Been thinking about this since I read Tam's review of shooting the KRISS guns, in particular this part:
There's only one problem: Most of the people who used machine pistols have gone to rifle-caliber "shorty" carbines over the last few years; any agency still using the MP5 is probably going to replace them with M4s or shorty G36's or the like, rather than another pistol-caliber weapon.
My question is 'Why?' I understand a rifle cartridge has more power, but- with everything being a tradeoff- what's the big advantage for a LE organization switching something like a tactical team from a subgun to something like a very short-barreled M4?
Yeah, a .223 is more powerful than a 9mm or .40S&W or .45acp or 10mm; enough so to make up for the increased muzzle blast(for one thing)? I haven't seen a M4 firing up close with a 14" barrel, I have seen a couple of AR15 pistols fired indoors, and the blast and- with some ammo- flash was fairly awful; I can't imagine a M4 with a shorter barrel(don't they make variants with 10" or 10.5" barrels?) would be much better.
I have no personal knowledge to make a statement from, I'm just wondering here.
By the way, just out of curiosity I looked at the Colt site: in their 'law enforcement' and 'M4' section it says
Colt M4 Carbine is the weapon of choice according to today's law enforcement concepts of rapid deployment, mobility and increased firepower. etc. Then, down below,
- M203 40mm Grenade Launcher mounts directly to the Carbine without modification
Hmmm. Is that generally a selling point for LE?