The GM Guide Lamp division has been out of commission for almost two generations for one thing. The other issue with the M3 and M3A1 was its low cyclic rate and long travel open bolt action. Nobody is looking at a parkerized tube gun SMG as a solution and the M3 design couldn’t hold a candle to the best tube SMGs like the Swedish K.
I am still very fond of the UZI (especially the Mini converted to fire from a closed bolt) but IMI/IWI has said they have absolutely no tooling to produce the long-retired UZI anymore.
Man, everything about this whole topic is revisiting ideas that pretty much ended with the appearance of the Hk MP5. I don’t know why the Army is goofing around like this but they know what the answer is.
Yes, the M3 is out of the question for the reasons you mentioned. It’s also on the heavy side at 9.7 lbs loaded.
I never shot one but my father was issued this weapon at the end of WWII and didn’t like it. A family member who served in Iraq (MLRS crew member) didn’t think much of it either.
I’ve fired the MP5 and the Swedish K model; I preferred shooting the K. It felt more compact and controllable than the MP5.
Thank you for your insights. Appreciate it.
All of that being said, I “get” the thinking behind a H & K MP5 choice. But if the desire is to give support troops a reasonable weapon, do we really need to buy MP5s? Or perhaps an updated M3 or Swedish K gun for lots less money?
I’m just trying to explore the intellectual foundations for a MP5 - class SMG.
We also should note that practically every nation with the machine tools has attempted to locally design/manufacture a SMG.