Printable View
During a disussion about the accuracy of the H&K MP5 it was stated that a precise shot could be achieved at 100 metres. The Wehrnmacht trained servicemen to shoot the Luger (P08) using a single hand stance at 50 metres. German police manuals claim that 9 Para ammunition is not precise at more 25 metres.
At what distance are personnel expected to shoot 9 Para machine pistols with acceptable results?
It isn't the ammunition that's not accurate, it's the shooter and his lack of training. I know what the guys in these video's are doing isn't exact science but it shows the potential of the 9x19 mm round.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wXFf34bB34
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZM6BOjsFx4M
We had a competition using the C1 SMG that rivaled the rifle and pistol shooters. There was nothing wrong with the accuracy. Or are you asking a measurement of grouping?Quote:
Originally Posted by villiers
The issue is training and the limitation of the firearm. For example pistols I would consider ineffective at any distance beyond 25m without a significant amount of training, due to the short sight radius and the fact the firearm is held out from your body. You add a shoulder stock to the same pistol and I would increase the effective range significantly, to around 100m (provided the sights are set up for it). One thing with the one hand pistol stance at 50m, is sure you can do it effectively at the range when no one is firing back at you, but once it is a real two way range, you won't have the time to line up and make such effective shots (without a significant amount of training).
One thing with that how far will a 9mm kill video is that the ammo he is using isn't standard FMJ ball ammo. With the standard ammo the ammunition used does become less effective the farther you get.
Well for what it is worth, I can consistently cut a human sized target to shreds at 75 meters with an MP 40! I do the same at 50+ meters shooting from the hip! I can then repeat the above with both the Thompson and Sten Gun.
It is simply a matter of practice to stay consistent.
Sarge
The videos show an astonishing level of competence with a semi-auto pistol! I was mainly interested in groupings, as the discussion was based on the legality of police use of 9 Para under urban conditions at longer distances.
I think it's possible to hit a human full size target up to 150-200 meters with a H&K MP5 using NATO 124gr ball ammo. I've seen it done with a Steyr Aug A1 Para 9mm SMG and an early FN made UZI 9mm SMG with a wooden stock.
So why wouldn't a Law Enforcement Officer, after enough practice and with suitable ammo, shouldn't be able to do it? They just don't get the chance do it. Most European Law Enforcement agencies train their Officers up to 25 meters with a pistol and up to 50 meters with a SMG. And most of them get limited range time, sometimes just 4 times a year with only 50 rounds.
My SIL is a cop, had over 50,000 rounds thru his 9mm Glock 5 years ago and is very very good with it. I have seen him keep a pop can moving at over 25 yards every shot. He has not shot as much since his promotion but still more than competent. I think next year he is going to visit and I intend to try to coincide the visit with a 'fun" military shoot at our range. The discussion I expect will be how many shots went in that ragged hole.
He is also very good with a H&K MP5 after spending many years on the tactical team.
Unprofor, That was the gist of the discussion (there was also a rumour that the latest delivery of the H&K MP5s to North America ended up training law enforcement officers on a range at 10 metres)
The rumour of 10 meters is probably true. I think you will find far too many police officers are anything but good shots and shooting at distance might compromise the lives of the innocent. A recent confrontation in BC with police had a "trained" mountie(s) fire 11 rounds at a moving vehicle that had just run over or was about to run over a spike belt and one round hit the side mirror, the other 10 completely missed which is rather scary, but what do I know. The mountie was shooting a AR15.Quote:
Originally Posted by villiers
Talked to my SIL about the MP5, said they did shooting drills from 1 meter distance and out. They were purchased for clearing a building and nothing else. They did drills up to 25 meters and further and at times 75/80/100 meters but the gun was not intended to be used at that distance. I have shot at the range they use and there is a gong at 300 meters, he told me he could hit it with the MP5 but would not try that very often. The gong was around 16X16 inches max.
I can get consistent headshots on gnomes at 25 feet with a BHP, and at 50 yards with a Hi-Point 995. OOORAH!!!
I hate gnomes.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...yeomkmrr-1.jpg
An Air Force cop dropped a active shooter with his M9 at 70 yards
Dean A. Mellberg shoots and kills four people and wounds 22 at Fairchild Air Force Base hospital on June 20, 1994. - HistoryLink.org
The discussion started when someone wondered what would happen at the local airport, where police patrol with MP5s, if they opened fire. How many innocent travelers would perish? Is an MP a suitable weapon to provide security in congested areas?
depends on barrel length alot
Personally, I think there´d be a massacre and that they only increase the danger of being killed by a terrorist bomb. But it looks a lot better to have them walking around. Just hope that their weapons are not loaded.
I may get my a-- chewed, BUT - You are an IDIOT!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by villiers
Why not just have them handcuffed with their hands behind their back? You apparently think that the mere presence of a uniform is all that is needed to stop/prevent trouble!
Sarge
Never trust a Sarge to do much thinking ....
What would you consider a better weapon? The possibility of accidentally hitting someone in a congested area exists no matter what weapon is being used. The MP5 is one of the best choices available, low recoil and the round doesn't travel as far as many alternatives (for example a full auto FN-FAL would be a terrible choice as the bullets would be going everywhere and would continue travelling for a long distance). It is a better choice over a pistol (longer sight radius and if fully stocked easier to aim, which also means more shots on target, less shots elsewhere), better than a shotgun (significantly less collateral potential than a shotgun blast), and better than a standard rifle (rounds don't travel as far as a rifle round and with less recoil for the MP5 it means they stay on target easier). What matters most is how well trained the individual is. If they are poorly trained then, it doesn't matter what they are armed with as they are a danger to everyone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by villiers
How is security being armed going to increase the danger of being killed by a terrorist bomb? If anything it gives you the means to prevent it (well at least more likely to prevent it than being unarmed). The reality is it is a significantly low risk of happening in the first place. In terms of a massacre, it depends on the situation and who is doing what. Crowded areas are always at a higher risk of multiple deaths simply due to the number of people around. Again this is where training comes in. When I was doing force protection with the RCN we were trained on multiple scenarios and made sure we understood the concept of aimed shots due to the risk to surrounding areas and individuals. The police in the airport I am sure are given similar if not better training than what I received.Quote:
Originally Posted by villiers
Interesting underestimation.Quote:
Originally Posted by villiers
Well short of being rude I can't comprehend your line of thought! I hope the cop is armed to the nuts and a darn good shot as I can't think of many guns better than a MP5 for a close quarter situation. I would expect the cops I saw with FA's in airports in Europe and the UK are more than capable of doing the best job possible in the event of a confrontation.Quote:
Originally Posted by villiers
Possibly you would be more comfortable with the officer wielding a gun loaded with Buletten?:bash:
Thank you so much for your subtle and differentiated contributions to the question as to whether a short barrelled, inaccurate weapon, with a comparatively high rate of fire, a short sight radius and a large cone of dispersion, in the hands of inexperienced personnel is the ideal equipment for use in congested public amenities.
The MP5s I have seen in use are fairly accurate, it just depends on the distance used. 200m is a stretch but 100m or less (which a airport is) I would be very confidant with a MP5 even on full auto. The groupings I have seen boarding party personelle do with a MP5 is absolutely fantastic at 25m even on full auto.Quote:
Originally Posted by villiers
9mm doesn't have the same range or ricochet potential as bigger round (a plus in this situation) and it is more controlled through a short barrel carbine than it is through a pistol. Next to no recoil means it is easier to control, and your argument that they are inexperienced is relatively irrelevant as no matter what you gave them if they don't know what they are doing they are a risk to all around them.
If you can think of a better option for arming them let us know, otherwise the MP5 is basically the best firearm they could have picked for that type of area.
I have an idea.!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Eaglelord17
CWF Rape Whistle Commercial - YouTube
Warpig, Sarge & Enfield303t ... `tis a bit like poking a stick through the bars of your cage .... :banghead::D
Hey fellas, lets keep it civil please. Name calling and calling out because of a member's opinion only serves to stifle further dialog.
I have personally trained with the MP5 and can tell you they are a very good and very accurate weapon. Also, there needs to be clarification as to what model MP5 we're discussing. There are a number of models and each feature can dictate accuracy for individual shooters. Some are Safe, Three round bust and Full. Some are Safe, Semi and Three round burst. And some are Safe, Semi and Full auto. An MP5 in semi mode would be an effective and surgical weapon in a crowded environment in trained hands. The LEOs would not be issued them if they were not highly trained in their use.
Object of the original discussion was to come up with a better strategy to increase security at airports and other public amenities without resorting to their saturation with heavily armed special forces.This has the added disadvantage of openly demonstrating the public fear of terrorist activity. It is further highly unlikely that HK-armed personnel would have been able to prevent recent suicide attacks. Israelis have a longer and more intensive experience in dealing with the problem. Openly armed personnel are noticeably absent from their airline check-in facilities, yet their airlines are the world´s safest. How about at least thinking about a solution (instead of trading insults)?
Because no one is going to search here for a solution. We came to talk about guns, not politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by villiers