Hi guys, thanks for tuning in to another video on ForgottenWeapons.com.
I'm Ian McCollum. As you may have seen, a few days ago I did a video
categorising submachine guns into three distinct generations.
And I realised when I was filming that, I was concentrating more on the earlier generations,
because basically those were the guns that I had accessible
to use as examples and demonstrators in the video.
And I left out two particular guns that came up over and over and over again in the comments.
And I want to address those because I think there are some misconceptions about them,
and how they fit into the system of categorisation that I proposed in that video.
These two guns, of course, are the FN P90 and the H&K MP7.
So, I had a lot of people suggest that as PDWs, or as guns that don't use 9x19 Parabellum,
that these two submachine guns ... ought to be put into some sort of 4th Generation
new standard type of submachine gun, and I disagree.
A lot of people brought up new and ultra-modern submachine guns, and again I tend to disagree.
I don't think there has been any new development in submachine gun design
that would categorise something as fundamentally new and distinct
in a way that my 1st, 2nd and 3rd Generation proposed categories do.
So just as a quick recap: Generation 1 was basically milled.
These were first generation submachine guns, ... a lot of time and work went into their manufacture.
And it's the manufacturing techniques that really distinguish Generation 1 from Generation 2.
Gen 2 was the much simplified, much cheaper, much faster to make guns,
as exemplified by production beginning in World War Two, the Sten, the Uzi.
I should also point out I did separate these into World War Two
and post-World War Two 2nd Generation submachine guns.
Wherein compactness became a more overriding design criteria after World War Two,
and that of course involves an element that a lot of people brought up.
Namely the telescoping bolt, the idea of having a lot of the bolt weight forward of the chamber
instead of behind it, which allows a gun to be a lot more compact.
This was first really in large scale done by the Czechs with the Sa 48 system.
It was then copied of course by the Uzi, and then by
almost all of the other post-War, Cold War period submachine guns.
I think that is absolutely a recognisable technological change,
but I don't think it's one that is substantial enough
or fundamental enough to warrant a new generational designation.
I would just call those Generation 2 submachine guns based on their method of manufacture,
just they happen to be more compact ones that integrate this new design element.
Now, when ... we get to the 3rd Generation
what I proposed was that the 3rd Generation is distinguished by being basically rifle systems scaled down.
Where instead of having sort of the old traditional, open-bolt, standalone submachine guns,
instead what we're getting to are guns that are patterned on rifle partners,
but scaled down to pistol calibres.
And so of course the stereotypical example of this is the MP5,
which is, in terms of controls, virtually identical to the HK 33, the HK G3, all of the other HK platform guns.
The charging handle's the same, the magazine release is the same, the safeties are the same,
the grip's the same, the stocks are the same.
That to me is really the definitive, iconic example of a Generation 3 submachine gun.
Now when we get to the MP7, I think the MP7 is exactly the same thing.
... It's not quite as perfect of an example, but it is a scaled-down HK G36 basically.
Now, before you say it, I know, the magazine's been moved.
So on the MP7 the magazine is in the grip, so the magazine release is different.
And the charging handle is different than the G36. However, the operating mechanism
(very much like our MP5 here is a roller-delayed system, just like its rifle counterpart),
the MP7 is a rotary bolt, gas-operated system that is
very much a G36 action scaled down to its new, smaller cartridge.
I don't think that the smaller cartridge qualifies as deserving a new generational designation.
We're used to submachine guns being in 9mm Parabellum, but that's never been a total standard.
Especially early on, there were a lot of submachine guns in other cartridges.
We had .30 Luger, .30 Mauser, we had larger calibres like 9x23, 9x25 Mauser in particular.
A particularly heavy-duty, high-powered cartridge for a submachine gun
that actually required closed-bolt, delayed action.
... Well, not necessarily closed bolt, but it required delayed blowback systems.
It wasn't really practical for simple blowback operation.
And we see that in some of the early SIG Király designs in 9x25 Mauser.
So in this case we're scaling the cartridge down.
I don't think that's a fundamental change in the technology or the design of the gun.
The cartridge was not scaled down because it needed to be different for the way the gun operated.
The cartridge was scaled down to meet mission-based requirements
for things like velocity and armour penetration.
And that was easier done with a small diameter, higher-velocity bullet.
So that's why they scaled them down with both the FN P90 and the MP7.
So MP7 controls, not an exact duplicate of the G36.
But what you have there are controls that are going to be familiar to rifle users.
And they are controls that are copied from rifle systems,
instead of being the old style of kind of uniquely submachine gun like controls.
For example, ... having a safety that is the bolt pulled back and locked up into the receiver.
It's actually kind of similar to this, but for different reasons.
You have a safety selector on the MP7 that will be perfectly familiar
to anyone who uses basically any modern western rifle system.
So that's the MP7. I think it qualifies as a great example
of what I defined as a Generation 3 submachine gun.
The other one that came up of course quite a lot was the FN P90,
which seems to be perhaps more of an outlier.
I contend it's not so much of an outlier.
Again, it's not as perfect as an example as the MP5,
but the FN P90 is the submachine gun counterpart to the FN F2000 rifle.
They are both bullpup systems, they both have the same style of grip hardware, grip architecture.
... They both have the same safety: which is a rotary lock, a rotary lever in the trigger guard.
They don't quite work the same way, the F2000 has a three position safety lever,
the P90 has a progressive trigger.
And then of course there are a few other elements.
The magazines of course ... do not operate the same way.
But again, while the P90 has a very clever and almost unique magazine system,
(namely laying the cartridges perpendicular to the barrel
and stacking them out down the length of the action,
which allows you to get a 50 round magazine into a very compact package
without sticking out anywhere on the gun),
I don't think that qualifies as enough of a fundamental change to the system
to warrant a new generational designation.
It's clever, it's a little different, but it's kind of like suggesting that,
say, the Hotchkiss Universal ought to be a Generation 4 submachine gun because it folds up.
Which is something that its other contemporaries don't do, or certainly don't do to the same extent.
... There are going to be shades of outliers in all of these generations,
because people aren't designing submachine guns based on these criteria.
These criteria are ... a tool for us to assign general groups of guns with general characteristics.
So some will fit better than others.
But when it comes to the P90 and the MP7,
I would contend that they are really good examples of Generation 3 submachine guns as I present them.
So, hopefully that answers some of the questions,
some of the critiques in the comments to that earlier video.
If you guys still disagree, let me know because I think this is a really fun discussion to have,
and it's a fun exercise to divide technology into categories like this.
Anyway, thanks for watching.
Tune back in tomorrow, we'll be back with another cool forgotten weapon for you.