NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: Damn, I wish I had one of these! There's a video link from the article which shows this SMG on full-auto. Almost all of the rounds hit within an eight-inch center-target ... on full auto! Day-um!


GIVE ME A KRISS:
KRISS Super V Sub-Machine Gun (http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_KRISS,,00.html?ESRC=soldiertech.nl)


By David Crane
Editor, DefenseReview.com

What do you get when you cross a car wash spray nozzle with a Thompson submachine gun? No, it's not a joke. It's a new and rather unconventional .45-caliber (.45 ACP) subgun that attenuates/mitigates felt recoil and muzzle rise/climb--thus increasing controllability--on full-auto by putting the bore axis at or slightly below the centerline of the shooter's fist and forearm and combining that ergonomic aspect with a mechanical recoil attenuation/mitigation system. It's called the KRISS Super V Sub-machine gun, and it's brought to you by the good folks at Transformational Defense Industries (TDI), headquartered in Washington, D.C. That's more than a little ironic. Think about it--a select-fire (full-auto capable) small arm being developed in D.C., one of the most anti-legal-firearms-ownership/anti-Second Amendment cities in the country. Most likely, TDI's manufacturing facility is located outside the District (in an actual state, somewhere), and it would seem logical that their testing facility would be located somewhere in Virginia. We'll look into it.


TDI claims that in addition to reducing felt recoil and muzzle rise on full-auto, the KRISS's unique design...

reduces weapon weight by as much as 50%. The total number of parts (including moving parts) is supposed to also be lower, but DefRev doesn't have a parts count, yet. According to the company, the KRISS Super V subgun can be adapted to other calibers. We assume this means that 9mm (9x19mm) and .40 S&W versions are possible. The TDI website states that the KRISS prototype has already been "extensively analyzed and tested by the US Army Picatinny Arsenal" (NJ), and that the the KRISS weapons platform "has proven itself to be a major step forward that can equip the war fighters of today with the ability to deliver a large quantity of high impact rounds with the accuracy that can only come from a low-recoil, light-weight weapon."

DefenseReview will try to acquire the results of those tests, ASAP. In the meantime, we highly recommend that our readers take a look at the KRISS Super V Sub-machine gun video clip (link below). From viewing the video clip, it's DefRev's opinion that TDI needs to do a just a few things with regard to further developing the KRISS:

1) Develop a 30-round magazine, or make the KRISS compatible with Thompson 30-round box mags.

DefenseReview.com (DefRev) is an online tactical technology magazine that focuses on advanced tactical armament, tactical equipment/gear (including combat/tactical camouflage technology), and tactical training/instruction for military infantry forces. DefenseReview.com strives to provide the most up-to-date information on law enforcement (LE) SWAT/SRT and military Special Operations (infantry)/Special Warfare (SPECWAR) technology developments as quickly as we learn about them.

2) Redesign and elongate the magwell so it can be used as a vertical foregrip, or design an actual vertical foregrip (fixed or folding) for the weapon. If a folding vertical foregrip is designed, it must be sturdy/robust. If a separate vertical foregrip is added, the barrel will most likely have to be lengthened slightly. Without a vertical foregrip, the firing method employed by the test shooters in the TDI video clip looks just a wee-bit dangerous for the shooter, as the support hand must be placed awfully close to the muzzle during full-auto fire. It just doesn't look safe to us. A robust vertical foregrip would provide for a much more secure (and thus safer) hold. It would also allow the KRISS to be used as a less-lethal blunt impact weapon for CQB/CQC (Close Quarters Battel/Close Quarters Combat), where lethal force isn't necessarily required.

3) Reduce the weapon's cyclic rate/rate-of-fire (ROF) a bit.

We have to be honest--DefenseReview can't wait to get our hands on this rather handy-looking package as soon as we possibly can. Unless the company's video clip is deceiving, it just has to be fun to shoot. It's just too weird-looking not to be.

http://www.defensereview.com/kriss/KRISS_Large.jpg

It's still just a SMG. And 45 ACP is really heavy ammunition.

Odd looking little thing, isn't it?

Owie, Owie, Owie! I want one! :mp5: :D

http://www.defensereview.com/kriss/KRISS_Large.jpg

It's still just a SMG. And 45 ACP is really heavy ammunition.
Well, if you really want to go for light with a high ROF just use .22lr. Works extremely well at short to short-medium distances. At those distances it's insanely accurate to. Works well against body armor unless it's Class IV or Class III with ballistic plate simply because there are so many shots hitting the same target.

Cool :cool:

Looks odd. I don't think that thing is comfortable to fire. Not safe either, as the review itself notes.

.45 is also an odd choice of caliber. There's a reason why .45 weapons are not used by virtually anyone outside of the US. Heavy, takes way too much magazine space, penetration not so good. Besides, SMGs have very limited use in modern warfare, when assault rifles are becoming as compact as the M4 or the H&K 53.

http://www.defensereview.com/kriss/KRISS_Large.jpg

It's still just a SMG. And 45 ACP is really heavy ammunition.
Well, if you really want to go for light with a high ROF just use .22lr. Works extremely well at short to short-medium distances. At those distances it's insanely accurate to. Works well against body armor unless it's Class IV or Class III with ballistic plate simply because there are so many shots hitting the same target.

Looks odd. I don't think that thing is comfortable to fire. Not safe either, as the review itself notes.

.45 is also an odd choice of caliber. There's a reason why .45 weapons are not used by virtually anyone outside of the US. Heavy, takes way too much magazine space, penetration not so good. Besides, SMGs have very limited use in modern warfare, when assault rifles are becoming as compact as the M4 or the H&K 53.

The P90 is even more compact, and fires a round that penetrates body armor.

Still shorter range than a typical assault rifle, but a lot more ammunition in a small form factor.

Looks odd. I don't think that thing is comfortable to fire. Not safe either, as the review itself notes.

.45 is also an odd choice of caliber. There's a reason why .45 weapons are not used by virtually anyone outside of the US. Heavy, takes way too much magazine space, penetration not so good. Besides, SMGs have very limited use in modern warfare, when assault rifles are becoming as compact as the M4 or the H&K 53.
Did you watch the video?

http://www.defensereview.com/kriss/KRISS_Large.jpg

It's still just a SMG. And 45 ACP is really heavy ammunition.
Um ... that's part of the entire point. :p

The P90 is even more compact, and fires a round that penetrates body armor.

Still shorter range than a typical assault rifle, but a lot more ammunition in a small form factor.
P90 is a PDW, I'd say it is a different class of weapon. SMGs are pistol caliber weapons used mostly when compact size and low penetration is required- C/T kind of scenarios.

Besides, the P90's 50 round magazines are slower to change, I believe, and not much of an advantage over a 40 round magazine the M4 can be fitted with (not to mention the new Russian "fat" 60- rounders for AK I've recently heard about.

Eytrusca- no, I couldn't watch the video.

Um ... that's part of the entire point. :p

Speaking from personal experience, if I had to carry a weapon, I would make it a rifle.

I only carry a pistol nowadays because it's a little frightening (but not illegal) to walk around with a rifle here.

As a soldier, I would want a rifle.

Speaking from personal experience, if I had to carry a weapon, I would make it a rifle.

I only carry a pistol nowadays because it's a little frightening (but not illegal) to walk around with a rifle here.

As a soldier, I would want a rifle.
I carried a Swedish "K" 9 mm SMG and either an M-16 or an AK-47 in Vietnam. One for distance, and one for up close and personal. I also carried a massive Bowie knife, but that's another story. :D

I carried a Swedish "K" 9 mm SMG and either an M-16 or an AK-47 An AK? I thought they were used by the North Vietnamese :confused:

An AK? I thought they were used by the North Vietnamese :confused:
It was common for US troops to pick one up and use it.

Only one problem - the tracer is green instead of red and can make US soldiers nearby want to shoot at you - and it sounds like an AK, not an M-16, which also causes the same problem.

It was common for US troops to pick one up and use it.

Only one problem - the tracer is green instead of red and can make US soldiers nearby want to shoot at you - and it sounds like an AK, not an M-16, which also causes the same problem. With those kinds of problems, why was it used? Was it due to soldiers losing their weapons and needing an alternative?

With those kinds of problems, why was it used? Was it due to soldiers losing their weapons and needing an alternative?

i think it was because at the time the AK was a better weapon. Could take all the dirt and grit the jungle could throw at it. while the m16 would jam easily.

With those kinds of problems, why was it used? Was it due to soldiers losing their weapons and needing an alternative?

At the time, before the introduction of the forward assist on the M-16, the issuance of cleaning kits, the change in ammunition powder, and the chrome lining of the chamber and barrel, the M-16 was notoriously unreliable especially in wet climates.

Like Vietnam.

The current models are very reliable. But an AK has always been very, very reliable. Inaccurate, but very reliable.

I especially like the optimistic sights on an AK.

an AK has always been very, very reliable. Inaccurate, but very reliable.
Rumor has it they have improved a great deal. The AK-100 series, especially the 101 in 5.56 NATO is rumored to be pretty accurate. Not quite like the M16A2, but still.

I think part of the problem was the ammo. 7.62 Russian doesn't have the flat trajectory of the NATO calibers, and is not as consistent in quality.


I especially like the optimistic sights on an AK.
:D

Rumor has it they have improved a great deal. The AK-100 series, especially the 101 in 5.56 NATO is rumored to be pretty accurate. Not quite like the M16A2, but still.

I think part of the problem was the ammo. 7.62 Russian doesn't have the flat trajectory of the NATO calibers, and is not as consistent in quality.

:D

The problem I have is that the AK doesn't use peep sights, which as iron sights go, are far more accurate than a front sight and rear notch.

Better yet is the US trend for sights like the ACOG and EOTech - which whip ass day or night.

The problem I have is that the AK doesn't use peep sights, which as iron sights go, are far more accurate than a front sight and rear notch.

Better yet is the US trend for sights like the ACOG and EOTech - which whip ass day or night.
The Russians use a Kobra red dot sight now. Although iron sights on AK indeed sucked, suck and will continue to suck.

An AK? I thought they were used by the North Vietnamese :confused:
They were, but we went into some really nasty areas when I was in Counterinsurgency Operations, and you could immerse the AK in mud and then fire it. The M-16 wasn't nearly that forgiving.

With those kinds of problems, why was it used? Was it due to soldiers losing their weapons and needing an alternative?
In my units, lose your weapon = lose yer ass! :mad:

That's a strange looking little gun.For that reason alone i want one.

oh yes, the AK-47 probably was a major contributor to the collapse of the soviet economy. not many groups would buy the AK-74 when there are so many used ak-47s that work just as well.

oh yes, the AK-47 probably was a major contributor to the collapse of the soviet economy. not many groups would buy the AK-74 when there are so many used ak-47s that work just as well.
Never thought of it that way before. Makes sense, though. :)