Once everybody is in trenches and HMG are deployed way above 1914 practice things change in the western front. But not on the eastern front. With Lewis and BAR issued to platoons rifle fire looses importance. But in the Russian Civil War rifles made more sense as an individual weapon.
200m is on the extreme end for SMGs, but I'd still take it over a bolt action rifle at that distance assuming i have a sight for it. Really, I'd take a 10/22 over a bolt gun out to 300 m, at least that way you get more than one shot, which is generally more important for making hits in combat than the performance of the cartridge itself. Even if you're not getting hits, the fact that people can reliably shoot at that distance in target environments to me indicates they could at least have some suppressive effect. An SMG can flip up his 200 m hail mary aperture and probably get 4-5 rounds close to the target in the time a rifleman can get one shot off. Combined with covering fire from HMGs, the rifleman is going to have a very hard time getting a good shot in the brief window of exposure, especially since the standard of accuracy on these rifles was appalling by modern standards, with 4+ MOA being perfectly acceptable. With a bolt gun in combat conditions, with bullets and shrapnel flying everywhere and conscript level marksmanship, anything past 100 m is a hail mary shot, so it's really a question of how many are coming your way vs the enemy.
Again it depends on what you count as an SMG. For the standard WW2 SMG that was too far to be effective. There was an account I read by a German sniper on the Eastern front in 1944 who was caught in the open by a Soviet SMG equipped soldier who engaged him first at 200m, but despite throwing bursts of fire at him couldn't hit him and the sniper took him out with his first shot. No suppression of the sniper at all. At 200m flat firing weapons will win hands down. Which is why SMGs went the way of the dodo outside of specific niches and assault rifles took over as the general infantry weapon.
I have some doubts that large scale production of smg's along with large numbers of reliable and interchangeable magazines would have been easy prior to World War One. I've read several accounts of issues in the World War One era with getting magazines to interchange amongst different firearms of the same type.
Didn't end in WWI
Practically yes, but IIRC Europeans refused to use them in combat because they were considered similar to using dum-dum bullets.
An experienced sniper with a telescopic sight on his more-accurate-than-normal rifle is in a whole different class from the average Fritz or Ivan with their garbage rods; when they're under HMG+artillery fire, they'd probably struggle to hit anything with laser rifles. I definitely agree SMGs don't really have a place anymore now that we have good assault rifle carbines with ~10" barrels and 77 gr 5.56. Even their suppressed niche is crumbling now that we have good subsonic 300 BLK. The assault rifle is pretty much the perfect use of modern firearms technology, combining the best of both worlds between the rifle and SMG, but for most combat situations in conscript army wars, I think the SMG is decidedly the superior weapon to the bolt action rifle. There are some situations where I'll concede the rifle has some advantages, like long range shooting on open terrain, but I think this is more than balanced out by the overwhelming firepower advantage of the SMG in i.e. woods, trenches, broken terrain, and urban environments.
True... That being said my understanding is that by world war 2 box magazines were typically more or less interchangeable (but I suspect there are examples to be found that would contradict that.)
Within 100m yes, outside of that the ballistics of SMGs really drop off hard and that leaves them at a fatal disadvantage by about 150m.
Yep... I came to a similar conclusion when I was choosing between a bolt action rifle and a pump action shotgun for possible close range wilderness self defense (against animals.) I just didn't want to have to mess with a bolt action in that type of setting
Some disadvantages are more fatal than others; I'd argue that being completely screwed at close range is worse than having the disadvantage at long range, especially since heavier weapons that bridge the gap at long range (HMGs and divisional artillery) aren't as useful close-in.
Sure, when an SMG was available, but that was tough given the production methods of the day. Plus in WW1 outside of a specific window due to communications divisional artillery had a hard time supporting troops and even HMGs did too with offensives due to their weight and range and aforementioned communications issues. WW2 made things a lot easier all around, but I'm still going to say that a small light bullet in something like the WSL rifle was the most likely option pre-WW1.
Hush, don't you know rifles shut down at a certain range?
I don't think the bolt gun user is completely screwed at close range but IMHO having to use what is likely your strong hand to work the bolt for follow up shots is not a great feature in that setting.
What about production methods would have made SMGs difficult to mass issue? I will say, an intermediate caliber carbine is better than an SMG, I just thought it was maybe asking too much to have them going to war with STGs and M2 Carbines in 1914. SMGs just appeal because simple blowback open bolt subguns are like the easiest automatic firearm to manufacture to my knowledge. I would rank it as intermediate carbine > SMG > bolt gun.
STGs in WW1 is a no go, but something like the WSL isn't. Anything though is going to be mostly hand built, as stamped metal technology wasn't there yet at least for firearms.
With a small modification, John Browning made an 1873 fully automatic in 1890
