Military Arms Channel Shows the New Army SMG

The Army recently announced the adoption of a new SMG. I learned about this and shared it here on April 1st. It sure felt like a joke.


Finally we get to see some real info about the model the Army is buying. The Military Arms Channel on youtube did a nice video about this B&T SMG. B&T also makes a .40 cal version that uses Glock mags, and a 9mm that uses SIG P320 mags.

I think it looks pretty interesting. You can currently buy a similar (but not the same) B&T 9mm semi auto for about $1800-2000. I imagine that when the semi auto version of what the Army is using comes out, it will be pretty pricey for a while, but after demand from the public dies down it will likely be around $1800ish. I saw a place allowing for preorders at $3100, and I think it would be nuts to pay that much for one.

14 thoughts on “Military Arms Channel Shows the New Army SMG”

  1. Interesting that they’ve gone with a double stack, single feed design. I’d love to see the reliability testing results.

    • With how reliable modern pistols have been, I really doubt there’s that much difference between the 2 magazine types.

  2. It is an interesting design but I think even $1800 is ridiculously high priced. When you can buy a rifle caliber carbine for $800 to $1000 I just don’t understand how consumers think an $1800 9mm pistol is reasonable.

    • It is funny that people won’t hesitate to drop $2000 on a 1911, but then they expect a Swiss made gun to be priced like a Hi-Point.

    • Yea, but your AR9 is not made by the Swiss.
      US AR fans are greatly spoiled by the mass production and competition that drives down prices.
      Look at LWRC new .45ACP carbine/SMG. They want $2500 and it even uses it own proprietary modular rail that is different from keymod or mlok.

    • Was your AR-pattern pistol made in the Swiss Alps by Swiss Underpants Gnomes?

      Didn’t think so. 😉

  3. Once again, we see the US DOD shovelling money and contracts to off-shore companies.

    We here in America have more ideas and background in guns than any of these Euro-weenies, yet our government wants to pour money into European companies.

    It’s not only absurd from a logistical and military perspective, it’s just morally offensive.

    • I’m curious how many US companies are really producing SMGs. I’ve been reading up on B&T, and shortly before this, they designed a gun, the P26. That gun’s design was bought buy Beretta and adopted by the Italians. And for who knows what reason, they also developed a DA/SA SMG. WTF? They have recently made a wide variety of designs, and I’m not sure anyone else is.
      Oh the other hand, the Army could have bought LWRC new $2500 SMG.

  4. Can anybody explain to me what possible mission profile is better served by this boondoggle than by an M4, with or without a suppressor?

    I like PCCs for lots of civilian usages, where SBRs and suppressors are absurdly over-regulated, but .mil doesn’t have that problem, so I’m left scratching my head here.

    • Let me hazard a guess.
      On size. This SMG is about as long as the M4 barrel.
      Far smaller, handier, and concealable.
      Hmm, 9mm SMGs have been killing people for a century now. Can suppress better, run subsonics. Or you could use modern AP ammo and defeat soft armor.
      M4 is kinda awkward to use inside vehicles, the shorter barrel models like the MK18 are still very loud when suppressed.
      There is a great deal of rumor mill that the MP7 had various complaints about performance.
      Rumormill also says that the APC9K won because it was the most controllable in FA.

      Don’t get me wrong, I was really surprised by this. But there are times where the M4 isn’t quite ideal.

      • Yeah, I won’t dispute that there are some missions where an SMG is better, especially for secret squirrels where concealability is a factor. But the secret squirrels can pretty much buy what they want anyway.

        For vehicle-borne stuff, if the M4 is too big, I would probably pick an AR pattern with an even shorter barrel. AR modularity for the win. You have to chop a 5.56 barrel down a ways before terminal performance is worse than 9mm ball. And the better external ballistics give the 5.56 the advantage at range. Then you get the training and logistics advantages to boot.

        I think it comes down to optimizing vs satisficing. For as narrow a mission profile as this serves, I’d satisfice and cut out a bunch of logistical headaches. I guess Big Green went the other way.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.