I remember being happy they switched from the MP5. A 9mm should not be able to easily defeat fancy space god armor. The 5.7 would at least have a chance. Or were all those Jaffa wearing painted plastic?
I feel like it would have been more effective to categorize these as: Gen 1 SMGs whose purpose was as a firepower multiplying tool for a soldier when the only common competition was bolt-action rifles Gen 2 SMGs that were a cheap, compact compliment to frontline rifles and as a primary for troops that didn't need frontline weapon range or power Gen 3 SMGs that have been pushed out of general service by intermediate rifles and designed for niche roles where compactness is valued above all else I feel like categorizing for the design purpose allows you to explain the characteristics rather than using the characteristics as the category itself, but at the end of the day the categorizations are made up and the points don't matter.
@Chicken Stealer That still makes it a cheap, compact complement to frontline rifles like the Kar98k and the G/K43 series. I'd say one of the defining factors of this kind of Gen 2 is that it's no longer an expensive, specialty weapon for shock troops where the force multiplication is needed at the front lines above all else. They can be put into frontline roles and rearline roles because they're affordable and effective which the MP40 absolutely was.
As with everything different categoryzation systems serve different purposes. I don't know much about SMGs, but your system seems as valid as Ians, they serve diferent purposes. Ian seems more economy targeted, yours design targeted.
Gen I: Heavy, expensive bullet sprayer Gen II: Light, cheap bullet sprayer Gen III: Compact pistol caliber rifle, sophisticated and precise, but also able to spray bullets
I wouldn't necessarily label Gen II as "light", since they're almost all open-bolt blowback guns with pretty substantially heavy bolts. The M3 is 3.7 kg/8.15 lbs empty, the Ingram M10 is like 8.75 lbs according to Ian's video on it, MP40 was 8.75 lbs, Sten around 7.1 lbs... =) I mean sure, there were Gen I SMGs that were heavier than that, but also a fair few ones that were about the same weight. It's mostly just about being cheaper to produce.
@@DriveCarToBar True, but there were Gen 1 SMGs that were about the same weight as Gen 2 ones as well. At most I'd say the Gen 2 ones tend towards being lighter on average. I think the well made and expensive vs. crude and cheap distinction works better.
@@jubuttib Very true there, it's well known the concept of the STEN was due to how expensive the Thomson was, and how it was hard to get the quantities needed after Dunkirk, so cheap and fast to manufacture, but functional was the primary aim.
I think trying to label gen 3 as scaled down rifles is causing problems, as there are submachine guns with no connection to rifles (Vector). Gen 3, really is about precision interchangeable parts(not cheap stamped steel), and modern rifle like controls/handling. Also most modern (Gen 3) submachine guns fire from a closed bolt, vs the traditional open.
That descriptor makes more sense and would put the P90 in Gen 3 more easily. Comparing it to the F2000 under the other method doesn't make sense since the P90 predates the F2000 by 10 years.
TBH going by Ians original definitions, its hard to actually justify there ever been a generation 4, as it would have to be something completely unique and not just a futher itteration on what already exists, as was the case with the P90 and MP7. Defining them by their production methodology and modularity is a good way to think of generation 3. The only way I could think of a generation 4 existing is to start to look into scifi weaponry, with things like the minigun in the Martian power armour from the expanse. Something with a completely unique control setup, not traditional hardware. That or the development of electronically fired weaponry, but again that is likely to become a rifle first, then scaled down to SMG, which would make it generation 3.
@@cgi2002 It's only right that unless something fundamental changes, new SMGs won't be a new generation. That's what the term signifies. We don't call it a new generation just because some time has passed. Not in technology.
Each of Ian's generations defines a shift/difference in some fundamental characteristic in comparison to other generations. Between Gens 1 & 2, it's manufacturing. Between Gens 3 and 1 & 2, it's operational characteristics. That's probably the best way to see it. I think if you're going to get a Gen 4, the main difference will be the use of caseless ammunition or some other advanced ammunition that isn't your standard brass, powder, lead round no matter the caliber. Or it might be some way to handle the gun in a way that is radically different from current firearms; i.e. mounting it on a forearm or shoulder.
@@HappyBeezerStudios true but if you look at HK 100, which Ian did a video on a couple of years ago, using caseless ammunition could mean a completely different philosophy for operating mechanisms.5
Never thought I'd see Forgotten Weapons liking a comment that mentions forearm/shoulder mounted firearms. I'm not saying you're wrong or it's stupid, I'm just saying I didn't think Forgotten Weapons would consider such radically almost-scifi generational change when every other generation he mentions vary only in looks, (vaguely) action, and manufacturing. Again, I'm not saying you're wrong, but this would be like saying 7th gen multirole fighters will be able to dive underwater or enter orbit or something and then getting validation from a military aviation expert
I'd like to see dedicated videos for P90, Kriss Vector and MP-7. I'm interested in both their mechanics and development history since they are unusual designs.
I feel like the P90 and the MP7 have more in common with the M1 carbine than they do with other sub-machine guns, at least in the role they are intended to fill. Both were given to rear echelon and support troops as a replacement for other weapons that were seen as insufficient like the 1911 at the time.
@@bartunthegreat2999 Using calibers that don't make for good side arms seems to be sufficient to distinguish a pdw from a smg(which are always chambered in some sidearm cartridge)
I find a lot of people are getting hung up on role which is not exactly relevant. If you define the generations by role, you're going to get even more confused than you've ever been, because role is very fluid and nebulous. Focusing on the major shifts in design and manufacture simplifies things greatly, I feel.
@@thegoldencaulk2742 I agree with the idea of categorizing by production, I just use the small bore high pressure chambering to rule out m1/p90/mp7 as smg's in the first place. They are a completely different type of weapon to me.
@@MrAirpumpkin except... isn't FN selling more Five seveNs (or whatever the silly capitalizing is) than they ever sold P90s? People seem to like it as a handgun cartridge (or maybe just the 20-round capacity).
Anthropologists as well. Students like to group things up to make life simpler. Researchers like to split things up to try and make a name for themselves.
@@michaellesak6912 Physicists despise classification in all of its forms. My field had different people publishing textbooks with different definitions for the same highly important technical term but they use completely different definitions. God help the astronomers who HAVE to agree.
Which I think also makes it noteworthy that the P90 was *not* designed to be familiar to rifle users or users of other FN systems at the time. To me, it really seems to struggle to fit the criteria Ian presented, as the principal case he made for it was the similarity to the F2000. If any system could be claimed to be a Gen 4 SMG, I'd reckon it would be the P90, but there would also be a need to define what criteria are needed for a Gen 4 system.
There are no rules what type of weapon comes to market first to become ones counterpart. A lot of the design feature of the P90 are visible in the F2000. Just because H&K came to the market with rifles before SMGs does not make that the standard; they were however the most successful doing it.
@@grebnetgil2800 Doesn't what weapon comes first matter though? If the claim is that one system was *derived* from another, this does not apply to the P90. If the claim is the similarities are what matter, than these similarities did not exist at the time of the design of the weapon - in which case, the P90 would have "not" been a Gen 3 SMG for a period of 10 years until its counterpart was introduced. This doesn't make sense to me, personally.
I am sure someone else has mentioned it, but the P90 came out years before the F2000. So it cannot be a scaled down version of it. The P90 was exceptionally innovative for its time for a number of reasons, and may count as a new gen. of subgun for the working of an optical sight into the basic design, the extensive use of polymer, or the rifle/pistol hybrid aspect of the ammunition(though that was also an innovation inherent in the M1 Carbine almost fifty years prior to the P90).
I'd really like to see you do a demo shooting and video detailed examination of the FN P90. I am impressed with the compactness of the unobtrusive and tucked away 50 round magazine. On other channels, people trying it start out not liking the looks of it and end up liking the way it handles and shoots. You give it short shrift as an "outlier". I suggest it is precisely outliers that will eventually accumulate the changes that serve up something like a Gen 4.
I like your input! The one thing I would mention is that both of these are designed as PDWs with armor-penetrating capabilities, which none before them have been. Except maybe the Swedish m/45 that later on got an armor-penetrating cartridge crafted especially for it, the m/39B released 1955.
Well both other generations were brought on by major wars, something that we haven't had in 60 years. Military development slows way down in times of peace.
@@Lucidius134 It's so weird to me that the MP5 is still used basically unchanged when it would be so much better with a last-round bolt hold-open device and bolt-release button.
"generation" implies features that are broadly shared across many firearms of the time. The G11 is an outlier and could be considered the first of a generation, if caseless ammo gained popularity. It's impossible to say something is a new generation until other firearms start copying it.
The term 'generation' isn't greatly applicable to the categories IMO, when you have 'Gen 3' SMGs from the 60s and 'Gen 2' SMGs still coming out decades later.
As someone who asked this question of the last video, thanks for making this, Ian. It makes more sense that way, since I was not aware of the similarities to the mentioned rifles. I would also agree with others in here about the slightly different specific descriptors of gen 3, being closed-bolt and modular, etc.
Well for a start you can pin-point a generation change around the time of the AR10 when guns started to be made from aluminium and polymer instead of wood and steel. Not that those materials are the defining characteristics, but rather the shift to using modern materials. Coincidentally weapons after this time were also generally designed for smaller scale use such as for law enforcement and self-defense, and war where theres not two outright armies going head to head.
@@Andy-xt3mh In between your G4 and G5, I'd put repeating rifles; as Martin above states, I'd also put another generation after your G7 with the change in materials to alloys and polymers...
This is a very fun conversation. I think it's interesting how the consumer market has thouroghly changed the firearms market as well. Pistol braces, mlok, keymod, even ar pistols have pushed the boundaries for firearms customization/creativity. Like assembling an ar to now assembling a rifle and now there's that sig frame pistol where you can interchange frames and slides. Very interesting . . .
Can we have Ian dressed up in a Stargate uniform for the occasion? Surely there's some costume guy somewhere in Vancouver that must have purchased the MGM surplus of those.
@@WJS774 Yup and it seems like Ian would want to cover the video in more of an evolution format including predecessors and prototypes and all versions of the p90. Come on FN give Ian some access!
I‘d categorize the FN P90 as a late Gen2 SMG, as it’s, to my knowledge, a straight blowback action. If we were to go of rifle ergonomics and closed bolt the UMP would have to be considered a Gen3 SMG, too. As systems like the CMMG Banshee and Kriss Vector clearly don’t fit the description of scaled down rifle actions, I‘d recommend to consider any modern locked or delayed action SMG to be a Gen3.
My categorization is based on specific new attributes: Gen1: First ever, heavy, expensive, spans between WW1 and interwar, e.g. MP18, Thompson Gen2: Gen1 if everything expensive is removed, spans between WW2 and a few postwar designs, e.g. M3, Swedish K Gen3: More compact, often have telescoping bolts or similar mechanisms, much shorter than Gen2 and often with Pistol grips fed mags, e.g. Uzi, Walther MPK, Berretta M12 Gen4: Ian's Gen3, rifles that are turned into pistol caliber carbines Gen5: Opposite of Gen4, they are instead sub guns that use small rifle caliber cartridge, these guns however are either their own category of guns altogether (PDW) or modification of Gen3 and Gen4, e.g. MP7 and P90
Experts in the US have limited or no access to post 1986 machine guns. Federal laws need changing so museums can maintain a current inventory of MGs. Particularly I am thinking of the Cody Museum.
I would expect that museums get some exclusion to the ban, however most museums also don't need a working model either so there is a strong chance they get a high quality non firing replica or a demilled original.
@@jeopardy4100 oh I must have missed that interview. And I think there should be preserved working models available for museums that of course have sufficient security. There are some rare models of guns from various wars that were demilled but a talented gunsmith can often repair them, a friends dad had a very well used type 99 Arisaka he got from his unit after the enemy combatant who shot him with it was dispatched, his corporal threw it on the chopper with him as a momento after the firefight. The army demilled it (why?) stupidly so he could keep it , he had it repaired later.
This might just be the best channel on youtube. I challenge anyone to find a more informative, honest and open host who doesn't play by the usual rules for views.
I still think the premise of defining a third generation as being "somewhat but not always entirely related to rifles" is a bit flawed when you can approach the generations from a doctrinal and usage POV instead of a mechanical one. First generation - A tool designed to offer its user overwhelming firepower at short ranges as a reaction to the way warfare changed during WWI. Reflecting this, the SMG was seen as a specialty weapon and its design and manufacture represent that. Because the SMG wasn't perceived as being a weapon for everyone, it didn't need to be produced in large quantities and so time and care could be taken to make them really nice. Second generation WWII - Cheaper than a self-loading rifle to make and more firepower than a bolt-action at close ranges, these filled a niche that militaries could see was a large one. Because of this increased demand, the design and manufacture was economised to value quantity over quality. This resulted in the heavy use of stampings to facilitate mass production, and while many designs were quite serviceable and even nice, the focus had shifted from the SMG being a specialty weapon to being a mainline infantry arm to be distributed to a much larger number of soldiers. Second generation post WWII - Still a better option than a full powered rifle for close range, high volume of fire applications, the SMG held on to its economised production but would begin to see a shift in where it was being used. It would transition (not instantly) away from being a mainline weapon and into roles that PDWs (like the MP-7 and P90) would later be commissioned to fill. The main driver for moving the SMG away from being a mainline weapon was the rise of the intermediate cartridge allowing militaries to do the kind of conglomeration of infantry weapon roles they had been trying to do since the end of WWII. Since you could reasonably combine the role of mainline infantry rifle and sub-machine gun, there became less need for a distinct weapon for either role. This would see the SMG moving to a support troop or security role (where the compactness would be paramount) and also see the full-powered self loading rifle move into a designated marksman role. Third generation - The third generation is a reaction to the obsolescence of SMGs in the majority of open combat roles. Where previously support troops would be issued with an SMG (in a PDW role, distinguishing here between the mechanical characteristics (SMG) and doctrinal implementation (PDW) and thus covering the MP-7 and P90 as *mechanically* SMGs but designed from the ground up *to be used* as PDWs) now they're being issued SBRs in intermediate cartridges. The reason for the shift away from pistol calibre weapons in this role is two-fold. One, the logistical advantage of your truck driver being able to share ammunition and magazines with a rifleman. Two, the greater effectiveness of a small calibre, high velocity pistol cartridge is really only in controllability in full auto fire and to a lesser extent, suppressability (thanks to less blast from a lower pressure cartridge). Those two minor advantages don't really outweigh the arguably better ranged capability and improved terminal ballistics of an intermediate cartridge out of a short barrel. Evidence that the SBR has taken over from the SMG as a PDW in this way can be seen in the Korean military's designation of the K1A (which by western mechanical designation is an SBR) as an SMG. Because of this shift away from pistol calibre weapons in mainline roles, SMGs see themselves moving back to where they were in the first generation. They've reverted to being specialists weapons, but rather than the leveraged advantage being firepower, it's the SMG's compactness, recoil and suppressability that make it special. As such, we see a return to greater mechanical complexity and higher quality manufacture. Of course, all of this is relatively subjective and really only applies to western designations and doctrines. The interesting thing about looking at the Russian side of things is that it seems they skipped the first generation, fully engaged with the second generation during WWII, then skipped ahead to gen three and have stayed there. I think that is related to their initial adoption of an intermediate cartridge and the widespread adoption of the AK which was initially touted as a replacement to the SMG. I think by adopting an intermediate cartridge early, the USSR skipped over the majority of gen two SMG use post WWII because they were already finding that the assault rifle did everything they needed it to well enough and when it stopped doing it well enough, they just chopped the barrel down to create an SBR.
I simply consider them as genuine PDWs instead of SMGs, due to the cartridge. Their reason to exist is because SMGs couldn't defeat body armor, so the P90 and MP7 were made to remedy that. Otherwise, they wouldn't be there. Yes, 5.7x28mm is within pistol dimensions, but that's where similarities kind of end. Projectile weight got replaced by higher velocity to meet the criteria and of course, they were intended for second line troops. I do however agree that firearm size doesn't qualify enough because the HK53 and HK51 aren't classified as SMGs or PDWs regardless of their size. Speaking of which, thoughts on the SR-2 Veresk? The 9x21mm Gyurza is no doubts meeting the armor defeating criteria, but considering it was only used by the FSB, I would like to know your thoughts because I think the Veresk would be a good discussion subject.
Right, but he's evaluating the firearm in and of itself, not the weapon system. You could modify an MP7 to fire 9mm, and you could modify other "gen 3" submachine guns to fire 4.6.
SMG and PDW are kinda overlapping but different concepts I'd say. A PDW is a weapon for non-infantry people who can't be arsed to lug around a proper rifle but want adequate firepower to defend theirselves (and let's call the M1 carbine a PDW for that matter). An SMG is a weapon that is basically a hand-held machine gun, i.e. it's primarily a full-auto weapon (as opposed to select-fire rifles that *also* can do full auto) that is very much meant to be "crewed" by one guy and fired off-hand and uses some significantly lighter ammo than whatever the current machine gun or rifle uses. So the MP7 and P90 are both SMGs and PDWs. But not every PDW is necessarily an SMG and not every SMG is necessarily a PDW. However, I'll admit it's really pretty arbitrary.
I don't disagree with your argument necessarily, but here is a thought experiment: Is the FN Five Seven not a pistol because it has a different cartridge? It also does not fire a standard pistol caliber cartridge and in fact uses the 5.7x28mm that you say defines the P90 as not being an SMG. I'd say the Five Seven is certainly a handgun because of the form factor, but how can it be a handgun and not a pistol?
PDW is more of a role rather than type of weapon. Sub machine gun is a machine gun that uses pistol caliber ammunition as the name implies. PDW is any weapon that is not intended to heavy fighting but to give back line units a chance to shoot while breaking off from the battle. Main goal of a PDW is to be compact and light and offer high volume of fire for short period of time for short distances compared to full rifles. M1 Carbine was a PDW, 11,5" AR:s are PDW, krinkov is PDW, CZ Škorpion is PDW and P90 and MP7 are too. Artillery Lugers were first PDW type of thing as far as I'm concerned. Small and handy and were able to offer VERY high rates for WWI era for short time on close ranges. PDW can be carbine, SMG or a stocked pistol (actual weapon type, not legal loophole like AR "pistol"). Pistol cartridge is a thing that can be shot from a pistol (again not counting AR "pistol"). 5.7 is definetly a pistol cartridge. Very high velocity and quite low bullet weight but still a pistol cartridge. There has been high velocity pistol rounds before (22. winmag) and bottle necked rounds too (25 Tokarev). P90 is a submachinegun since it shoots pistol cartridge and is select fire
Ian seems to be overlooking that the distinction of the P90 and MP7 isn't merely that they don't fire 9mm Parabellum. It's that they don't fire a pistol caliber round at all. Nobody was claiming the MP5/10 was 4th generation because of the 10mm Auto round, since that's still a pistol round. The P90 and MP7 both fire scaled-down rifle rounds that were designed specifically for them. That makes them more in a category with the M1 Carbine (and more to the point, the select-fire M2 Carbine) rather than with SMGs. Nobody would ever call the M2 Carbine an SMG, even though years after the fact pistols have been made that fire .30 Carbine. And .30 Carbine has more in common with typical pistol rounds than 5.7x28 or 4.6x30.
Hello Ian. Excellent arguments. As I mentioned in the previous post, in most of the Argentine bibliography, PDWs are debated between the fourth generation or another new generation. It is even said that they are not SMGs. Personally, I consider that the telescopic block does involve a new generation, not so much because of its compactness, but because it makes it practical to reload in the dark or while observing the target. One hand looks for the other very easily in these circumstances. Furthermore, the balance makes single-handed shooting possible, albeit difficult. A real pleasure to discuss these topics. Greetings from Argentina. Hola Ian. Excelentes argumentos. Como comenté en el posteo anterior, en la mayoría de la bibliografía Argentina, las PDWs son debatidas entre cuarta generación u otra generación nueva. Inclusive se dice que no son SMGs. Personalmente considero que el block telescópico si implica una nueva generación, no tanto por la compacidad, sino porque hace práctico la recarga en la oscuridad o manteniendo la observación del objetivo. Una mano busca a la otra muy fácilmente en esas circunstancias. Además el balance hace que el disparo con una sola mano posible, si bien dificil. Un verdadero placer debatir sobre estos tópicos. Saludos desde Argentina
To me this overlooks one key element. Both of these "4th Gen" guns use a very small high velocity bottle neck cartridge. Which is a dramatic shift from pretty much every other SMG in the past which used a traditional straight wall or semi straight wall traditional pistol cartridge.
Hi Ian, as always another great video! I am currently saving up some money so I can sunscribe to your Patreon (the 20$ tier one) since I think that you're one of the best content creators on TH-cam and certainly one of my top 3 TH-camrs of all time. Keep up the great work!
I was one of the ones commenting that I believe the P90 to be in a separate 'generation' than the post WW2 generation in your last video but after seeing this I do understand your position and its a bit like splitting hairs at that point. Thanks for your videos, always fun to watch.
Nice critique Ian. The many advancements in small arms technology have made the submachine guns more compact and reliable but to have what I would call a fourth generation sub gun it will take an advancement such as case-less ammunition.
@@marciliojunior4919 According to Wikipedia, P90's development started 9 years before F2000's. So it would be a reversed Gen III, which means it's still a scaled down rifle system of some sort.
I would say we are in gen 3.5 since we are accounting for post-war, a refinement of a new design or way a SMG is manufactured WW1 = Gen 1 Post WW1 = Gen 1.5 WW2 = Gen 2 Post WW2= Gen 2.5 Cold war = Gen 3 Modern day = Gen 3.5
Agreed...I submit that CMMG's patented radial delay bolt system has opened a wholly new door in SMG design. The main reason why CMMG chose an 'AR-ish' configuration was maximize 'muscle memory' cross-over (and a further excuse to use Glock magazines 😏) for the operator. In reality, with CMMG's bolt design, any number of alternative configurations could be developed for an SMG / PDW weapons system.
@@ironwolfF1 The main reason CMMG chose an AR configuration was that they're a maker of ARs. And while the radial delayed-blowback system itself is new, there's nothing at all new about delayed-blowback SMGs, and I don't see what "new door in SMG design" it opens other than allowing CMMG to use existing AR bolt parts.
This answers plenty of questions for sure... But raises a few new ones too... 1) What would it take for you to consider a new SMG to be a new generation? 2) How would you classify the Kriss Vector? 3) Would you perhaps be willing to consider the like of the MP-7, P-90 (and the Vector again) to maybe be 'transitional 3/4' generation, in a similar fashion to how you considered the Beretta M38 to be a 'transitional 1/2' gen? Even though no 'true 4th gen' has been made yet? ~JD
It has been spoken and I agree. In your mind what do you think the gen 4 shift will be? Caliber modularity? Data feed? Or are we just going to go to energy weapons?
I don't find that very likely to happen, personally. In order to get the power out of a round required to punch through armor, youd probably have to leave the realm of pistol cartridges. You might be able to defeat low grade armor with something specialized like an FN 5.7 or something, but i dont think you would ever get to the point whered you be able to defeat steel and ceramic plates and such.
I think that your view of submachinegun generations Ian is well thought of and properly justified. I think that current modern submachineguns could just be assigned to different subgroups of one generation if they differ quite a lot but not enough to assign them to a completely new generation.
Fair enough, the relatively more complex operating system and general handling make sense. Does that mean that Gen3 SMGs are less their own category of arm and more just pistol caliber assault rifles? For further discussion, That seems like SMG development is at the same plateau as rifles where we can really only expect minor refinements and changes and that we need a breakthrough technology (energy weapon etc) before we'd see any new generation?
I did not agree with the P90 assessment until you compared it to the Hotchkiss Universal, very good point that illustrated the fact you cannot create a new category for an outlier. Categories are for general trends, thus a platypus is still a mammal (I think lol).
Using the both the P90 and MP7 as examples of Gen 3 SMGs moves the CZ Scorpion Evo into Gen 3 as well. The stock setup was identical to the Bren 805 and is still similar to the Bren 2. With the exception of being blowback and the magazine release on the evo essentially all of the controls are the same as it’s Bren counterparts.
... Yeah. You probably shouldn't own any of them then. If you think a firearm is a toy and not a deadly weapon, your priorities are seriously messed up my friend.
Another thing to add; i think it's safe to say the Vector is a gen2 (like the Skorpion Evo3 as mentioned in the previous video) and the MPX is a gen3 as it's basically a pistol caliber MCX including its gas system
I still think the P90 should be a generation 4, however some of my additional points goes to homebrew rifle sub caliber conversions, while rather untactful there is in common use automatic firearms which have receaved some conversion to meet the requirements. such and example are M16/AR15s with 9mm uppers and mag-well adapters. I think there is an AK verion as well. would also state that generation 4 as you put it may simply be the blending of the automatic-rifle, assult rifle, and SMG definitions by changing of caliber withing the same literal fire control-group and sometimes without modifying the barrel. as far as the hotchkiss SMG it would have exemption as it was less intended to be role redefining as it was a quality design, its like giving the definition of machine-gun to early harmonica and organ guns. it matters when the concept was created and adopted in mass. I think the differnce in such a 4th and 3rd generation would be the diffence of near exact and close adaptation, as there is a limitation of the number of possible solutions of actions. while I am aware that these definitions conflict with ATF definitions, I don't think the ATF is the best source of firearm definitions.
@Zach cash is it? or is it a matter of perspective, cause if that's the case the MP series is a serious problem. we can also call off the scorpion, MP7, and pretty much everything but a full on rifle. so what is the difference? stock? you can get one of those. barrel length?easy enough. I'm not certain if you caught the point but as time progresses the difference of a weapon from one to another is literally being blurred as definitions become less and less clear.
i would love to see a video on the FN P90 at some point if possible (obviously if you can get hold of one). good explanation of the difference and your views! :)
One question I'd have, is how useful would your classification be moving forward ? Gen 1 = Precursor .... Gen 2 = ... Made Cheaper .... Gen 3 = ... And Easier to learn If adapting to changing missions doesn't qualify as evolution, wouldn't the SMG categorization you proposed be already over. Wouldn't any new SMG be Gen3 from now on. I don't see armies buying SMG with "weird" handling for the grunts in the near future, nor do I expect them to make the SMG anymore complicated than strictly needed. And I don't see any other major limitations to SMG which you could change without making them into another arm. Would constant recoil along with some other tricks turning SMG into laser beams fit the bill, or would you just consider that, Gen3 with improved accuracy ? Genuinely curious In your opinion, what could be done to SMG in the future that WOULD qualify as a significant change, but wouldn't de facto make them into a different arm, or did we hit a plateau ? Are people in 2200, doomed to refer to any SMG produced in the last 200 years as Gen3 (if SMG still exist and have not been replaced by automatic recoilless 50mm Gauss Cannons) ? How would this qualification be useful to our great-great-great-grandkids ? I guess if we had to resume each category in one overly simple sentence we could say : Gen 1 - High-Mobility machine-guns (long-range sights, suppresive fire, high-capacity, milled...) Gen 2 - Pistols go BRRRRR (quick, rugged, short-ranged, police-use, ...) Gen 3 - Scaled Down Rifles (A bit more range, easy learning, streamlined body, ...) It might just be my brains seeing patterns, but it looks like, each generation took it's cues from another service arm of the day, instead of trying to be it's own independent thing.
I also would like to know what kinds of things would qualify for a gen 4. It'd have to be a fundamental change to manufacturing and/or operation. I wish Ian had tacked that onto the end of the video to help clear up what he would look for.
I guess there are some significant changes that could be made in the future. It could be the electronic integration between wielder and weapon. Like miniguns can be fit and controlled through helicopters, SMGs could be controlled by or built into an exoskeletal structure like the prototypes that already exist. It could also just be hypothetical integration with robots or cyborgs. It could also just be as simple as adding levels of remote functionality or making the product computer controlled. I guess those are examples of products that would need rethinking or new production methods. Difficult to say as that hasn't happened yet, to my knowledge. The need may also never be there.
This is my curiosity as well - if no SMGs currently do, what features and characteristics will eventually constitute the necessity of a Fourth Gen categorization
@@guywiththebottle I don't think making them remote controlled, or strapping them to an exoarmor would qualify as significant change to the gun itself. Hell, we still use .50 cal in NextGen remote controlled, computer assisted point defense, and the gun is the same as it's ever been.
I feel like Ian looks at the topic mostly from an engineer point of view, while the others look more at their role/function. Gen 1 - increase vastly the firepower of a single soldier, cost being a secondary concern (army) Gen 2 - same as above, but cheap, fast and reliable (army) Gen 3 - compactness, handling, modularity and ease of use (special forces, police, security) Gen 4 (?) - widespread use of body armor called for increased penetration so different type of ammunition was needed (back to army?) It's hard to push a new generation into existence since only 2 rivaling candidates popped up at the same time and it's still a fairly fresh concept, so finding enough distinct but common between them features feels forced. Most militaries completely ignored both the P90 and MP7, because since the end of Cold War the world is still mostly shooting at guys with t-shirts for armor. The battlefields evolved, tank crews are no longer shooting, they are being blown up with guided missiles. There is no market for more designs of this type. Instead of submachine guns the development for military went towards compact assault rifles/carbines - M4, AKS-74U, SiG 552 and such. Russians have their own thing with 9x39, while being completely different concept, it also replaced pistol cartridges in many places. I'd hold my horses with Gen 4 until more stuff comes up. These two might end up as outliers while something completely different pops up years ahead.
Good point about the PDWs having new calibre rounds not being that much of a difference to qualify as a new generation. After all in concept guns like the Škorpion vz. 61 have that same philosophy of use as a more recent PDW while only using regular pistol calibres.
G-d bless ya' Ian. I was writing a comment about this on your generations video, but I was too damn sauced on Oban Distiller's Edition scotch(highly recommend Oban, they are a great smooth nightcap) to form a coherent question about the FN P90 and it's relation to Gen 3s like the MP7, and gave up on it. Hope you're doing well! Just recently acquired two new late model Spanish guns for my collection(my favorite being the Star Ultrastar)!
Humans love patterns and classification, it is such a memory aid, and when a new thing crops up we have to try to fit it in to our historic labels, if only designers would conform ( hehehe)
I think there is a pretty good case for a gen 3.5 where the subguns are scaled down rifles, but also designed to defeat armor, something most other subguns are not designed to do.
@@AsbestosMuffins yea they phase out MP5 in season 3, but the rest keep showing up, including a variety of shot guns when replicators show up. But I reason the P90, being a slightly less powerfull 5.56 should be counted as an assault rifle, or could be modified to use a full power rifle. 50 round ambidextrous and short rifle like the p90 would be a dream in urban area
Great vid. I'd say the moment these outliers like p90, super V, bison, whatever become the new standards, that's when there is a new gen, but when the bulk of the industry is still building these scaled down cabine patterns, that's still the standard.
I would say that the cartridge design should be considered a newer generation instead of the weapon itself. I see the 5.7 and 4.6 as more throwbacks to the 5.7 Spitfire just in a handier easier to use platform with more pistol characteristics in use.
The best argument for the P90, And a counterpart that i don't believe was mentioned, the Kriss Vector, being "next gen" is the new designs of ammo feeding and action.
As far as I know, the P90 was developed before the F2000, so it cannot really be considered as a scaled down F2000. If that is not the case, then please do correct me. Still, the internal workings and design choices of the P90 are similar enough to rifles to be considered Gen 3, so I do not contest that point.
A video doing generations of PDWs would be cool too. Basically moving from things like Broom Handle Mausers and M1 carbines to the true PDW-esque weapons like the MP7/P90 and then nowdays what are simply SBRs like the Krinkov, Mk.18, G36C, or similar.
Given what you've said in this video, can you think of any characteristics that a future SMG of some sort might include which would warrant the creation of a fourth generation? Or will this just be something someone comes up with that makes us go "wow, that's new"?
I would contend that the FN P90 is a Gen 3+ or Gen 4, primarily because it's rifle ancestor is already very different in many ways from typical rifles (bullpup, handles, ejecting system), and because of the magazine type, ejection patterns and caliber. I agree on the MP7 as a Gen3, although the caliber does seem to reflect a change in doctrine and use case, so perhaps Gen 3+. I would love to see the MP7 scaled up into 9mm, with a carbine model for the US civilian market too. Great video and thoughts, thanks!
Ooo, a PDW-y follow-up, nice! Felt like a lot of minutiae to get through for more clearly presented arguments at the end. Makes sense not to sacrifice simplicity in general (or generational) categories for arguably minor technical changes like magazine design. 👍🏻
Another distinct difference imo between gen2 and 3 is the transition from open to closed bolt systems. In a military context the submachine gun was largely replaced by assault rifles and their new main purpose became support weapons for law enforcement/special operations with very specific needs for compact and suppressible guns. In both cases precision is much preferred over high volumes of automatic fire.
As Ian touched upon, categorizing submachine guns by generation is somewhat of an imposition of artificial boundaries on design. As is the whole subject of PDWs. A strong case can be made for claiming that everything from the M1 carbine to the FN P90 to the Czech Scorpion are all PDWs since that's what they were designed for and that's largely how they were issued, despite the fact that they are very different firearms. You can even assert that the same firearm changes categories depending upon role. The M3 "grease gun" can be described as a submachine gun when it was issued to MPs guarding POWs in WWII, but it can also be described as a PDW when issued to tank crews to protect themselves when outside their AFV.
I've shot a PS-90, they shoot the casings out the bottom, in my opinion, they are closest to a LMG, but that's because the one that I shot didn't have a sight. Edit: Forgot to mention that the casings hit your leg, and that I believe that they should be an SMG, due to the 5.7x28mm round.
While I agree with the Gen-3 breakdown, I do think there should be a sub-category for Gen-3 PDWs that includes MP7, P90 *and* the Russian SR-2 Veresk. The outstanding factor here is the cartridge - 5.7mm, 4.6mm and SR-2's 9x21mm ammo are all designed to provide enhanced penetration with a pistol-sized cartridge, in order to give vehicle crews/spec-ops/special duty personnel in modern conflicts stopping power against enemies likely equipped with body armor, fired from weapons that maintain the form, ergonomics and controllability of an SMG. So while all three of them are pistol-caliber rifle design - SR-2 is basically a scaled down AS VAL, they do serve a somewhat different purpose. A purpose not really large enough to be considered a paradigm shift, but still recognizably different.
This was my thought, although I would have called it Gen 2 Mod 1. Compact it good. To me the big difference for Gen 3 is potentially greater accuracy due to the closed bolt.
As a philosophy major I can tell you, you're pretty good at understanding the fundamentals of how categorization works lol. Very convincing and informed.
I didn't agree with Ian the first time. But after the second explanation, I see the point. I would also add the latest gen can also be differentiated by having plastics making up key components as compared to metal. Mag housings, mag wells, buffer tubes, guide rods, sights, etc. Just as the older gens changed manufacturing techniques (milling vs stamping) this latest gen makes also has a different construction method.
What annoys me about this classification you propose is that for instance, we have the Soviet PPD 40 being into Gen 1 and the PPSh 41 jumping to Gen 2 while being roughly the same gun, but simplified, and using stamped sheet metal, but in the end in term of handling and performance they are pretty analogous. And guns such as the Steyr TMP or Kriss Vector (they aren't derivative of a rifle platform so they can't fit in Gen 3) sharing the same Gen 2 with PPSh 41. And to me there is a bigger gap between a TMP and a PPSh 41 than between the PPSh 41 and PPD 40. And yet they would share the same gen 2. This classification leave a grey area where many modern guns can't fit in Gen 3 because they aren't miniaturized rifle systems, but are still very different compared to Gen 2 WW2.
There were closed-bolt SMGs in WWI. Which means that Gen3 almost predates Gen 1! Actually while looking for it, I saw the same question in the FW subreddit: www.reddit.com/r/ForgottenWeapons/comments/hjb4v6/first_closed_bolt_submachine_gun/ Especially for WWII and later SMGs it needs some sort of subcategories. Early WWII subs were different then late WWII subs, and there has been development afterwards. The difference between a MP5 or Uzi and something more recent like a Vector, P90, MP7, etc. I think to even start looking at generations of SMGs one needs to first think about what SMGs actually are. Wikipedia opens with them being "magazine-fed, automatic carbines designed to fire handgun cartridges." refencing the Thompson.
@Forgotten Weapons It’s interesting that the MP-7 and P90 are brought into the SMG classification discourse as their own thing. I think they are, but I think that’s because they’re not really sub guns in any other form or factor than size. Their lineage is more directly associated with PDW weapon systems like the M1/M2 carbine, vz.61, Stetchkin, or PM63 and just, as you mentioned, modernized with certain mission specific parameters in mind. So, rather than being 3rd gen SMGs, a fairer classification would be to call the MP-7 and P90, 3rd gen PDWs.
Minor point on telescoping bolts: Not used in a subgun that early,, but telescoping bolt blowback actions are way way older than the Uzi so they were not in any way new tech when such bolts became popular on submachineguns. The Winchester self-loader series of rifles used telescoping bolts back before 1910. And these were chambered in what was basically souped-up pistol calibres. Winchester was only a larger magazine and an auto sear away from a rifle-shaped telescoping bolt submachinegun way before WWI.
But Ian, you have also ignored the part in earlier video where SMG were filling in the demand for less powerfull and heavy semi and full auto guns that just happen to have pistol caliber since it was the only ammo less powerfull then full blown rifle available. And people didn't have funds to develop intermediate rounds yet. So there should be a distinction of SMGs before and after birth of AR. Because first would be trying to fill the niche of AR, but the latter would be specifically made as SMGs for one reason or another.
That's because it never happened like that. Smgs were closer to being (up until Ians Gen3) scaled up pistols, not scaled down rifles. And so was their purpose. They were issued to troops who required more range and sustained fire than what a pistol was capable of, bud did not require the range and long range accuracy of a battle rifle.
@@djrug I've read your comment 3 times, I still don't find the part where it both makes sense and contradicts what I've just said. Can you elaborate how requiring a niche between the rifle and pistol will make either approach to filling it wrong or why a pitol wouldn't be also a common starting point since it uses the same ammo? I also fail to see pistol in Beretta 38 or Danuvia 43 or in M1 Carbine.
@@djrug moreover, you might have noticed that MP-5 continued to fill the role of smaller alternative in NATO that had erroneously followed automatic rifle only doctrine for a few decades, but how SMGs largely died out in Warsaw Pact since shortened ARs filled their rol(at least with AK-74 and AKS-74U since during original AK service some leftover PPS and PPSh SMGs were still in use).
Intermediate rounds did not begin with the AR platform by any stretch of the imagination. Most authorities trace the idea of intermediate rounds back to the 8mm Kurtz in WWII. The 7.62x39 is an evolution of the idea, and predates the 5.56 by almost 20 years. Some would say the .30 carbine is an intermediate round, since it is more powerful than (most at the time) pistol cartridges but not as powerful as a full rifle cartridge. It's less powerful than the 7.62x39 or the 5.56 NATO, but not by a lot. It's more powerful than a .357 Magnum, or any SMG round. The idea of an intermediate cartridge was to bridge the gap between submachine guns and battle rifles so that all troops would have the benefits of both. Your assertion that prior to the AR platform no cartridges existed that filled this role is simply wrong. Even the .280 British, which is arguably a better intermediate round than the 5.56x45 or the 7.62x39, predates it by a decade or more. Actually, a dandy "intermediate" cartridge would have been the .250 Savage, which has been around since 1915. It's a touch longer than the 5.56x45 with a heavier bullet, but shoots faster and has more impact energy. It's performance more-or-less equals the 6.5 Grendel.
@@tarmaque "Intermediate rounds did not begin with the AR" AR ie Assault Rifle. That's literary what Sturmgewehr was called. SMG ie Submachine Gun. You ie the guy, who somehow failed to see the context and decided to lecture another viewer of Ian on the basics. Thanks, but no, please, don't make me facepalm too much. And no, first intermediate rounds appeared during WWI.
Ian talks about manufacturing processes being the defining factor between gen 1 and gen 2 submachine guns ie. quality milling vs. cheap stampings. Im surprised the latest generation of guns isn't also defined that way. Most modern submachine guns make extensive use of polymers in their construction ie. fn p90, kriss vector, hk ump/mp7, cz scorpion, etc. Both the mp7 and p90 "outliers" fit nicely into a generation that's defined by the use of polymer. Even the older mp5 could fit into this generation. im surprised he didn't talk about that.
@@ALovelyBunchOfDragonballz well here is the thing. People are going to call them "basically" SMG's and try to get them banned Pistol Caliber Carbine is a nicer term because Carbine is such a nice sounding word it just means "little rifle"
While I agree with the differences you describe in the different generations I think they are coincidental rather than defining. I would define the generations the following way: 1st: Experimental, the only form of truly mobile single operater fully automatic weapon available. People weren't sure how they would be used and judging by the long distance sights, if assault rifles and LMGs had been available, they would have preferred those. 2nd: Built with trench experiences in mind. Now that LMGs are a thing, they are designed exclusively for short distances, and due to open bolt operation crappy sights, and cheap manufacturing that's all they're good for. Given to one squad member to give the whole squad a short burst of short range firepower, but needs to be accompanied by rifles for the squad to function on the battlefield . 3rd: Designed with special forces and partisan operations experiences in mind, and targeted at police forces as much as the military. Closed bolt, better sights, and improved manufacturing enable precise single shots. Whole SWAT or special forces squads can be equipped with them in many situations without the need for general issue rifles for mid range accurate fire. Assault rifles have become a thing and fulfill most roles previously filled by 2nd gen SMGs. As a result of this they are more widely adopted by anti terrorism units and police forces rather than armies.
I was one of the ones that suggested that maybe the p90 was a 4th generation. I was mainly thinking about the new cartridge. but I totally agree with your logic here. so another question. are there any new submachine guns that you would consider different enough in design to be in a new generation? the only one I can think of would be maybe is the Kriss Vector SMG kriss-usa.com/item/vector-smg-overview/. mainly for the way that it is designed to mitigate recoil. anyway I always enjoy your videos.
Thanks for listening and answering the question! I don't know if I'm convinced that the P90 is close enough to the FN2K, though. I need to think about that...
The P90 & MP7 were touted as being Personal Defense Weapons (PDWs) for vehicle crew, artillery crew, truck drivers, support troops, and associated non-frontline infantrymen (referred to as REMFs in the Vietnam War) as a light, handy weapon that is easy to use and using a cartridge intermediate between the pistol calibers of the SMGs and the rifle calibers. Much like how the M1 Carbine was conceived in WW2, except these are full-autos so they are kind of similar to the M2 & M3 Carbines. And much like the M1 Carbine, many combat infantrymen (and women; don't forget the ladies, y'all) liked the light and futuristic P90 & MP7 and they caught on.
@@andrewstoll4548 Adblock helps this problem. If TH-cam doesn't want to play fair with content creators I see nothing wrong with bypassing TH-cam's income generation mechanism.
Thank you for this follow up video . Fantastically presented show by a knowledgeable , well spoken guy who actually reads his comments. I'd like to see these 2 weapons in an upcoming show . Also the Vector to see the mechanics at work Well done ,keep doing what you do !
Enrico Paolo Coronado Completely different... P90 is light and fires super fast small rounds while the tommy gun fires large slow rounds and is a heavy gun
I have heard the argument more than once that both the p90 and MP7 are NOT submachine guns because they don't fire pistol calibers, which is half true. FN released a practical handgun in 5.7x28 not long after the p90 and HK did try to develop a handgun in 4.6x30 but never finished it. It could, therefore, be argued that both weapons are in handgun calibers now even if they weren't upon first release. Proponents of both weapons being not sub guns argue that the new category PDW (Personal Defense Weapon) includes compact weapons that are not sub guns by virtue of caliber but fill a comparable role. The exact definition may vary but most could reasonably include very short AR-15s or AKs (barrels less than 10 inches in their intermediate calibers, for example) as PDWs.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 87 วันนี้!! คู่เอก "ก้องชัย vs โชคปรีชา"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YN6e7HVnekw/mqdefault.jpg)
![NATO PDW Trials: The Forbidden Saga of "MP7 vs P90" [ Collab with Oxide ]](/img/n.gif)
Agree or Disagree with Ian, his positions are ALWAYS well reasoned and well articulated.
DISAGREE WITH GUN JESUS??????
BLASPHEMY !!!
@@garypack1709 HE WHO DISAGREES WITH GUN JESUS IS A WITCH OR WARLOCK, BURN THEM
Ass kisser :8
No no my friend. You are thinking of Karl. He is often wrong.
Ian is always correct.
Ian is the kind of gun nut we need more of
I know his channel is called Forgotten Weapons but I love it when he talks about modern firearms.
Same here, but calling the channel “weapons” just wouldn’t have the same ring
"Modern"
@@Peter-ur3yy How about "Whatever Weapons" or "Firearms Weapons" or maybe "Any old weapons ('any old' not suggesting antiquity)"?
If it’s not popular it’s forgotten so it checks out
I don't want to make you feel old, but the P90 and MP-7 are not modern anymore, one is 29yo and the other 21yo
The P90 had my favorite marketing campaign of any gun: Star Gate SG-1.
I remember being happy they switched from the MP5. A 9mm should not be able to easily defeat fancy space god armor. The 5.7 would at least have a chance. Or were all those Jaffa wearing painted plastic?
Indeed.
@@martinlange8372 best possible answer
While the MP7 had Half-Life 2
@@willblack7353 MP7 in Crysis 1 with the red dot and supressor :D
I feel like it would have been more effective to categorize these as:
Gen 1 SMGs whose purpose was as a firepower multiplying tool for a soldier when the only common competition was bolt-action rifles
Gen 2 SMGs that were a cheap, compact compliment to frontline rifles and as a primary for troops that didn't need frontline weapon range or power
Gen 3 SMGs that have been pushed out of general service by intermediate rifles and designed for niche roles where compactness is valued above all else
I feel like categorizing for the design purpose allows you to explain the characteristics rather than using the characteristics as the category itself, but at the end of the day the categorizations are made up and the points don't matter.
@Chicken Stealer You could argue that the mp38 was a gen one and mp40 was a gen 2 by this method
300 points to Ryan for his Carol Channing impression.
ATF:. 🤔 Lol.
@Chicken Stealer That still makes it a cheap, compact complement to frontline rifles like the Kar98k and the G/K43 series. I'd say one of the defining factors of this kind of Gen 2 is that it's no longer an expensive, specialty weapon for shock troops where the force multiplication is needed at the front lines above all else. They can be put into frontline roles and rearline roles because they're affordable and effective which the MP40 absolutely was.
As with everything different categoryzation systems serve different purposes. I don't know much about SMGs, but your system seems as valid as Ians, they serve diferent purposes. Ian seems more economy targeted, yours design targeted.
Gen I: Heavy, expensive bullet sprayer
Gen II: Light, cheap bullet sprayer
Gen III: Compact pistol caliber rifle, sophisticated and precise, but also able to spray bullets
I wouldn't necessarily label Gen II as "light", since they're almost all open-bolt blowback guns with pretty substantially heavy bolts. The M3 is 3.7 kg/8.15 lbs empty, the Ingram M10 is like 8.75 lbs according to Ian's video on it, MP40 was 8.75 lbs, Sten around 7.1 lbs... =)
I mean sure, there were Gen I SMGs that were heavier than that, but also a fair few ones that were about the same weight. It's mostly just about being cheaper to produce.
Perhaps a better way of putting it...Gen II: Simplified bullet sprayer (other factors aside).
Well put, 😃 in my mind anything that fires from an open bolt is first and foremost a bullet sprayer.
@@DriveCarToBar True, but there were Gen 1 SMGs that were about the same weight as Gen 2 ones as well. At most I'd say the Gen 2 ones tend towards being lighter on average. I think the well made and expensive vs. crude and cheap distinction works better.
@@jubuttib Very true there, it's well known the concept of the STEN was due to how expensive the Thomson was, and how it was hard to get the quantities needed after Dunkirk, so cheap and fast to manufacture, but functional was the primary aim.
I think trying to label gen 3 as scaled down rifles is causing problems, as there are submachine guns with no connection to rifles (Vector).
Gen 3, really is about precision interchangeable parts(not cheap stamped steel), and modern rifle like controls/handling.
Also most modern (Gen 3) submachine guns fire from a closed bolt, vs the traditional open.
That descriptor makes more sense and would put the P90 in Gen 3 more easily. Comparing it to the F2000 under the other method doesn't make sense since the P90 predates the F2000 by 10 years.
I think that closed bolt operation is a pretty important functional distinction that better describes a 3rd generation than any other metric.
Gen3 combines mass production of gen2 with performance of gen1.
TBH going by Ians original definitions, its hard to actually justify there ever been a generation 4, as it would have to be something completely unique and not just a futher itteration on what already exists, as was the case with the P90 and MP7. Defining them by their production methodology and modularity is a good way to think of generation 3.
The only way I could think of a generation 4 existing is to start to look into scifi weaponry, with things like the minigun in the Martian power armour from the expanse. Something with a completely unique control setup, not traditional hardware. That or the development of electronically fired weaponry, but again that is likely to become a rifle first, then scaled down to SMG, which would make it generation 3.
@@cgi2002 It's only right that unless something fundamental changes, new SMGs won't be a new generation. That's what the term signifies. We don't call it a new generation just because some time has passed. Not in technology.
I classify them as "wannaown" guns. 🥳
I classify 2 as "gunnaown", wish me luck!
@@stefanmolnapor910 Good luck! 👍🍻
I find myself on a fence when buying a new gun because I like historical guns more, but I also buy guns based on a unique platform/means of operation.
I classifie then as unobtanium, no way i can get a p90 in EU.
Aren't these "Don'tneed:Wannaowns"?
Each of Ian's generations defines a shift/difference in some fundamental characteristic in comparison to other generations. Between Gens 1 & 2, it's manufacturing. Between Gens 3 and 1 & 2, it's operational characteristics. That's probably the best way to see it. I think if you're going to get a Gen 4, the main difference will be the use of caseless ammunition or some other advanced ammunition that isn't your standard brass, powder, lead round no matter the caliber. Or it might be some way to handle the gun in a way that is radically different from current firearms; i.e. mounting it on a forearm or shoulder.
Caseless would actually mean less weight and size, basically what gen 3 are aiming for already.
@@HappyBeezerStudios true but if you look at HK 100, which Ian did a video on a couple of years ago, using caseless ammunition could mean a completely different philosophy for operating mechanisms.5
Why couldn't you define the criteria for Gen 4 then as "SMGs designed specifically to defeat body armor"? That's a shooting characteristic for sure.
@@TheRedKing247 Defeating body armor was part of the NATO requirements that resulted in the FN 5.7×28mm ammo that was designed alongside the P90.
Never thought I'd see Forgotten Weapons liking a comment that mentions forearm/shoulder mounted firearms. I'm not saying you're wrong or it's stupid, I'm just saying I didn't think Forgotten Weapons would consider such radically almost-scifi generational change when every other generation he mentions vary only in looks, (vaguely) action, and manufacturing. Again, I'm not saying you're wrong, but this would be like saying 7th gen multirole fighters will be able to dive underwater or enter orbit or something and then getting validation from a military aviation expert
I'd like to see dedicated videos for P90, Kriss Vector and MP-7. I'm interested in both their mechanics and development history since they are unusual designs.
I had a Vector in 9mm but I eventually tossed it because it was way too finicky. I loved the recoil impulse though.
I feel like the P90 and the MP7 have more in common with the M1 carbine than they do with other sub-machine guns, at least in the role they are intended to fill. Both were given to rear echelon and support troops as a replacement for other weapons that were seen as insufficient like the 1911 at the time.
they are all classified as PDW's
@@bartunthegreat2999 Using calibers that don't make for good side arms seems to be sufficient to distinguish a pdw from a smg(which are always chambered in some sidearm cartridge)
I find a lot of people are getting hung up on role which is not exactly relevant. If you define the generations by role, you're going to get even more confused than you've ever been, because role is very fluid and nebulous. Focusing on the major shifts in design and manufacture simplifies things greatly, I feel.
@@thegoldencaulk2742 I agree with the idea of categorizing by production, I just use the small bore high pressure chambering to rule out m1/p90/mp7 as smg's in the first place. They are a completely different type of weapon to me.
@@MrAirpumpkin except... isn't FN selling more Five seveNs (or whatever the silly capitalizing is) than they ever sold P90s? People seem to like it as a handgun cartridge (or maybe just the 20-round capacity).
Ah, CLASSIFICATION the very bedevilment for historians and collectors!
Anthropologists as well. Students like to group things up to make life simpler. Researchers like to split things up to try and make a name for themselves.
i hear astronomers are having their own struggles with classification too
@@michaellesak6912 Physicists despise classification in all of its forms. My field had different people publishing textbooks with different definitions for the same highly important technical term but they use completely different definitions. God help the astronomers who HAVE to agree.
And meaningless to anyone else. lol
@@userJohnSmith thats the issue God isnt helping them they're atheists and that science is their god
The F2000 came about 10 years after the P90, so the FN P90 isn't the SMG counterpart of the FN F2000; it's actually the other way around.
Which I think also makes it noteworthy that the P90 was *not* designed to be familiar to rifle users or users of other FN systems at the time. To me, it really seems to struggle to fit the criteria Ian presented, as the principal case he made for it was the similarity to the F2000. If any system could be claimed to be a Gen 4 SMG, I'd reckon it would be the P90, but there would also be a need to define what criteria are needed for a Gen 4 system.
this, third generation would be better defined as being closed bolt and using a hammer to fire the round.
There are no rules what type of weapon comes to market first to become ones counterpart. A lot of the design feature of the P90 are visible in the F2000. Just because H&K came to the market with rifles before SMGs does not make that the standard; they were however the most successful doing it.
@@grebnetgil2800 Doesn't what weapon comes first matter though? If the claim is that one system was *derived* from another, this does not apply to the P90. If the claim is the similarities are what matter, than these similarities did not exist at the time of the design of the weapon - in which case, the P90 would have "not" been a Gen 3 SMG for a period of 10 years until its counterpart was introduced. This doesn't make sense to me, personally.
FN P90 started as pdw but became a reverse SMG by having FN 57 pistol and being counterpart to F2000.
I am sure someone else has mentioned it, but the P90 came out years before the F2000. So it cannot be a scaled down version of it. The P90 was exceptionally innovative for its time for a number of reasons, and may count as a new gen. of subgun for the working of an optical sight into the basic design, the extensive use of polymer, or the rifle/pistol hybrid aspect of the ammunition(though that was also an innovation inherent in the M1 Carbine almost fifty years prior to the P90).
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. P90 came out 10 years before the F2000.
I'd really like to see you do a demo shooting and video detailed examination of the FN P90. I am impressed with the compactness of the unobtrusive and tucked away 50 round magazine. On other channels, people trying it start out not liking the looks of it and end up liking the way it handles and shoots. You give it short shrift as an "outlier". I suggest it is precisely outliers that will eventually accumulate the changes that serve up something like a Gen 4.
I like your input! The one thing I would mention is that both of these are designed as PDWs with armor-penetrating capabilities, which none before them have been. Except maybe the Swedish m/45 that later on got an armor-penetrating cartridge crafted especially for it, the m/39B released 1955.
Good point, well explained!
I think it’s just counter intuitive to think of 60 years of development with only a single generation.
Well both other generations were brought on by major wars, something that we haven't had in 60 years. Military development slows way down in times of peace.
@@zackbobby5550 the fact that the mp5 is still used is testament to this statement lol
@@Lucidius134 It's so weird to me that the MP5 is still used basically unchanged when it would be so much better with a last-round bolt hold-open device and bolt-release button.
@@hewhoisknownastaco how would those items be useful on a gun like the MP5?
@@hewhoisknownastaco The mpx can do that but the extra cost doesn't justify that small improvement
"generation" implies features that are broadly shared across many firearms of the time. The G11 is an outlier and could be considered the first of a generation, if caseless ammo gained popularity. It's impossible to say something is a new generation until other firearms start copying it.
Exactly. The gens are defined by major shifts in design, manufacture, and capability.
The G11 was also never produced commercially, because the caseless ammo was a failure.
Same question with closed-bolt SMGs, they are also much different from open-bolt ones that they could be considered a different gen.
The term 'generation' isn't greatly applicable to the categories IMO, when you have 'Gen 3' SMGs from the 60s and 'Gen 2' SMGs still coming out decades later.
As someone who asked this question of the last video, thanks for making this, Ian. It makes more sense that way, since I was not aware of the similarities to the mentioned rifles. I would also agree with others in here about the slightly different specific descriptors of gen 3, being closed-bolt and modular, etc.
I hope we get a series like this on rifles, that would be a lot harder though.
Well for a start you can pin-point a generation change around the time of the AR10 when guns started to be made from aluminium and polymer instead of wood and steel. Not that those materials are the defining characteristics, but rather the shift to using modern materials. Coincidentally weapons after this time were also generally designed for smaller scale use such as for law enforcement and self-defense, and war where theres not two outright armies going head to head.
G1 match lock
G2 flint lock
G3 precaution cap
G4 self contained cartridge
G5 smokeless powder
G6 semi auto
G7 intermediate cartridge
@@Andy-xt3mh In between your G4 and G5, I'd put repeating rifles; as Martin above states, I'd also put another generation after your G7 with the change in materials to alloys and polymers...
This is a very fun conversation.
I think it's interesting how the consumer market has thouroghly changed the firearms market as well.
Pistol braces, mlok, keymod, even ar pistols have pushed the boundaries for firearms customization/creativity.
Like assembling an ar to now assembling a rifle and now there's that sig frame pistol where you can interchange frames and slides. Very interesting . . .
soooo just gonna continue siting here twiddling my thumbs in the hopes of seeing a P90 covered for real on the show XD
Can we have Ian dressed up in a Stargate uniform for the occasion? Surely there's some costume guy somewhere in Vancouver that must have purchased the MGM surplus of those.
its not exactly forgotten....
@@juntingiee2602 The channel long ago expanded beyond just being about obscure old guns, Ian has covered really famous guns before.
@@WJS774 Yup and it seems like Ian would want to cover the video in more of an evolution format including predecessors and prototypes and all versions of the p90. Come on FN give Ian some access!
P90 - my favorite weapon to fight aliens.
Still prefer the M41A Pulse Rifle, 10mm explosive tipped!
Which ones? The Goa'uld, Replicators, Ori or the Wraith?
If you want to intimidate the enemy, use a staff weapon. But, if you want to kill the enemy, use a P90
@@Demosthenes10101 yes
Indeed
I‘d categorize the FN P90 as a late Gen2 SMG, as it’s, to my knowledge, a straight blowback action. If we were to go of rifle ergonomics and closed bolt the UMP would have to be considered a Gen3 SMG, too. As systems like the CMMG Banshee and Kriss Vector clearly don’t fit the description of scaled down rifle actions, I‘d recommend to consider any modern locked or delayed action SMG to be a Gen3.
My categorization is based on specific new attributes:
Gen1: First ever, heavy, expensive, spans between WW1 and interwar, e.g. MP18, Thompson
Gen2: Gen1 if everything expensive is removed, spans between WW2 and a few postwar designs, e.g. M3, Swedish K
Gen3: More compact, often have telescoping bolts or similar mechanisms, much shorter than Gen2 and often with Pistol grips fed mags, e.g. Uzi, Walther MPK, Berretta M12
Gen4: Ian's Gen3, rifles that are turned into pistol caliber carbines
Gen5: Opposite of Gen4, they are instead sub guns that use small rifle caliber cartridge, these guns however are either their own category of guns altogether (PDW) or modification of Gen3 and Gen4, e.g. MP7 and P90
Experts in the US have limited or no access to post 1986 machine guns. Federal laws need changing so museums can maintain a current inventory of MGs. Particularly I am thinking of the Cody Museum.
I would expect that museums get some exclusion to the ban, however most museums also don't need a working model either so there is a strong chance they get a high quality non firing replica or a demilled original.
@@Hyper_Fox06 actually they don’t get an exclusion and this worries the staff at Cody. I am referring to Ian’s interview with them about a year ago.
@@jeopardy4100 oh I must have missed that interview. And I think there should be preserved working models available for museums that of course have sufficient security. There are some rare models of guns from various wars that were demilled but a talented gunsmith can often repair them, a friends dad had a very well used type 99 Arisaka he got from his unit after the enemy combatant who shot him with it was dispatched, his corporal threw it on the chopper with him as a momento after the firefight. The army demilled it (why?) stupidly so he could keep it , he had it repaired later.
Zach cash this is about the Hughes amendment.
Laws need to change so we normal people, with a reasonable process, could buy these. ;)
This might just be the best channel on youtube.
I challenge anyone to find a more informative, honest and open host who doesn't play by the usual rules for views.
I still think the premise of defining a third generation as being "somewhat but not always entirely related to rifles" is a bit flawed when you can approach the generations from a doctrinal and usage POV instead of a mechanical one.
First generation - A tool designed to offer its user overwhelming firepower at short ranges as a reaction to the way warfare changed during WWI. Reflecting this, the SMG was seen as a specialty weapon and its design and manufacture represent that. Because the SMG wasn't perceived as being a weapon for everyone, it didn't need to be produced in large quantities and so time and care could be taken to make them really nice.
Second generation WWII - Cheaper than a self-loading rifle to make and more firepower than a bolt-action at close ranges, these filled a niche that militaries could see was a large one. Because of this increased demand, the design and manufacture was economised to value quantity over quality. This resulted in the heavy use of stampings to facilitate mass production, and while many designs were quite serviceable and even nice, the focus had shifted from the SMG being a specialty weapon to being a mainline infantry arm to be distributed to a much larger number of soldiers.
Second generation post WWII - Still a better option than a full powered rifle for close range, high volume of fire applications, the SMG held on to its economised production but would begin to see a shift in where it was being used. It would transition (not instantly) away from being a mainline weapon and into roles that PDWs (like the MP-7 and P90) would later be commissioned to fill. The main driver for moving the SMG away from being a mainline weapon was the rise of the intermediate cartridge allowing militaries to do the kind of conglomeration of infantry weapon roles they had been trying to do since the end of WWII. Since you could reasonably combine the role of mainline infantry rifle and sub-machine gun, there became less need for a distinct weapon for either role. This would see the SMG moving to a support troop or security role (where the compactness would be paramount) and also see the full-powered self loading rifle move into a designated marksman role.
Third generation - The third generation is a reaction to the obsolescence of SMGs in the majority of open combat roles. Where previously support troops would be issued with an SMG (in a PDW role, distinguishing here between the mechanical characteristics (SMG) and doctrinal implementation (PDW) and thus covering the MP-7 and P90 as *mechanically* SMGs but designed from the ground up *to be used* as PDWs) now they're being issued SBRs in intermediate cartridges. The reason for the shift away from pistol calibre weapons in this role is two-fold. One, the logistical advantage of your truck driver being able to share ammunition and magazines with a rifleman. Two, the greater effectiveness of a small calibre, high velocity pistol cartridge is really only in controllability in full auto fire and to a lesser extent, suppressability (thanks to less blast from a lower pressure cartridge). Those two minor advantages don't really outweigh the arguably better ranged capability and improved terminal ballistics of an intermediate cartridge out of a short barrel. Evidence that the SBR has taken over from the SMG as a PDW in this way can be seen in the Korean military's designation of the K1A (which by western mechanical designation is an SBR) as an SMG.
Because of this shift away from pistol calibre weapons in mainline roles, SMGs see themselves moving back to where they were in the first generation. They've reverted to being specialists weapons, but rather than the leveraged advantage being firepower, it's the SMG's compactness, recoil and suppressability that make it special. As such, we see a return to greater mechanical complexity and higher quality manufacture.
Of course, all of this is relatively subjective and really only applies to western designations and doctrines. The interesting thing about looking at the Russian side of things is that it seems they skipped the first generation, fully engaged with the second generation during WWII, then skipped ahead to gen three and have stayed there. I think that is related to their initial adoption of an intermediate cartridge and the widespread adoption of the AK which was initially touted as a replacement to the SMG. I think by adopting an intermediate cartridge early, the USSR skipped over the majority of gen two SMG use post WWII because they were already finding that the assault rifle did everything they needed it to well enough and when it stopped doing it well enough, they just chopped the barrel down to create an SBR.
Rare man on youtube, who can speak english well. So pleasant to listen
I simply consider them as genuine PDWs instead of SMGs, due to the cartridge. Their reason to exist is because SMGs couldn't defeat body armor, so the P90 and MP7 were made to remedy that. Otherwise, they wouldn't be there. Yes, 5.7x28mm is within pistol dimensions, but that's where similarities kind of end. Projectile weight got replaced by higher velocity to meet the criteria and of course, they were intended for second line troops. I do however agree that firearm size doesn't qualify enough because the HK53 and HK51 aren't classified as SMGs or PDWs regardless of their size.
Speaking of which, thoughts on the SR-2 Veresk? The 9x21mm Gyurza is no doubts meeting the armor defeating criteria, but considering it was only used by the FSB, I would like to know your thoughts because I think the Veresk would be a good discussion subject.
Right, but he's evaluating the firearm in and of itself, not the weapon system. You could modify an MP7 to fire 9mm, and you could modify other "gen 3" submachine guns to fire 4.6.
SMG and PDW are kinda overlapping but different concepts I'd say. A PDW is a weapon for non-infantry people who can't be arsed to lug around a proper rifle but want adequate firepower to defend theirselves (and let's call the M1 carbine a PDW for that matter). An SMG is a weapon that is basically a hand-held machine gun, i.e. it's primarily a full-auto weapon (as opposed to select-fire rifles that *also* can do full auto) that is very much meant to be "crewed" by one guy and fired off-hand and uses some significantly lighter ammo than whatever the current machine gun or rifle uses. So the MP7 and P90 are both SMGs and PDWs. But not every PDW is necessarily an SMG and not every SMG is necessarily a PDW.
However, I'll admit it's really pretty arbitrary.
I don't disagree with your argument necessarily, but here is a thought experiment: Is the FN Five Seven not a pistol because it has a different cartridge? It also does not fire a standard pistol caliber cartridge and in fact uses the 5.7x28mm that you say defines the P90 as not being an SMG. I'd say the Five Seven is certainly a handgun because of the form factor, but how can it be a handgun and not a pistol?
PDW is more of a role rather than type of weapon. Sub machine gun is a machine gun that uses pistol caliber ammunition as the name implies. PDW is any weapon that is not intended to heavy fighting but to give back line units a chance to shoot while breaking off from the battle. Main goal of a PDW is to be compact and light and offer high volume of fire for short period of time for short distances compared to full rifles.
M1 Carbine was a PDW, 11,5" AR:s are PDW, krinkov is PDW, CZ Škorpion is PDW and P90 and MP7 are too. Artillery Lugers were first PDW type of thing as far as I'm concerned. Small and handy and were able to offer VERY high rates for WWI era for short time on close ranges. PDW can be carbine, SMG or a stocked pistol (actual weapon type, not legal loophole like AR "pistol").
Pistol cartridge is a thing that can be shot from a pistol (again not counting AR "pistol"). 5.7 is definetly a pistol cartridge. Very high velocity and quite low bullet weight but still a pistol cartridge. There has been high velocity pistol rounds before (22. winmag) and bottle necked rounds too (25 Tokarev). P90 is a submachinegun since it shoots pistol cartridge and is select fire
Ian seems to be overlooking that the distinction of the P90 and MP7 isn't merely that they don't fire 9mm Parabellum. It's that they don't fire a pistol caliber round at all. Nobody was claiming the MP5/10 was 4th generation because of the 10mm Auto round, since that's still a pistol round. The P90 and MP7 both fire scaled-down rifle rounds that were designed specifically for them.
That makes them more in a category with the M1 Carbine (and more to the point, the select-fire M2 Carbine) rather than with SMGs. Nobody would ever call the M2 Carbine an SMG, even though years after the fact pistols have been made that fire .30 Carbine. And .30 Carbine has more in common with typical pistol rounds than 5.7x28 or 4.6x30.
Hello Ian. Excellent arguments. As I mentioned in the previous post, in most of the Argentine bibliography, PDWs are debated between the fourth generation or another new generation. It is even said that they are not SMGs. Personally, I consider that the telescopic block does involve a new generation, not so much because of its compactness, but because it makes it practical to reload in the dark or while observing the target. One hand looks for the other very easily in these circumstances. Furthermore, the balance makes single-handed shooting possible, albeit difficult. A real pleasure to discuss these topics. Greetings from Argentina. Hola Ian. Excelentes argumentos. Como comenté en el posteo anterior, en la mayoría de la bibliografía Argentina, las PDWs son debatidas entre cuarta generación u otra generación nueva. Inclusive se dice que no son SMGs. Personalmente considero que el block telescópico si implica una nueva generación, no tanto por la compacidad, sino porque hace práctico la recarga en la oscuridad o manteniendo la observación del objetivo. Una mano busca a la otra muy fácilmente en esas circunstancias. Además el balance hace que el disparo con una sola mano posible, si bien dificil. Un verdadero placer debatir sobre estos tópicos. Saludos desde Argentina
Generation classifications are always a rule of thump approach and therefore rough. So i agree with Ian's approach.
To me this overlooks one key element. Both of these "4th Gen" guns use a very small high velocity bottle neck cartridge.
Which is a dramatic shift from pretty much every other SMG in the past which used a traditional straight wall or semi straight wall traditional pistol cartridge.
Hi Ian, as always another great video! I am currently saving up some money so I can sunscribe to your Patreon (the 20$ tier one) since I think that you're one of the best content creators on TH-cam and certainly one of my top 3 TH-camrs of all time. Keep up the great work!
I was one of the ones commenting that I believe the P90 to be in a separate 'generation' than the post WW2 generation in your last video but after seeing this I do understand your position and its a bit like splitting hairs at that point. Thanks for your videos, always fun to watch.
Are you finally going to get ahold of a p90 to pull apart and talk about or is this all we will get on that one?
I guess the p90 has so many parts only an FN employee could disasemble and assemble again without beeaking it.
@@DriveCarToBar that was great ! Only missing the .com
@@marciliojunior4919 the p90 is super simple to break down
Nice critique Ian. The many advancements in small arms technology have made the submachine guns more compact and reliable but to have what I would call a fourth generation sub gun it will take an advancement such as case-less ammunition.
Isn't P90 way older of a design than F2000?
It can't be the scaled down counterpart of a gun that wasn't designed until very much later
From what i heard the F2000 was in development about the same time as the P90 but it took a lot longer to be finished
@@marciliojunior4919 According to Wikipedia, P90's development started 9 years before F2000's. So it would be a reversed Gen III, which means it's still a scaled down rifle system of some sort.
A fun discussion and illustrative of the fact that very little firearm terminology and nomenclature is crystal clear.
@Phillip Cameron Oh, so true...
I would say we are in gen 3.5 since we are accounting for post-war, a refinement of a new design or way a SMG is manufactured
WW1 = Gen 1
Post WW1 = Gen 1.5
WW2 = Gen 2
Post WW2= Gen 2.5
Cold war = Gen 3
Modern day = Gen 3.5
Agreed...I submit that CMMG's patented radial delay bolt system has opened a wholly new door in SMG design. The main reason why CMMG chose an 'AR-ish' configuration was maximize 'muscle memory' cross-over (and a further excuse to use Glock magazines 😏) for the operator. In reality, with CMMG's bolt design, any number of alternative configurations could be developed for an SMG / PDW weapons system.
@@ironwolfF1 The main reason CMMG chose an AR configuration was that they're a maker of ARs. And while the radial delayed-blowback system itself is new, there's nothing at all new about delayed-blowback SMGs, and I don't see what "new door in SMG design" it opens other than allowing CMMG to use existing AR bolt parts.
OK, but when do you consider the cutoff between 'Post WW2' and 'Cold War' considering that the cold war started _before_ WW2 was even over?
This answers plenty of questions for sure... But raises a few new ones too...
1) What would it take for you to consider a new SMG to be a new generation?
2) How would you classify the Kriss Vector?
3) Would you perhaps be willing to consider the like of the MP-7, P-90 (and the Vector again) to maybe be 'transitional 3/4' generation, in a similar fashion to how you considered the Beretta M38 to be a 'transitional 1/2' gen? Even though no 'true 4th gen' has been made yet?
~JD
It has been spoken and I agree. In your mind what do you think the gen 4 shift will be? Caliber modularity? Data feed? Or are we just going to go to energy weapons?
Energy weapons will *definitely* be a generation... Probably not the fourth, tho.😅
@@KickyFut It also won't be the last, the last generation of weapons is called 'sticks and stones'.
@@Stoney3K ??? I'm not sure... I believe the final counter over that is the infamous "I'm rubber, you're glue" attack.
Caseless ammo
I think electrically fired or caseless will be great improvements to firearms tech.
You have the most logical and well thought out way of classifying SMG’s. Hope it catches on!
gen 5 cuz in the future of the future of smg's armor piercing rounds will be the big generational change
I don't find that very likely to happen, personally. In order to get the power out of a round required to punch through armor, youd probably have to leave the realm of pistol cartridges. You might be able to defeat low grade armor with something specialized like an FN 5.7 or something, but i dont think you would ever get to the point whered you be able to defeat steel and ceramic plates and such.
I think this is actually a fair point as the greatest technical bottleneck for MSGs and PCCs is the cartridge.
I think that your view of submachinegun generations Ian is well thought of and properly justified. I think that current modern submachineguns could just be assigned to different subgroups of one generation if they differ quite a lot but not enough to assign them to a completely new generation.
Fair enough, the relatively more complex operating system and general handling make sense. Does that mean that Gen3 SMGs are less their own category of arm and more just pistol caliber assault rifles?
For further discussion, That seems like SMG development is at the same plateau as rifles where we can really only expect minor refinements and changes and that we need a breakthrough technology (energy weapon etc) before we'd see any new generation?
I did not agree with the P90 assessment until you compared it to the Hotchkiss Universal, very good point that illustrated the fact you cannot create a new category for an outlier. Categories are for general trends, thus a platypus is still a mammal (I think lol).
Nothing like flexing on us poor’s with the mp-5 in the background.. lol 😂
99% sure it's the HK SP5 he's done a decent amount of video about recently. Not full auto
@@jacobhuisman3489 Still not exactly cheap...
@@jacobhuisman3489 sp5 is gucci as all heck! even my ps90 cost less, including optic & aftermarket handguard
Using the both the P90 and MP7 as examples of Gen 3 SMGs moves the CZ Scorpion Evo into Gen 3 as well. The stock setup was identical to the Bren 805 and is still similar to the Bren 2. With the exception of being blowback and the magazine release on the evo essentially all of the controls are the same as it’s Bren counterparts.
My wallet categorizes them as "toys"
My wallet considers them, "extraordinary debt/discretionary expenses"
Constitutional Expence Sir!
@Zach cash which are these states?
... Yeah. You probably shouldn't own any of them then. If you think a firearm is a toy and not a deadly weapon, your priorities are seriously messed up my friend.
@Zach cash Got a lot of hungry feral hogs here in Missouri...
Another thing to add; i think it's safe to say the Vector is a gen2 (like the Skorpion Evo3 as mentioned in the previous video) and the MPX is a gen3 as it's basically a pistol caliber MCX including its gas system
I still think the P90 should be a generation 4, however some of my additional points goes to homebrew rifle sub caliber conversions, while rather untactful there is in common use automatic firearms which have receaved some conversion to meet the requirements. such and example are M16/AR15s with 9mm uppers and mag-well adapters. I think there is an AK verion as well. would also state that generation 4 as you put it may simply be the blending of the automatic-rifle, assult rifle, and SMG definitions by changing of caliber withing the same literal fire control-group and sometimes without modifying the barrel.
as far as the hotchkiss SMG it would have exemption as it was less intended to be role redefining as it was a quality design, its like giving the definition of machine-gun to early harmonica and organ guns. it matters when the concept was created and adopted in mass. I think the differnce in such a 4th and 3rd generation would be the diffence of near exact and close adaptation, as there is a limitation of the number of possible solutions of actions.
while I am aware that these definitions conflict with ATF definitions, I don't think the ATF is the best source of firearm definitions.
also full-auto glock 18.
@Zach cash is it? or is it a matter of perspective, cause if that's the case the MP series is a serious problem. we can also call off the scorpion, MP7, and pretty much everything but a full on rifle.
so what is the difference? stock? you can get one of those. barrel length?easy enough.
I'm not certain if you caught the point but as time progresses the difference of a weapon from one to another is literally being blurred as definitions become less and less clear.
i would love to see a video on the FN P90 at some point if possible (obviously if you can get hold of one). good explanation of the difference and your views! :)
I checked out Hickok45 video for that one, of course I am looking forward to Ian getting one too.
Classification be damned! I just want Ian to get his hands on a P90 and talk about it. (I know it's not forgotten)
Thanks, Ian: never actully picked up on the FN similarity until you mentioned it.
One question I'd have, is how useful would your classification be moving forward ?
Gen 1 = Precursor ....
Gen 2 = ... Made Cheaper ....
Gen 3 = ... And Easier to learn
If adapting to changing missions doesn't qualify as evolution, wouldn't the SMG categorization you proposed be already over. Wouldn't any new SMG be Gen3 from now on. I don't see armies buying SMG with "weird" handling for the grunts in the near future, nor do I expect them to make the SMG anymore complicated than strictly needed. And I don't see any other major limitations to SMG which you could change without making them into another arm. Would constant recoil along with some other tricks turning SMG into laser beams fit the bill, or would you just consider that, Gen3 with improved accuracy ? Genuinely curious
In your opinion, what could be done to SMG in the future that WOULD qualify as a significant change, but wouldn't de facto make them into a different arm, or did we hit a plateau ?
Are people in 2200, doomed to refer to any SMG produced in the last 200 years as Gen3 (if SMG still exist and have not been replaced by automatic recoilless 50mm Gauss Cannons) ?
How would this qualification be useful to our great-great-great-grandkids ?
I guess if we had to resume each category in one overly simple sentence we could say :
Gen 1 - High-Mobility machine-guns (long-range sights, suppresive fire, high-capacity, milled...)
Gen 2 - Pistols go BRRRRR (quick, rugged, short-ranged, police-use, ...)
Gen 3 - Scaled Down Rifles (A bit more range, easy learning, streamlined body, ...)
It might just be my brains seeing patterns, but it looks like, each generation took it's cues from another service arm of the day, instead of trying to be it's own independent thing.
I also would like to know what kinds of things would qualify for a gen 4. It'd have to be a fundamental change to manufacturing and/or operation. I wish Ian had tacked that onto the end of the video to help clear up what he would look for.
Electronic Ignition stacked in barrel rounds in small form factor SMGs?
I guess there are some significant changes that could be made in the future. It could be the electronic integration between wielder and weapon. Like miniguns can be fit and controlled through helicopters, SMGs could be controlled by or built into an exoskeletal structure like the prototypes that already exist. It could also just be hypothetical integration with robots or cyborgs. It could also just be as simple as adding levels of remote functionality or making the product computer controlled. I guess those are examples of products that would need rethinking or new production methods.
Difficult to say as that hasn't happened yet, to my knowledge. The need may also never be there.
This is my curiosity as well - if no SMGs currently do, what features and characteristics will eventually constitute the necessity of a Fourth Gen categorization
@@guywiththebottle I don't think making them remote controlled, or strapping them to an exoarmor would qualify as significant change to the gun itself. Hell, we still use .50 cal in NextGen remote controlled, computer assisted point defense, and the gun is the same as it's ever been.
I feel like Ian looks at the topic mostly from an engineer point of view, while the others look more at their role/function.
Gen 1 - increase vastly the firepower of a single soldier, cost being a secondary concern (army)
Gen 2 - same as above, but cheap, fast and reliable (army)
Gen 3 - compactness, handling, modularity and ease of use (special forces, police, security)
Gen 4 (?) - widespread use of body armor called for increased penetration so different type of ammunition was needed (back to army?)
It's hard to push a new generation into existence since only 2 rivaling candidates popped up at the same time and it's still a fairly fresh concept, so finding enough distinct but common between them features feels forced. Most militaries completely ignored both the P90 and MP7, because since the end of Cold War the world is still mostly shooting at guys with t-shirts for armor. The battlefields evolved, tank crews are no longer shooting, they are being blown up with guided missiles. There is no market for more designs of this type. Instead of submachine guns the development for military went towards compact assault rifles/carbines - M4, AKS-74U, SiG 552 and such. Russians have their own thing with 9x39, while being completely different concept, it also replaced pistol cartridges in many places. I'd hold my horses with Gen 4 until more stuff comes up. These two might end up as outliers while something completely different pops up years ahead.
Question: Would you classify SMG conversion kits for assault rifles in the same category as gen. three SMGs? I.e. AUG para, 9mm Tavor etc.
Yes, I would. The 9mm Colt SMG was one of the first of those I believe.
Good point about the PDWs having new calibre rounds not being that much of a difference to qualify as a new generation. After all in concept guns like the Škorpion vz. 61 have that same philosophy of use as a more recent PDW while only using regular pistol calibres.
Something tells me we will be seeing a part three to this... lol
G-d bless ya' Ian.
I was writing a comment about this on your generations video, but I was too damn sauced on Oban Distiller's Edition scotch(highly recommend Oban, they are a great smooth nightcap) to form a coherent question about the FN P90 and it's relation to Gen 3s like the MP7, and gave up on it. Hope you're doing well! Just recently acquired two new late model Spanish guns for my collection(my favorite being the Star Ultrastar)!
Humans love patterns and classification, it is such a memory aid, and when a new thing crops up we have to try to fit it in to our historic labels, if only designers would conform ( hehehe)
I think there is a pretty good case for a gen 3.5 where the subguns are scaled down rifles, but also designed to defeat armor, something most other subguns are not designed to do.
But, Could the P90 be considered and assault rifle if the military would use it like they do in Stargate
before they used p90s they used mp5s and a handful of m16s, and the odd streetsweeper (for some reason)
True, it's a rifle like casing, I consider it to be closest to a LMG, but the one that I shot didn't have a sight.
@@AsbestosMuffins yea they phase out MP5 in season 3, but the rest keep showing up, including a variety of shot guns when replicators show up.
But I reason the P90, being a slightly less powerfull 5.56 should be counted as an assault rifle, or could be modified to use a full power rifle. 50 round ambidextrous and short rifle like the p90 would be a dream in urban area
Can't believe you went there
Dam 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻✌🤔🤔🤔🤔🍀
@@peter4210 Assault rifles are categorized by their barrel lenght, so the p90 would be more like a carabine
Great vid. I'd say the moment these outliers like p90, super V, bison, whatever become the new standards, that's when there is a new gen, but when the bulk of the industry is still building these scaled down cabine patterns, that's still the standard.
I would say that the cartridge design should be considered a newer generation instead of the weapon itself. I see the 5.7 and 4.6 as more throwbacks to the 5.7 Spitfire just in a handier easier to use platform with more pistol characteristics in use.
The best argument for the P90, And a counterpart that i don't believe was mentioned, the Kriss Vector, being "next gen" is the new designs of ammo feeding and action.
As far as I know, the P90 was developed before the F2000, so it cannot really be considered as a scaled down F2000.
If that is not the case, then please do correct me. Still, the internal workings and design choices of the P90 are similar enough to rifles to be considered Gen 3, so I do not contest that point.
Yes, the P90 predates the F2000 by a full decade.
You are indeed correct.
Wow Ian just nailed the prononciation of király! Great job and appreciate the work you put in for perfection
Very interesting! How about the Kriss Vector?
A video doing generations of PDWs would be cool too. Basically moving from things like Broom Handle Mausers and M1 carbines to the true PDW-esque weapons like the MP7/P90 and then nowdays what are simply SBRs like the Krinkov, Mk.18, G36C, or similar.
Given what you've said in this video, can you think of any characteristics that a future SMG of some sort might include which would warrant the creation of a fourth generation? Or will this just be something someone comes up with that makes us go "wow, that's new"?
There will be no new generation of submachine gun. We have achieved peak gun.
@@gfarrell80 That's it boys, the ZIP 22 is the epitome of the personal firearm. We're done, lets go home
I would contend that the FN P90 is a Gen 3+ or Gen 4, primarily because it's rifle ancestor is already very different in many ways from typical rifles (bullpup, handles, ejecting system), and because of the magazine type, ejection patterns and caliber. I agree on the MP7 as a Gen3, although the caliber does seem to reflect a change in doctrine and use case, so perhaps Gen 3+. I would love to see the MP7 scaled up into 9mm, with a carbine model for the US civilian market too. Great video and thoughts, thanks!
“Fun guns”
I believe that takes care of that.
GG all around.
🐍
💀 no step on SNEK! 🇺🇸🇭🇰
You sure do get around!
No step on SNEK !!!
Ooo, a PDW-y follow-up, nice! Felt like a lot of minutiae to get through for more clearly presented arguments at the end. Makes sense not to sacrifice simplicity in general (or generational) categories for arguably minor technical changes like magazine design. 👍🏻
We need a civi MP7.
P-90 = PS-90
MP-7 = MPS-7
@@lostalone9320 a pistol then
@@lostalone9320 they can do a pistol just as they did sp5
@@Snakedude4life Don't you mean SP7 then?
@@lostalone9320 No stock. Either brace it or SBR it.
Another distinct difference imo between gen2 and 3 is the transition from open to closed bolt systems. In a military context the submachine gun was largely replaced by assault rifles and their new main purpose became support weapons for law enforcement/special operations with very specific needs for compact and suppressible guns. In both cases precision is much preferred over high volumes of automatic fire.
The ultimate nerdery: Classifying things.
As Ian touched upon, categorizing submachine guns by generation is somewhat of an imposition of artificial boundaries on design. As is the whole subject of PDWs.
A strong case can be made for claiming that everything from the M1 carbine to the FN P90 to the Czech Scorpion are all PDWs since that's what they were designed for and that's largely how they were issued, despite the fact that they are very different firearms.
You can even assert that the same firearm changes categories depending upon role. The M3 "grease gun" can be described as a submachine gun when it was issued to MPs guarding POWs in WWII, but it can also be described as a PDW when issued to tank crews to protect themselves when outside their AFV.
I've wanted a P90 ever since I played MGS2 and saw that Solidus had one.
I've shot a PS-90, they shoot the casings out the bottom, in my opinion, they are closest to a LMG, but that's because the one that I shot didn't have a sight.
Edit: Forgot to mention that the casings hit your leg, and that I believe that they should be an SMG, due to the 5.7x28mm round.
While I agree with the Gen-3 breakdown, I do think there should be a sub-category for Gen-3 PDWs that includes MP7, P90 *and* the Russian SR-2 Veresk.
The outstanding factor here is the cartridge - 5.7mm, 4.6mm and SR-2's 9x21mm ammo are all designed to provide enhanced penetration with a pistol-sized cartridge, in order to give vehicle crews/spec-ops/special duty personnel in modern conflicts stopping power against enemies likely equipped with body armor, fired from weapons that maintain the form, ergonomics and controllability of an SMG.
So while all three of them are pistol-caliber rifle design - SR-2 is basically a scaled down AS VAL, they do serve a somewhat different purpose. A purpose not really large enough to be considered a paradigm shift, but still recognizably different.
What about the kriss vector? Your thoughts.
As I see it....
Generation 1: Simple mechanism, complex manufacture. (MP-18,i, Thompson, PPD)
Generation 2: Simple mechanism, simple manufacture. (Sten, Grease Gun, PPSh)
Generation 2.5: Gettin' fiddly with it, (Walther MP, Uzi...)
Generation 3: Mini-Rifles! (MP-5, Colt SMG)
This was my thought, although I would have called it Gen 2 Mod 1. Compact it good. To me the big difference for Gen 3 is potentially greater accuracy due to the closed bolt.
Add Generation 3.5: Designed without any rifle to scale down from.
As a philosophy major I can tell you, you're pretty good at understanding the fundamentals of how categorization works lol. Very convincing and informed.
I didn't agree with Ian the first time. But after the second explanation, I see the point. I would also add the latest gen can also be differentiated by having plastics making up key components as compared to metal. Mag housings, mag wells, buffer tubes, guide rods, sights, etc. Just as the older gens changed manufacturing techniques (milling vs stamping) this latest gen makes also has a different construction method.
What annoys me about this classification you propose is that for instance, we have the Soviet PPD 40 being into Gen 1 and the PPSh 41 jumping to Gen 2 while being roughly the same gun, but simplified, and using stamped sheet metal, but in the end in term of handling and performance they are pretty analogous. And guns such as the Steyr TMP or Kriss Vector (they aren't derivative of a rifle platform so they can't fit in Gen 3) sharing the same Gen 2 with PPSh 41.
And to me there is a bigger gap between a TMP and a PPSh 41 than between the PPSh 41 and PPD 40. And yet they would share the same gen 2.
This classification leave a grey area where many modern guns can't fit in Gen 3 because they aren't miniaturized rifle systems, but are still very different compared to Gen 2 WW2.
gen 3 is probably better categorised as firing from a closed bolt.
There were closed-bolt SMGs in WWI. Which means that Gen3 almost predates Gen 1!
Actually while looking for it, I saw the same question in the FW subreddit: www.reddit.com/r/ForgottenWeapons/comments/hjb4v6/first_closed_bolt_submachine_gun/
Especially for WWII and later SMGs it needs some sort of subcategories. Early WWII subs were different then late WWII subs, and there has been development afterwards. The difference between a MP5 or Uzi and something more recent like a Vector, P90, MP7, etc.
I think to even start looking at generations of SMGs one needs to first think about what SMGs actually are. Wikipedia opens with them being "magazine-fed, automatic carbines designed to fire handgun cartridges." refencing the Thompson.
@Forgotten Weapons It’s interesting that the MP-7 and P90 are brought into the SMG classification discourse as their own thing. I think they are, but I think that’s because they’re not really sub guns in any other form or factor than size. Their lineage is more directly associated with PDW weapon systems like the M1/M2 carbine, vz.61, Stetchkin, or PM63 and just, as you mentioned, modernized with certain mission specific parameters in mind. So, rather than being 3rd gen SMGs, a fairer classification would be to call the MP-7 and P90, 3rd gen PDWs.
Wouldn't the F2000 really be a scaled up version of the P90, since it entered development almost a decade after the P90?
Yes, it's really quite bizarre to refer to the P90 as a scaled-down F2000. It's on the same level as claiming the M14 is a scaled-up Mini-14.
It doesn't really matter which one came first, in this context.
Minor point on telescoping bolts:
Not used in a subgun that early,, but telescoping bolt blowback actions are way way older than the Uzi so they were not in any way new tech when such bolts became popular on submachineguns.
The Winchester self-loader series of rifles used telescoping bolts back before 1910. And these were chambered in what was basically souped-up pistol calibres. Winchester was only a larger magazine and an auto sear away from a rifle-shaped telescoping bolt submachinegun way before WWI.
But Ian, you have also ignored the part in earlier video where SMG were filling in the demand for less powerfull and heavy semi and full auto guns that just happen to have pistol caliber since it was the only ammo less powerfull then full blown rifle available. And people didn't have funds to develop intermediate rounds yet. So there should be a distinction of SMGs before and after birth of AR. Because first would be trying to fill the niche of AR, but the latter would be specifically made as SMGs for one reason or another.
That's because it never happened like that. Smgs were closer to being (up until Ians Gen3) scaled up pistols, not scaled down rifles.
And so was their purpose. They were issued to troops who required more range and sustained fire than what a pistol was capable of, bud did not require the range and long range accuracy of a battle rifle.
@@djrug I've read your comment 3 times, I still don't find the part where it both makes sense and contradicts what I've just said. Can you elaborate how requiring a niche between the rifle and pistol will make either approach to filling it wrong or why a pitol wouldn't be also a common starting point since it uses the same ammo? I also fail to see pistol in Beretta 38 or Danuvia 43 or in M1 Carbine.
@@djrug moreover, you might have noticed that MP-5 continued to fill the role of smaller alternative in NATO that had erroneously followed automatic rifle only doctrine for a few decades, but how SMGs largely died out in Warsaw Pact since shortened ARs filled their rol(at least with AK-74 and AKS-74U since during original AK service some leftover PPS and PPSh SMGs were still in use).
Intermediate rounds did not begin with the AR platform by any stretch of the imagination. Most authorities trace the idea of intermediate rounds back to the 8mm Kurtz in WWII. The 7.62x39 is an evolution of the idea, and predates the 5.56 by almost 20 years. Some would say the .30 carbine is an intermediate round, since it is more powerful than (most at the time) pistol cartridges but not as powerful as a full rifle cartridge. It's less powerful than the 7.62x39 or the 5.56 NATO, but not by a lot. It's more powerful than a .357 Magnum, or any SMG round.
The idea of an intermediate cartridge was to bridge the gap between submachine guns and battle rifles so that all troops would have the benefits of both. Your assertion that prior to the AR platform no cartridges existed that filled this role is simply wrong. Even the .280 British, which is arguably a better intermediate round than the 5.56x45 or the 7.62x39, predates it by a decade or more.
Actually, a dandy "intermediate" cartridge would have been the .250 Savage, which has been around since 1915. It's a touch longer than the 5.56x45 with a heavier bullet, but shoots faster and has more impact energy. It's performance more-or-less equals the 6.5 Grendel.
@@tarmaque "Intermediate rounds did not begin with the AR"
AR ie Assault Rifle. That's literary what Sturmgewehr was called. SMG ie Submachine Gun. You ie the guy, who somehow failed to see the context and decided to lecture another viewer of Ian on the basics. Thanks, but no, please, don't make me facepalm too much.
And no, first intermediate rounds appeared during WWI.
Ian talks about manufacturing processes being the defining factor between gen 1 and gen 2 submachine guns ie. quality milling vs. cheap stampings. Im surprised the latest generation of guns isn't also defined that way. Most modern submachine guns make extensive use of polymers in their construction ie. fn p90, kriss vector, hk ump/mp7, cz scorpion, etc. Both the mp7 and p90 "outliers" fit nicely into a generation that's defined by the use of polymer. Even the older mp5 could fit into this generation. im surprised he didn't talk about that.
Let’s have categories for semi auto versions. It can be the meh category.
The "infringed" versions 😢
@@ALovelyBunchOfDragonballz well here is the thing. People are going to call them "basically" SMG's and try to get them banned Pistol Caliber Carbine is a nicer term because Carbine is such a nice sounding word it just means "little rifle"
While I agree with the differences you describe in the different generations I think they are coincidental rather than defining.
I would define the generations the following way:
1st: Experimental, the only form of truly mobile single operater fully automatic weapon available. People weren't sure how they would be used and judging by the long distance sights, if assault rifles and LMGs had been available, they would have preferred those.
2nd: Built with trench experiences in mind. Now that LMGs are a thing, they are designed exclusively for short distances, and due to open bolt operation crappy sights, and cheap manufacturing that's all they're good for. Given to one squad member to give the whole squad a short burst of short range firepower, but needs to be accompanied by rifles for the squad to function on the battlefield .
3rd: Designed with special forces and partisan operations experiences in mind, and targeted at police forces as much as the military. Closed bolt, better sights, and improved manufacturing enable precise single shots. Whole SWAT or special forces squads can be equipped with them in many situations without the need for general issue rifles for mid range accurate fire. Assault rifles have become a thing and fulfill most roles previously filled by 2nd gen SMGs. As a result of this they are more widely adopted by anti terrorism units and police forces rather than armies.
I was one of the ones that suggested that maybe the p90 was a 4th generation. I was mainly thinking about the new cartridge. but I totally agree with your logic here.
so another question. are there any new submachine guns that you would consider different enough in design to be in a new generation? the only one I can think of would be maybe is the Kriss Vector SMG kriss-usa.com/item/vector-smg-overview/. mainly for the way that it is designed to mitigate recoil. anyway I always enjoy your videos.
I would agree with you on this one. It's a totally different design and not patterned after a rifle.
i think Ian overlooked that every gun that fits gen3 fires from a closed bolt
Thanks for listening and answering the question! I don't know if I'm convinced that the P90 is close enough to the FN2K, though. I need to think about that...
What about the KRISS Vector?
Interesting experiment with questionable result i assume same fate as calico or G11.
The P90 & MP7 were touted as being Personal Defense Weapons (PDWs) for vehicle crew, artillery crew, truck drivers, support troops, and associated non-frontline infantrymen (referred to as REMFs in the Vietnam War) as a light, handy weapon that is easy to use and using a cartridge intermediate between the pistol calibers of the SMGs and the rifle calibers. Much like how the M1 Carbine was conceived in WW2, except these are full-autos so they are kind of similar to the M2 & M3 Carbines. And much like the M1 Carbine, many combat infantrymen (and women; don't forget the ladies, y'all) liked the light and futuristic P90 & MP7 and they caught on.
? I'm getting ads on a forgotten weapons vid... interesting
TH-cam gets paid. The channel don't.
@@andrewstoll4548 Adblock helps this problem. If TH-cam doesn't want to play fair with content creators I see nothing wrong with bypassing TH-cam's income generation mechanism.
Thank you for this follow up video . Fantastically presented show by a knowledgeable , well spoken guy who actually reads his comments. I'd like to see these 2 weapons in an upcoming show . Also the Vector to see the mechanics at work
Well done ,keep doing what you do !
P90 because you have a lot of rounds in a tiny package.
It's pretty much the modern day Tommy Gun.
What does that mean?
@@guywiththebottle Both are expensive, both have iconic 50 round magazines and both are just sexy to look at.
@@enricopaolocoronado2511 So they should have their own category because of that?
@@guywiththebottle Nope.
Enrico Paolo Coronado
Completely different...
P90 is light and fires super fast small rounds while the tommy gun fires large slow rounds and is a heavy gun
I have heard the argument more than once that both the p90 and MP7 are NOT submachine guns because they don't fire pistol calibers, which is half true. FN released a practical handgun in 5.7x28 not long after the p90 and HK did try to develop a handgun in 4.6x30 but never finished it. It could, therefore, be argued that both weapons are in handgun calibers now even if they weren't upon first release.
Proponents of both weapons being not sub guns argue that the new category PDW (Personal Defense Weapon) includes compact weapons that are not sub guns by virtue of caliber but fill a comparable role. The exact definition may vary but most could reasonably include very short AR-15s or AKs (barrels less than 10 inches in their intermediate calibers, for example) as PDWs.