Machine Pistol - Criticism

Criticism

Machine pistols have long been criticized for their inaccuracy. The inaccuracy of most machine pistols occurs because it is hard to control a fully automatic weapon that has such a low weight and in many cases, lacks a proper shoulder stock. As a result, in the hands of all but the most expert shooters, machine pistols being fired on full automatic tend to rise up during firing. Machine pistols also tend to have very short barrels, which means that the bullets are not accurate beyond a hundred meters or so. One solution is to design the weapon so that it can fire three-round bursts, rather than uninterrupted automatic fire. Another solution is to steady the weapon in some fashion, either by outfitting it with a shoulder stock, using a shoulder strap to pull down on the front of the barrel, or resting the weapon against a hard surface which can be used as a bracing point.

Gunsite, a US firearms training facility, decided against teaching machine pistol firing when it was founded in 1976. Facility experts believed that it is "a slob's weapon, useful only by half-trained or poorly motivated troops"; they claimed that the machine pistol "hits no harder than a pistol and is no more portable than a rifle." Nevertheless, even the critics from Gunsite concede that the machine pistol is useful for a few situations, such as boarding an enemy boat in low light or when repelling boarders in a naval situation. Walt Rauch notes that "...despite the 50 to 70 years of bad press that has accrued to the concept of shooting a hand-held machine pistol", in which critics contend that the weapon will "spray bullets indiscriminately all over the area", he believes that the 2000s-era models such as the Glock 18 are controllable and accurate in full-auto shooting.