Talk:M7 SMG

Semi-Automatic

"Avery clenched his jaw as Byrne switched his M7 to semi-automatic and shot each Innie twice in the chest."

Should this be added to the main page, though not an option in-game? I think its important to state that the weapon has selective fire options.

First, this sounds more like they meant to say M6, it being a semi-auto and firing two rounds makes more sense there. Second, of course the M7 has a semi firing mode, the only small arms that don't are MGs, and there are no MGs in Halo so far. This, the MA5-series, the BR55-series, and the M392s all have a semi option, and the M392 and BR55HB also have a full-auto option.

Calibre

What caliber is an SMG? Also i need calibers for the sniper rifle and the Assault Rifle, as well as the pistol. Any one of these would be good , thanks --Honored Sangheili 20:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• M7 SMG: 5x23mm Caseless
• SRS99 S2 AM sniper rifles: 14.5x114mm APFSDS
• MA5 assault rifle: 7.62x51mm NATO
• M6 series Pistols: 12.7x40mm SAP-HE

Maiar 02:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

5x23mm?! WTF?! That has no stopping power at all, minimum caliber for effective SMGs is 9mm (H&K MP5, MG 39/42), if it's 5mm, it's useless as a submachine gun.--Chainsaw911 02:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

You clearly know nothing about weapon physics. the 23mm is quite a lot of powder for an SMG round (most are below 20) and although the Caseless further increases the allowence for charge and it sprays 15 of them each second(30 when duel wielded).--Maiar 00:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

23mm denotes the length of the actual bullet (not the entire cartridge). It does not denote how much powder it uses. Smoke ^{My page}_{My talk} 01:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

yes the 23 is the cartridge length. 5mm is the calibre of the bullet and 23mm is the cartirdge length without the bullet in the end. trust me iv been looking this kind of stuff up on wikipedia and the websites of several firearm manufacturers for information regarding a hobbie for months. (the hobbie is writing sci-fi fiction. nothing has ben published yet) oh and BTW the H&K MP7 PDW(believed to be a major inspiration for the M7) uses 4.6x30mm cartridges, the FN P90 uses 5.7x28mm and the japanese type 100 SMG used 7.62x17 so to hell with your minimum of 9mm. though it is true that a long-time common SMG cartridge is the 9x19 Parabellum.Maiar 09:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well since we're talking about who knows what here, I've actually trained with a weapon and used one - the M-16 service rifle. I just got out of the United States Marine Corps not too long ago - the information is fresh in my mind, and I carried a rifle almost every day. I can recite to you the name of every part of the M-16 rifle, and its function, and tell you how to disassemble it and then put it back together. Hell, I have a .270 Winchester round here in my room (metric measurement: approximately 6.8x43mm), along with several .38 Special rounds - you can visually look at it and tell that it is NOT the cartridge that the dimensions are referring to. The entire round is much longer than the dimensions would have you believe, and depending on how much powder it uses, the back end may be larger as well. The dimensions refer to the actual bullet, not the entire cartridge, nor how much powder it uses. Wherever you got your info from, it's wrong - or your interpretation of said information is wrong. Get some hands-on experience with a weapon and ammunition, then come back and talk. Smoke ^{My page}_{My talk} 01:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

whatever dude i dont realy see how any of what you said is actualy relavent. if your mentioning milatary participation to try to make me shut up because of patriotism your a douche whos wasting there time because im Australian. we dont even have a marine corps!

I mentioned it because you're talking to me as if I'm wrong, when I'm not. I have actual experience with weapons - I know what's what. I know the terminology, I know how it's measured, I know how MOST of them operate. So what if you don't have a Marine Corps. I didn't ask if you had a Marine Corps, nor did I imply that Australia had one. I mentioned that I served in my Marine Corps. That's it. I didn't bring up patriotism not once in my post there. Really, I could care less if you're patriotic or not - if I wanted to know that, I'd have asked. In fact, the only reason I brought it up is because you started citing how you had experience from reading articles on it. If I wanted to know all of that, I would have asked you.

I'm being civil with you here, Maiar. You should probably calm your nerves, take the correction, and move on. I'm only helping you so you actually know what you're talking about. If you bothered to actually read it, I was reiterating the point I made earlier, and I told you to get hands-on experience. That does not mean to go join the military. Smoke ^{My page}_{My talk}

Just thought about this. You said that the 5mm is the caliber of the bullet and the 23mm is the cartridge length. Once again, you're wrong. The 5mm is the diameter of the bullet itself (at the wide end), and the 23mm is the length of the bullet. Neither one of those have to do with the cartridge. Also, caliber and millimeters are two totally different units of measurement. Caliber is inches. Millimeter is metric. Don't confuse the two - they are not used interchangeably. Smoke ^{My page}_{My talk} 03:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

no Calibre just means diamiter of bullet, whatever the system or units. eg: .30 cal equates to 7.62mm calibre. the inches thing is just a cooincidence. pple just say the cal with imperial mesurements because they do but not with mm. it applies to both regardless. gunnery-sergeant Maiar 08:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Caliber is the measurement of the bullet's diameter in inches only, dude. It doesn't apply to both systems of measurement. The example you cited there is simply converting .30 caliber to millimeters - which is approximately 7.62 mm. You do not say caliber after stating the measurement of the bullet in millimeters. Smoke ^{My page}_{My talk}

WHAT THE HELL? I DELETED THIS LONG AND POINTLESS ARGUMENT!--Maiar 10:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That isn't your duty. Leave it. Smoke ^{My page}_{My talk}^{My Editcount} 13:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If you delete it once more.... well... you know what will happen.-5ub7ank^(7alk) 13:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

...What the hell is going on? how does it keep reappearing? and how do you make those wird name things?Maiar 08:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You are not deleting this discussion, that's what's going on. People are reverting your deletion, that's why it keeps reappearing. What weird name things? Smoke ^{My page}_{My talk}^{My Editcount} 15:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow...long and went noware. maiar was right about the calibre thing, its just one of those things. he made a typo: its 5mmx23, 23 what is unclear. if perhaps it has a rifle like bullet (such as those used in the P90 or MP7) and if it has a fair amount of propellant, then it could get decent power out of it. but otherwise it would be weak and in game it is quite weak per-round but - as maiar stated - it focuses on a high fire rate for lethality. the "patriotism" thing...what was he smoking? but Smokes mention of service does seem a little...irrelevent. an M16 could hardly be further from an M7. 5.56x45mm NATO cased frife rounds from ~600 years before the M7s caseless pistol rounds. Agent Tasmania 13:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

He is wrong. Metric notation for the measurement of a round is NEVER read as 5mmx23 or anything like that. It is ALWAYS read as 5x23mm. Look at ALL OTHER MEASUREMENTS (7.62x39mm, 5.56x45mm, etc.). The unit of measurement is NEVER read the way he said it. Ever. Caliber and millimeters are not the same thing. Caliber is inches, and millimeter is millimeter. My mention of service was a response to him saying that he studied the crap on Wikipedia or whatever. Hands-on experience > reading. That was my point. This discussion went nowhere because he's obviously too stubborn to be corrected. Smoke^{Sound off!} 02:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

kindly look on the side of an M7 or BR55 on the ground in Halo 2. Agent Tasmania 12:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Halo 2 is messed up in so many ways... (not referring to the plot which was awesome and unique).--Lol@Phailure 12:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Bungie got it wrong too. Kindly ask anyone who has dealt with firearms for more than one day, and not some guys trying to make a video game. I'll tell you just like I told him - go get hands-on experience with a firearm and then come back and try to argue the point. Quit being friggin' stubborn and do your damn research. Stop making yourself look stupid in an attempt to be right. This discussion is over. Have a nice day. Smoke^{Sound off!} 04:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to note, also - whenever a round's caliber is stated, it is the diameter of the round, in INCHES. On that, and THAT only, he is partially correct. I see what he's trying to say, but he has it a little confused. That's all I'm saying. Smoke^{Sound off!} 03:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The Calibre of a round can be stated in millimetres. Just thought I'd point that out. Molotovsniper 12:59, October 7, 2009 (UTC)

light vandalism

i removed "no longer sounding like an automatic stapler" as i feel that it was a joke and jokes are not in compliance with Wiki-standards (except un-wikis)Maiar 02:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Ejection port

"There is no ejection port due to the nature of the rounds fired."

Just wondering about this, If this is true then how do you remove rounds from an already cocked SMG (eg Jammed/ want to make the weapon safe again). Because just firing them off would not be the best of options. Wouldn't it be more likely that the charging handle is attached to an ejection port like on a SIG 552? Molotovsniper 12:59, October 7, 2009 (UTC)

It uses CASELESS ammo, it cannot jam. {{Unsigned|Ketsumaye)

if you need to empty the gun and you cant extract the round from the chamber, that could be a be a problemThedeerhunter 13:23, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

Not a failure-to-feed malfunction... but a bullet can get stuck in the barrel. As for the original question - easiest way I can think of is to disassemble the weapon and run a cleaning rod through the barrel, pushing the bullet out. Of course, having never fired a weapon using caseless rounds, I can't really say for sure, and I don't think that would be very convenient in combat. Smoke^{Sound off!} 02:20, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

Well, i think NOBODY here has ever fired a weapon that uses caseless ammo, but i know it tends to "cook off" because of the high temperatures in the chamber.Ketsumaye 03:43, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

Actual use of the smg

What I do not understand is how the SMG fits into any logical military organization. If the MA5 Is the primary weapon and the battle rifle is used as a DMR on a fire-team level, why is the SMG carried by so many regular marines (I am not talking about odsts or vehicle crews, just "line" units) Perhaps an assault/flanking team to be used in conjunction with a covering fire team? ideas?

The M7 would most likely be used by regular marines in close-quarters combat or when carrying a MA5C is less than optimal. Reasons:

1. Close-range, the only more potent weapon is the M90 Shotgun. However, the 8-gauge quad-ought loads of the M90 and the not incredibly great heft of the weapon would lead to incredible recoil. I doubt that anyone but elite troops could endure regular use of the M90, thus making the M7 the choice for regular marines. (While the M7 is hard to control, firing 3-5 round bursts would make it much easier to control)
2. It's a small weapon. Compared to the MA5C, it's a very small weapon. This makes it the choice for situations where a full-size rifle is inefficient or even a hinderance.
3. Compared to the other small weapons, notably the M6 series, it has a large ammo capacity, leading to fewer reloads.
4. Caseless ammunition leads to no hot shell casings being ejected, which means it can be used close to other marines with a much-reduced potential for injury.

-Nutarama 03:37, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

I've actually thought about this, and why so many Marines are seen using it in Halo 2 especially. I know the true purpose would be for gameplay reasons, but thinking of a reason in-universe it might be because the SMG is just easier to train on and use than the MA5. It would have lighter ammo, so you'd be able to carry more of it (although you can't do so in game which makes no sense) and there isn't too much aiming required. Remember, at this point humanity is supposed to be almost extinct, they probably just don't have the time and resources to produce too many high quality weapons like the BR and train soldiers with them.

5mm? Really Bungie, did you do NO research this time?

The M7 has massive recoil in game, the weapon quickly forcing itself towards the sky even when wielded by a spartan, but the rounds it fires are WAY too small for this. The weapon is hardly any bigger than a .22 (Compare 5x23 to 5.6x17) and should have roughly the same impulse. Keep in mind it has only 75% the rate of fire of an American-180 and 65% the mass, that should mean only roughly ~15% greater recoil... and the recoil of an American-180 is INEXISTANT.

Translation: A toddler wouldn't have an issue controlling an M7, why in the hell should a spartan?

Another thing: On the other hand, no stopping power. Even if it goes all the way through, you're looking at a hole somebody on life-support would laugh at. (~25% the size of a 10mm, or ~30% the size of the hole a 9mm would leave. That's pathetic. It could be through a lung or a major blood vessel and you wouldn't even need a doctor. You wouldn't even feel it until the adrenaline wore off.) It would have decent penetration, however. I'd wager it would go right through the typical IIA and the person wearing it. But... than what? Who cares if it goes through if it doesn't do anything when it does.

Well, that wraps up my SMG bashing for the day. 24.19.165.153 06:48, February 9, 2010 (UTC) (Avianmosquito. Sorry, I forgot to sign in.)

Recoil is dependent not on the size of the round, but on the amount (and type) of propellant used and on the weight and design of the weapon in question. As for the terminal ballistic profile (or, in your terms, stopping power)... would YOU want to get shot by a .22? Would you want to get shot by a .22 multiple times? I'd think not, and definitely not in rapid succession. The round may be small and it may not pack much punch, but it's an SMG. It's not a rifle, it's not intended to put a huge hole in you; it's intended to put a bunch of small holes in you, and if this weren't a video game, death from blood loss would result - quite quickly. Smoke^{Sound off!} 12:05, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

I actually went and did the math this time. For something with a muzzle energy somewhere in the league of 300j, with a known muzzle velocity of 427m/s (and therefore a mass of ~3.3g) we are looking at an impulse of 1.41n*s. The impulse of a .22 long rifle (JHP, 2.1g and 500m/s) is 1.05n*s. In other words, the 5*23 has a ~40% greater impulse. As such it should have 60% greater recoil overall than the American-180. The recoil of the American-180 is nil, and 60% more than nil still isn't much. Again, a toddler wouldn't have an issue.

As far as damage, I have been shot with a .22 on several occasions, once through a lung no less, and I didn't even need medical attention. Assuming it doesn't hit any vital organ or major blood vessel (and a through&through) a .22 should take 6-12 rounds to kill a human target, (.3-.6 seconds of sustained fire on-target) and even then it would take a while. Even with rounds through a lung a second or possibly even a third shot is neccesary. Unless it hits the heart or cerebellum, a single .22 simply isn't enough, and the cerebellum is a tiny target. Since the 5*23 leaves a smaller hole, it would be even less damaging. Try about 8-15 rounds. (.5-1 second of sustained fire on-target) With rounds through the lung, still expect to place up to 4. That's too many rounds over too much time. If a weapon can't reliably kill your target in one shot centre-mass it isn't a good weapon, and if it takes more than a split second of fire to reliably inflict lethal damage it isn't worth using. Avianmosquito 02:38, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe the reason Bungie did this had something to do with balancing the gun for gameplay uses, making it just a bit harder to use so that it wasn't overpowered when dual wielded. And after all, if they really wanted to make recoil accurate, they'd make the Sniper rifle jump quite a bit, or make you stagger back when you fired a rocket launcher. Template:Signature/Ghost sangheili

Actually, the rocket launcher should have fairly little recoil, its design neccesitates it being recoilless. All you should feel is a sudden shift in balance when the weapon is fired. 24.19.165.153 03:15, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion in Reach?

So far, there's been nothing about the SMG being in Halo: Reach. No pics, no mention, not even concept art. It will sadden me if it's not in Reach, and it's a pretty bad idea to take out the only weapon of its type. --FluffyEmoPenguin 01:27, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

I agree.(NoobSlayer757 01:37, April 30, 2010 (UTC))

Bungie has stated that it will not be in Reach. Due to the fact that there is no dual wielding, it would be redundant when the more powerful assault rifle fills the role. 112 01:53, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a BS reason. All they have to do is make the assault rifle have longer range and accuracy and give the SMG shorter range but kill faster. It's that simple.--FluffyEmoPenguin 17:26, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Two problems with that:

1) How the Assault Rifle Functions, it would still excel at your proposed SMG's Range

2)The Assault Rifle would be butting in on the Magnum's Range Missing Mandible 02:02, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

They could still put it in mainly for its high rate of fire. It would be the next best thing to an assault rifle, just like the plasma rifle is to the plasma repeater. Que Sera, Sera 02:08, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

How about the smg have better accuracy and rate of fire, but lesser power and range?

No reason for the SMG to be more accurate. Actually to be honest, the Halo series AR has pretty much always been an SMG in gameplay...it really would be redundant without dual wielding. Going to miss the Silenced one from ODST though, that thing was beast Flayer92 18:49, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I've actually found myself playing Halo 2 and 3 again just 'cause I missed the SMG. When I was playing it on legendary I never used it, but it's sometimes fun on heroic to use in conjunction with a longer range weapon. It would be cool to include it in rare areas, like something you would have to deliberately find in campaign and leave it out of multiplayer. This way the people who wanted to use it could, and everyone else wouldn't be confused as to two basic high ROF weapons in game. Really what I like about it though is it's 60 round mag, which is more realistic for a 5mm weapon anyways, I mean the P90 has 50 rounds.

Halo 2 magazine

Just erased the line where it said "the magazine is now the same colour of the weapon rather than being transparent", or something similar, in the "changes from halo 2 to halo 3" part, because as far as i know in both games the magazine in black, only in renders and concept art is transparent. 79.54.234.184 06:47, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

Name change

The "/" is not needed, I checked the link, the layout points to "M7" being the desgnation, while "Caseless SMG" is obiously just a discription of the weapon, like "MA5C/Assault Rifle", why they added a slash, I have no idea. Keep the "Caseless Submachine Gun" part, all of the other weapons have the name of the class in their title (BR55 Battle Rifle), but even the M7S is "M7S Caseless Submachine Gun", without the slash. Alex T Snow 04:00, 6 March 2012 (EST)