Why the MP-5 and not the UMP?

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Yimmy RE:Why the MP-5 and not the UMP? 11/19/2005 1:54:16 PM

Well, as you said it is a lot newer! Ergo, on the one hand, forces will not buy new equipment until their old equipment is worn out, while on the other hand they will be waiting to hear reports of other units as to how it performs, if the bugs have been ironed out etc. I don't know about the UMP being available in more calibers, what with the MP5 being available in 9mm (including an integrally suppressed varient), .40, and even 5.56mm in the slightly modified H&K53, although .40 and 10mm are discontinued. From what I have heard of the UMP, the low rate of fire and heavy bolt (it being of basic blow-back operating system), results in instability vertically, with the change in centre of gravity. Just what I have herd mind, I have never fired it.

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier RE:Why the MP-5 and not the UMP? 11/20/2005 11:14:47 AM

>>Why do all Special Forces worthy of that name use the MP-5 and not the UMP?<< As Yimmy noted, the UMP may not have benefitted from replacement and re-equipping cycles as of yet. Also, however, it may never do so. There seems to be a definite switch to the use of carbines in 5.56mm to replace the pistol caliber SMG for most applications for most special operations forces. Primarily, I suppose, because of the issue, or potential issue, of body armor. Here in the US, the MP-5 never obtained more than very limited issue, even in the SOCOM world, and I'm not aware of any plans to find a pistol-caliber replacement for it. When you can get a 5.56mm weapon with an eight to ten inch barrel (HK53, HK 416 and various other manufacturers of gas or gas piston operated AR-15 upper receivers, etc), the relative compactness of an SMG becomes a bit moot. >>The UMP is newer, with foldable stock as standard, a greater choice in caliber and the option of adding a forward handgrip.<< At least in the US, the preference is for a collapsible stock, M4 style, since this allows the user to maintain a constant length of pull and stance when training without body armor, training/operating in body armor, etc. It also, of course, allows users of different statures to tailor the weapon to best suit them, though I don't know how much of an issue this would be with an SMG compared to an M4, since that aspect is more helpful for shooting beyond CQB range. >>I realize that it is not a decisive improvement on the MP-5, but Special Forces has huge budgets and will go to whatever length to aquire the best hardware.<< As I say, I'm not sure how much interest there is in pistol caliber SMGs for military SOF uses (with the possible exception of PDWs for guys with non-shooting roles and/or concealed carry, but in both cases something like the MP5K is more the ideal than a fullsized MP5), which may explain why the UMP is more likely to be seen in the US in the hands of law enforcement tactical teams than military ones. I'd also note that the MP-5 is basically the industry standard, but for CQB it has a particularly glaring fault in that the safety/selector switch is said to be poorly sited for most shooters to manipulate while holding the weapon at the ready position. (I've not fired an MP-5, but this flaw was noted to my by the combat marksmanship instructor where I work.) This, apparently, translates to lots of using agencies adopting the protocol/SOP of keeping the weapon off safe and hot when using it, which, obviously, has certain drawbacks . . .

Quote Reply

Happy Tactics RE:Why the MP-5 and not the UMP? 12/7/2005 6:41:23 PM

What about the possibility of H&K's new MP7? (www.hkpro.com/pdw.htm for a quick and dirty summery). This weapon seems very versitle and well suited to special forces.

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier RE:Why the MP-5 and not the UMP? 12/7/2005 8:21:35 PM

I believe the German SOF units use it. I'd personally not want to bother with it -- like the P90 it is intended to be a defensive weapon, not an offensive one, and you get better performance in 99% of circumstances with a 5.56mm carbine.

Quote Reply

Yimmy RE:Why the MP-5 and not the UMP? 12/7/2005 8:46:47 PM

I think the MP7 and P90 have an advantage over 5.56mm carbines where it comes to kill house operations, such as embassy storming or cruise liner boarding etc. While their rounds will still penetrate body armour at these short ranges, the weapon is far more controllable, and have larger magazine capacities.

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier RE:Why the MP-5 and not the UMP? 12/8/2005 10:36:42 AM

>>I think the MP7 and P90 have an advantage over 5.56mm carbines where it comes to kill house operations, such as embassy storming or cruise liner boarding etc. While their rounds will still penetrate body armour at these short ranges, the weapon is far more controllable, and have larger magazine capacities.<< I've not done any trips through a shoot house with an MP7 or a P90, but have done my share with an M4 and would have to ask how much more controllable a weapon can possibly be than a 5.56mm carbine -- an M4 has next to no recoil, is compact, easy handling, etc. I'm a strong proponent away from full-power cartridges like 7.62x51mm for CQB because of recoil issues, but I don't feel you gain enough benefit by extending that logic on past the rough level of 5.56mm or 5.45x39mm to justify the decreasing lethality of the round. As for the magazine capacity, it's a rare scenario in surgical CQB where having more than 30 rounds in the gun is going to come in especially handy. It does not take much more than a heart beat or two to do a combat reload with an M4 assuming you have your gear set up properly, because the weapon has excellent ergonomics, which likely explains why one does not typically see people doing room clearing with Beta C-Mags in their weapons. The MP7 looks like it works the same way as the HK USP, which I'll allow has excellent ergonomics as well -- I can't imagine a combat reload taking any longer than with an M4. The P90, however, seems to need that oversized magazine, because mag changes with it appear to be decidedly more complicated and inconvenient in my (admittedly very limited) experience with the weapon. No idea on hard numbers in time differences, but suffice it to say a guy with an M4 is going to put several shots into a guy with a P90 while he's still fumbling with his new 50 round mag if both start with dry magazines. As for the rounds, they will penetrate body armor, but you don't get something for nothing -- SS190 is not up to par compared to SS109, nor is there any reason to think that it would be, given the disparity in stats between the two. It may tumble boosting lethality somewhat, but at CQB range 5.56mm SS109 will fragment dramatically even from short barrels, also precluding over penetration and producing greater and quicker lethality, particulary in center of mass torso hits. Which is why FN started out marketing the P90 as a personal defense weapon, not an offensive weapon of any sort. I would suggest that there are two reasons it has been adopted by some elite units in the world. First, it is very compact and will go through body armor, making it a good specialist weapon for certain concealed carry sort of scenarios. Second, it looks cool.

Quote Reply

Yimmy RE:Why the MP-5 and not the UMP? 12/8/2005 11:52:47 AM

I don't really agree with you. SAS policy when clearing a building is to give each bad guy a long burst, if not completely empty a magazine into them. An M4 will not maintain the stability of an MP7 when fireing 20 odd rounds in a burst. The 4.6mm round is plenty leathel at such short ranges, especially in such long bursts. In the iranian embassy siege the SAS used low-power 9mm loads, to sacrifice on killing power for controllability. The 4.6mm round also will not penetrate as much housing materials as 9mm or 5.56mm, and will have a reduced chance of fracticide.

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier RE:Why the MP-5 and not the UMP? 12/8/2005 12:39:13 PM

>>SAS policy when clearing a building is to give each bad guy a long burst, if not completely empty a magazine into them. << Then the SAS are wrong, or at least using antiquated TTPs. There is literally no need whatsoever to put a weapon on full automatic when doing CQB, especially surgical sort of operations, and ripping off a 20+ round burst only serves to . . . a) waste ammunition b) increase risk of accidentally shooting something/someone besides your target exponentially compared to aimed semi-automatic fire c) unnecessarily expose the shooter to a situation where a mag change and/or transition to secondary weapon is required when other targets in the room may or may not be down. d) decrease command, control, and communications within the assault element during engagements You can accomplish the same end state much more effectively, with much greater safety, by using basic controlled pairs, fired on semi-automatic. That concept is pretty much the basic cornerstone of modern CQB tactics in the US, and I'm surprised to hear that the SAS is using such an antiquated approach. >>An M4 will not maintain the stability of an MP7 when fireing 20 odd rounds in a burst. The 4.6mm round is plenty leathel at such short ranges, especially in such long bursts.<< Yes, but if I can kill a target with two rounds of 5.56mm, followed up by a shot to the head or a repeat of the controlled pair to the chest if necessary, what possible benefit is there in putting 20 rounds of 4.6x30mm into him? I've just fired two (or maybe 3 or 4) rounds, leaving me with 26 or more rounds in my loaded magazine to deal with additional threats in the room, follow on rooms, etc etc., while the guy with the MP7 has to do a combat reload and just burned through a comparatively hefty chunk of his carried ammunition load (to include all his loaded magazine, or perhaps half of it if using the 40 rounder). If each time I fire a weapon I put 20 rounds downrange, that tends to void out any utility the lighter 4.6mm ammunition might have vis a vis 5.56mm. >>In the iranian embassy siege the SAS used low-power 9mm loads, to sacrifice on killing power for controllability.<< Twenty-five years ago. Available equipment and tactics have improved dramatically since that time, when CQB tactics, techniques, and procedures were really in their infancy. >>The 4.6mm round also will not penetrate as much housing materials as 9mm or 5.56mm, and will have a reduced chance of fracticide.<< Again, I have to argue that controlled pairs fired center of mass have an infinitely lower chance of fratricide than spraying full automatic fire from any weapon system, no matter how skilled the operator.

Quote Reply

Yimmy RE:Why the MP-5 and not the UMP? 12/8/2005 1:14:35 PM

Hmm, not much point my giving a long-winded answer then. I have already debated with Shek concerning not using full automatic in room clearing.

Quote Reply

doggtag RE:Why the MP-5 and not the UMP? 12/8/2005 11:26:24 PM

-">>The 4.6mm round also will not penetrate as much housing materials as 9mm or 5.56mm, and will have a reduced chance of fracticide.<<" Really??? So I guess it's all hype then about the 4.6 being able to penetrate (CRISAT-equiv) body armor? link (about halway down the page... "* 20 % Gelatine block 300mm long ** 1.6mm Titanium + 20 layers of Kevlar") Don't know very many urban structures with titanium plates and Kevlar lining the walls. And if HK's claimed aren't just marketing hype, body armor won't save the wearer from friendly fire, especially moreso at near-point-blank range. The 4.6 has a tip designed for penetration. The blunter tips of 9mm are designed to throw more of their energy into the target upon impact rather than cleanly passing through it.

Quote Reply

1 2 3 4 5 NEXT