by Mikey » Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:56 pm
OK, sorry to double-pump on this, but I was considering this further. I wasn't joking about calling a semi-auto SMG a "pistol." By definition, a SMG uses a pistol-caliber cartridge; the ONLY advantages that a SMG has over a pistol is a marginally longer barrel and automatic-fire capability. The difference in barrel length between a full-sized pistol and a SMG is small enough to not provide enough difference in muzzle velocity to prefer the larger weapon over the smaller for carry use; so the only practical advantage for police use would be the ability to fire in automatic mode.
So, if we have the police armorers remove that ability, then we have NO practical advantage for the SMG over the pistol, plus a number of practical disadvantages: the SMG can't be holstered like a pistol; it is more obvious, leading to greater tension in public situations; it is heavier and more awkward to carry, especially for any length of time. Add to that the cost factor - I don't have figures available for direct-to-government sales, but retail numbers would do for a simple comparison. A typical pistol, SOTA and in use by many modern departments in the U.S., retails for anything from $500 - $1000 U.S. in popular LE calibers like 9mm, .40 S&W, .45 ACP, .357 SIG, or 10mm. A SMG in any of those popular chamberings would retail for AT LEAST $2000 - $2500. Why would you have a publicly-funded department spend up to 5x or more per piece for something that does the job more poorly? Something is not kosher with the statement that police in the UKoGBaNI use SMG's, but have them converted to semiautomatic-only fire.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer