Question about Machine Pistol
 

Everybody knows about Machine Pistols.... M93R, G18, etc...

The question is... WHY does it has very high rate of fire? Everybody knows that pistols are hard to make it accurate shot, so you gotta need to take a good aim in order to make a good shot. Although fully automatic firing is not ideal for the accurate shot, they can at least try it by lowering the rate of fire...Right?


Why do they always prefer high rate of fire for the machine pistol??

To spit out as much ammo as possible, laying down suppressive fire? Or maybe it's because people who knows how to use Machine Pistols don't actually go full auto but instead fire in bursts. The M93R is only a burst firing weapon and the ones we see in full auto are only for the movies cause the audience just LOVES full auto

Well I think its because the bolt and everything else is much lighter than say a submachine gun or an Assault rifle. I'd like to get a CZ 75 auto because it has a compensator and you can use a extra mag as a foregrip but I'm too lazy to do all the paperwork necessary. But if you're in the army in real combat the only time you'd need a Machine Pistol is if your bodyguarding. Machine pistols are okay for suppressive fire.

Personally I'd much rather have an M4 or CQB-R, even for VIP protection.

Full auto or not, a pistol is still a pistol.

I don't think a single Army in the world uses machine pistols.

I wouldn't ,I think the main advantage of Submachineguns over Rifles is less chance of overpenetration -esp if you are a bodyguard in some public place with lots of people.

(a) The posters who mentioned that no ARMY in the world actually uses Machine pistols is correct. They are a specialized weapon. Also Police wouldn't use them because of the high risk of collateral damage.

They are fast response weapons for attacks or ambushes. Bodyguards use them (and drug dealers ;) ) but anyone who needs to quickly shoot their way out of an ambush at close range.

That was the notion behind the PDWs - various manufacturers have made their own versions of PDWs (the MP5K was a perfect example, and then they honed it into their own PDW. Also H&K made a PDW version of the MP7A1 (well at least according to MT2008 they did). Anyway the best personal defense weapon is something really small, but controllable, with a high rate of fire. When you got a bunch of bad guys suddenly drawing down on you, you're gonna want that high rate of fire.

Historically the MAC-10 and MAC-11 fulfilled this role to some people.

What about the Uzi? Would that be classed as a Machine pistol, because some do and some would just call it a Submachine gun

Only the "Micro-UZI" would classifired as Machine Pistol, and others remains as Submachine Gun. Micro-UZI is extremely compact and small, and has high rate of fire, but Mini UZI and Standard UZI doesn't fit in this categories.

P.S) Don't try to think about "UZI Pistol" as machine pistol yet. The categories of this firearm is going to be determined when the full auto capability is being legalized by the U.S government, which never would happen.

As Bugabear pointed out, the high rate of fire has a lot to do with the fact that the action is so light and the barrel is so short. Especially with machine pistols that are based on service pistols (the G18 and Beretta 93R especially), those are guns which, by definition of their designs, don't lend themselves so well to methods of gas regulation and rate reduction that can be accomplished with machine pistols based on full-size SMGs (like the MP5K). So they just fire very fast.

I don't think I ever said that. H&K did call the MP7 the "PDW" when it was still in the prototype phase (and the prototype looks a little different from the production model). But isn't the MP7 considered a PDW by definition?

Aren't PDWs just a sub category of Submachine guns?