|
No question in my mind in a real all out house to house fight with little regard for civilians, and a supply tail following me, I would take the SMG. Shotguns are neat, but subguns are better. In police matters there is more debate for obvious reasons, but ask yourself, throughout history, why have the world's militaries issued millions of SMG compared to the relative few shotguns? For street fighting, an assault rifle would be better, and a sack of Dutch mini grenades would help, but if I must I'll take the SMG. Imagine how if faced with an enemy soldier pinning you down from 100 to 150 yards away you would deal with that opponent with either weapon. Imagine how a .45 ACP from a Thompson would deal with a reinforced room compared to a shotgun etc. I'm not doing the argument justice. Maybe someone else can jump in here.
|