View Full Version : Which is better for CQB, M4 or MP5 ??

April 5, 2000, 01:49 AM
I was wondering what everyone thought the best weapon was for CQB (Close Quarters Battle). I mentioned the M4 and the HK MP5 above but feel free to mention whatever firearm you think is the best suited.

My favorites are the M4 and the MP5 for several reasons. Both are very flexible (optics, lights, special purpose launchers, etc).

There are also several major differences between these 2 systems, caliber and size being the main ones.

So tell us which weapon you think is best suited to engage targets from 0 to 100 yards in an urban or street to street situation.

April 5, 2000, 02:07 AM
I'd think the MP-5 would be best suited for urban CQB for several reasons. It's got the versatility and response desired at close range battles. It's about 5lbs (depending one variation) but packs a mean 9mm rapid fire. F.B.I. uses the MP-5 chambered in 10mm, which is almost the equivalent as shooting the assailant with the Nascar 500 :).
I like the FN-P90. It's shorter than an MP-5 A1 and M4. It fires the 5.7X28mm round and holds about 50 bullets. Too bad only the Brits use it :\.

"I refuse to be outgunned by criminals!"

April 5, 2000, 02:57 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>What appears upon first look to be a weapon design to compete with the FN series P90 in 5.7mm x 28, the PDW promises to be a huge
improvement on that system. Though no one could fault the engineers at Fabrique Nationale for their vision, the P90 has one reported serious
flaw. If you drop a partially loaded magazine, or the gun with a partially loaded magazine, rounds will go flying, get disoriented in the magazine
and seriously jam the mechanism.

The 4.6 x 30 is also reported to be ballistically superior to the 5.7 x 28, especially at longer ranges. It has a reported muzzle velocity of 725 m/sec.
(Roughly 2200 FPS)

The heavy use of polymer again shows the design direction that the HK engineers are taking. With a conventional 20 round magazine in the
pistol grip or an optional 40 round magazine that extends below the gun, one of the most amazing aspects of the gun is its size, or lack thereof. It
is roughly the size of a SOCOM pistol!

Sporting a retractable shoulder stock and a very small heads up display sight reminiscent of the Eotech/Bushnell Holosight, the PDW also has a
T-shaped cocking handle somewhat like the M16 series.

Select fire, with safe, semi and full auto modes of fire, and production models sporting the now familiar red and white bullet in box pictograms,
the stated cyclic rate on full automatic is 950 rpm. The PDW has a foldable forward vertical grip. The magazine is conventional staggered box,
and the magazine release behind the trigger guard looks almost interchangeable with the USP series handguns.

Several features of the G36 series are present in the PDW as you can see in the photos below. Extensive use of polymer, the rotating bolt and
gas system all reflect the G36 series.

The PDW is a quintessential reminder of the lead that HK continues to take in small arms design.[/quote]

[This message has been edited by dZ (edited April 05, 2000).]

George Hill
April 5, 2000, 03:37 AM
My vote goes to the Uzi.

George Hill
April 5, 2000, 08:24 AM
Moved to the AF/CQC forum.

"I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant." -Nixon

Jeff White
April 5, 2000, 05:50 PM
I'd pick the M4. If you're going to use an MP5 you might as well just go with the more compact handgun as you are shooting the same round from a larger weapon.

The M4 gives you a rifle cartridge in a package not much bigger then the MP5. There ia actually less danger of overpenetration from the 5.56mm round then from 9 or 10mm. The 5.56 will also reliably penetrate most soft body armor. Kevlar has made it's way into the hands of combatants in most conflicts and into the hands of criminals here in the US.


George Hill
April 6, 2000, 05:05 AM
And you forgot you have the advantage of longer reach. An M4 you can reach past 300 meters... An MP5? Not even close.

But for PURE CQB, its still a little long.
So is a standard MP5 - and a little heavy with all the "TAC" add on's.

An Uzi on the other hand is a much more compact weapon, even with an extended stock, its shorter length will let you keep firing position while moving into tighter areas.
And you can get a version of the Uzi in .45 ACP which is most sweet.
For some reason the Uzi has all but faded from the scene - but dont count it out - It's still a viable and effective system.

April 6, 2000, 05:54 AM
the uzi fires from the open bolt which leaves it undesirable for tactics.single precsice shots are a real pain.we have had many discharges when transition drills to the pistol are used at the range.our local pd pulled them years ago and i feel they are not very reliable with anything but good ball ammo.sorry they wont feed hollow points.i agree that the m4 is the better choice for entry work because of the greater wound channel it produces. the mp5 is nice for crawl spaces and airplanes where tight quarters are and i can also see benifits in the mp5k pdw for executive protection work because they can be hid under a coat very well.its still just a pistol round so get the m4 and you wont look back.

April 6, 2000, 12:36 PM
The tool you take depends on the job you have to do. The .223 is a great round, but hard to silence. The MP series is good, but I'm giving new looks at the H&K UMP/USC, for those that don't know, it's like the MP-5 but in .45 cal and highly supressable.

By the way, Hello, I'm new and don't know the courtesy. Don't mean to just "leap into the pool" without so much as a how do you do...


April 8, 2000, 12:48 AM
i would choose the weapon system depending on the circumstances. i like my mp5, but there are times where a rifle caliber is desireable. for those times i might choose an ar15 or possibly a hk53. and there are times i have chosen a benelli m1-90 entry gun, or 870 pump gun. the more information going in that my team can get, the better. information is a wonderful thing. with good information we can decide which weapons systems, equipment, personnel make up etc. there is no one weapon system that can do it all. each have their capabilities and limitations, as well as the personnel that use them.

just my $02 worth
sully http://defensive.edge.home.att.net

April 9, 2000, 10:37 AM
To answer the topic, for purely CQB, the MP5. It's more compact, and the muzzle blast is manageable.

Having said that, if forced to choose only one platform for team use, hands down it would be the M4.

You take a team that as used MP5s and run them through the same standards and drills with the M4, and you'll find the performance results to be at least as good if not better.

You extend the range of effectiveness another 150 yards.
You have less concerns about overpenetration indoors, yet you can defeat most body armor.
Better mounting options for reflex-type sights, not as high above boreline (more important at CQB distances)
You have last round bolt hold-open (minor luxury that I like).
Psychologically more terrifying to have .223 fired at you instead of pistol rounds.

The MP5 is for all intents and purposes an overgrown pistol, but it is extremely user friendly and it is easier to manage and teach than a pistol. However, on principle alone, I think that if it goes on the shoulder, it better be more than what's in your sidearm. Where the M4 has room to improve is its extreme blast indoors. If you've ever had an M4 go off over and behind you in an indoor exercise... don't even have to finish this sentence. Certain coms protect your ears during fire. Nomex hoods and Ballistic helmets will keep your scalp intact. Suppressors are always nice, but we all know the trade-offs involved. But after all is said and done, I'd still give the M4 the overall nod (and the MP5 can have the more mission specific niche).

SKD Tactical Accessories
www.skdtac.com (http://www.skdtac.com)
Your source for hard-core, no-bs gear.

Edmund Rowe
April 9, 2000, 03:44 PM
For same room distances I think either MP5 or M4 can be used to great effect if the team knows their business. If they have M4s then they'd better have good hearing protection. The stereo muffs wouldn't be a bad idea so you can hear something besides your ears ringing when the element in the back room yells "CLEAR!" Not that 9mm is considered "quiet", just more so than .223.

.223 has much better wound ballistics than 9mm if I read my Martin Fackler right. Also, it's much more difficult for bad guys to wear the body armor necessary to stop .223 compared to 9mm. Difficult but not impossible.

I'm surprised that only mooser mentioned the HK MP-53 (MP-5 size with .223) and nobody the US military experience in Mogadishu (read Blackhawk Down):

The MP-53 is nice, but still has the ergonomics of the MP-5. No hold-open, funny leverage on the bolt handle if you have to clear a malf (to be fair, the M-4 forward assist and cocking handle aren't what I consider ideal for malf clearance, either), selector a bit too far to reach unless you break your firing grip.

The Mogadishu battle seems to show that at least in this case, the indoor same room type battles were more the exception than the rule in this running battle, even though it was in a crowded city. Many firefights seemed (at least to me) to be at "down the street" distances and such. I heard somewhere that some US units switched to .223 more often than not after this battle.

Just my opinion but if you're ready for a battle of that magnitude, then the indoor same room problem is more easily tackled than the other way around. Hence I would choose the M-4.


April 9, 2000, 04:33 PM
Hi Ed,
Your point on the HK53 is understood, but I wasn't introducing alternatives so we can stick to the MP5/M4 discussion, which is happening alot among teams these days. If we're talking HK53, I'd just as soon take the Commando, and while they do maximize space, I don't think either efficiently deals with the potential of of the .223 round and both only increase the amount of blast and make it more difficult to suppress (and boy do they get toasty real fast!) If we are going to stray from the MP5/M4 discussion, I think the 5.7 and 4.6 deserve harder looks as they seem to be the only new thing going for all the MP5 size benefits with body armor penetrating capabilities. But even then, it would only introduce another thread... P90/PDW vs. M4, and we'd be back at square one again (HA!)

SKD Tactical Accessories
www.skdtac.com (http://www.skdtac.com)
Your source for hard-core, no-bs gear.

Chuck Ames
April 12, 2000, 06:55 PM
Amen to the M4. One other thing is that for those of us in the Army, everything is the same as for the M16, so the muscle memory is the same (or conditioned responses if MM isn't scientific enough).


April 14, 2000, 05:15 PM
There's also one other thing to remember. If you are using a suppressed shoulder weapon, taking full adavantages of the suppressor means using subsonic rounds. I don't know about you, but at subsonic speeds I'd prefer a 115+ gr. .30 cal bullet to a 55+ gr. 22. cal bullet anyday.