RE: IM Guns?

["Eric Benson" <ebenson@xxxxxxxx>]

> It "looks" interesting...  I can actually see some
> interesting advantage in weapon balance.

I'll start with... my response isn't a flame.

The guns look like they were designed by a well-meaning, but clueless game
designer to fill a non-existent tactical need.  If it wasn't for the tooled
prototypes, I'd suspect it was from an RPG page.

If we look at submachine gun development post-WWII, what have we seen?
Designers flirted with higher rate of fires during the late 1960's (Ingram
MAC-10) and 1970's (Micro Uzi).  If anything, we have seen a standardization
on lower rates (500 - 600 RPM) and burst fire capability.  New designs
stress ergonomics (ambidextrous, etc) and accuracy (three round burst,
reflex sights) over the lead hose theory.

Two recent designs, the FN P90 and the H&K PDW2000, have gone to alternative
high velocity cartridges for increased armor penetration.  Teams have
increasingly moved away from pistol caliber weapons to short barreled rifles
(M4, etc).

Given the trends, where does the IM M4 (and the others in the line fit)?

Ergonomics: From the images, not great.  Straight line grips, cocking lever
reciprocates with the bolt
Weight: Heavy at 8 lbs
Stock: Pressed sheet metal folding stocks aren't noted for their support.
Tactical role: Non-existent need for a heavier pistol caliber submachine gun
with an increased rate of fire
Minimal room to add a sound suppressor