrs some of the time is a result of the large temporary wound cavity associated with high velocity rifle bullets doing so much internal damage, that shock is almost instantaneously set in. This is a very interesting debate though, and I always enjoy it when someone brings the physics into the argument. Good show by all.

[Shamrock0211]

MechMan

I have NO CLUE what you are talking about. I am just a caveman. Your flying machines and small boxes you carry with you with voices in them frighten me!

All I know is what I have seen. 5.56 has caused mortal wounds in people in front of me, but not taken them off their feet. I cannot say the same for the other rounds I have mentioned.

S

[UncleSugar]

Originally posted by Shamrock0211
. . . Your flying machines and small boxes you carry with you with voices in them frighten me! . . . And I thought "Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer" died with Phil Hartman. :)

[Shamrock0211]

Soon to be "Unfrozen Caveman AFOSI Special Agent"

Shamrock

[MechMan]

[QUOTE}MechMan

I have NO CLUE what you are talking about. I am just a caveman. Your flying machines and small boxes you carry with you with voices in them frighten me![/QUOTE]

Me too sometimes.

Let me just add that I am not saying for sure that the moment caused by the bullet would take a person off their feet, only that it is probably more likely to than the direct force. I think it is a combination of everything, but most importantly the trauma. I am sure I would lose muscular control and fall to the ground in such a situation. Maybe not. I hope I never have to find out.

MechMan