Why are people hating on the UMP's so much?

[AGG]

I don’t understand the fuss either. It’s a good gun, got two in .45 and one in 9mm. It’s very light until loaded and blowback while a bit dated, works well. No probs with the CZ Scorpion.
However, in FA the MP series makes a substantial difference in holding on target. Semi, not so much.
If only there was an MP5 in .45ACP. That would rock both worlds.............

6900 grains of whoop-@$$

There is--- just not "factory".
Excellent CQB and setup.

Tony

 

[Guyanaman1963]

I would love a MP5 .45. That is actually my dream gun... unfortunately there the price tag!
M.

 

[Omega21]

There is--- just not "factory".

Tony

Really? That's awesome! Is it like a TSC or one of the other makers?
@flybynt I've shot all my Teufelshund Tactical courses with the irons on the UMP and actually prefer that. I upgraded the front sight to XS and love it. I have been convinced by others to shoot my next class with a RDS so I can finally "see the light".

As far as the comments on having the recoil buffered like B&T and Kris, I agree with their effectiveness. I think those are elegant solutions applied by thoughtful engineers. I think with the UMP HK was like "make it cheap" and that was the key engineering principle. I don't think the mid-90s was a particularly good time for HK development given how badly they read the direction LEOs were moving.

 

[flybynt]

I think with the UMP HK was like "make it cheap" and that was the key engineering principle.

This is how the poor unloved UMP feels with all that internet hate.

 

[Guyanaman1963]

You cant do that to Captain Kirk!!! You cant I tell ya.... you cant!
M.

 

[AGG]

Really? That's awesome! Is it like a TSC or one of the other makers?
@flybynt I've shot all my Teufelshund Tactical courses with the irons on the UMP and actually prefer that. I upgraded the front sight to XS and love it. I have been convinced by others to shoot my next class with a RDS so I can finally "see the light".

As far as the comments on having the recoil buffered like B&T and Kris, I agree with their effectiveness. I think those are elegant solutions applied by thoughtful engineers. I think with the UMP HK was like "make it cheap" and that was the key engineering principle. I don't think the mid-90s was a particularly good time for HK development given how badly they read the direction LEOs were moving.

Vollmer.

Tony

 

[flybynt]

You cant do that to Captain Kirk!!! You cant I tell ya.... you cant!
M.

Didn't you ever see the episode "Plato's Stepchildren? Parmen made kirk beat himself. But the song Alexander sings and how it ends is so weird so its worth a mention now that I'm thinking about the espisode.

(Alexander is entertaining his master by singing whist playing a lyre.)
ALEXANDER: Great Pan sounds his horn. Marking time to the rhyme with his hoof, with his hoof. Forward, forward in our plan. We proceed as we began.
(Kirk enters. Alexander sings in Greek from Aristophanes' The Frogs.)
ALEXANDER: βρεκεκεκεξ κοαξ κοαξ
(Pronounced bre-ke-ke-kex, ko-ax, ko-ax.)

I got the text from the script transcript snippet above from here jic anybody cares
http://www.chakoteya.net/StarTrek/67.htm

 

[Guyanaman1963]

Didn't you ever see the episode "Plato's Stepchildren? Parmen made kirk beat himself. But the song Alexander sings and how it ends is so weird so its worth a mention now that I'm thinking about the espisode.

(Alexander is entertaining his master by singing whist playing a lyre.)
ALEXANDER: Great Pan sounds his horn. Marking time to the rhyme with his hoof, with his hoof. Forward, forward in our plan. We proceed as we began.
(Kirk enters. Alexander sings in Greek from Aristophanes' The Frogs.)
ALEXANDER: βρεκεκεκεξ κοαξ κοαξ
(Pronounced bre-ke-ke-kex, ko-ax, ko-ax.)

I got the text from the script transcript snippet above from here jic anybody cares
http://www.chakoteya.net/StarTrek/67.htm

I gre up watching Star Trek and yes I remember that episode well... not necessarily the lyrics but I remember the “Kiss”
Glad to see I’m not alone with addiction in all things!!!!
M.

 

[U.S. Praetorian]

Didn't you ever see the episode "Plato's Stepchildren? Parmen made kirk beat himself. But the song Alexander sings and how it ends is so weird so its worth a mention now that I'm thinking about the espisode.

(Alexander is entertaining his master by singing whist playing a lyre.)
ALEXANDER: Great Pan sounds his horn. Marking time to the rhyme with his hoof, with his hoof. Forward, forward in our plan. We proceed as we began.
(Kirk enters. Alexander sings in Greek from Aristophanes' The Frogs.)
ALEXANDER: βρεκεκεκεξ κοαξ κοαξ
(Pronounced bre-ke-ke-kex, ko-ax, ko-ax.)

I got the text from the script transcript snippet above from here jic anybody cares
http://www.chakoteya.net/StarTrek/67.htm

You know art is supposed to imitate life not life to imitate art. The episode “patterns of force” is what is happening right now in our country on multiple levels. From the figurehead leader to who the Nazis are, scary. I’m not the only one obviously that can see this.

 

[AGG]

You know art is supposed to imitate life not life to imitate art. The episode “patterns of force” is what is happening right now in our country on multiple levels. From the figurehead leader to who the Nazis are, scary. I’m not the only one obviously that can see this.

John Gill has risen.

Tony

 

[flybynt]

You know art is supposed to imitate life not life to imitate art. The episode “patterns of force” is what is happening right now in our country on multiple levels. From the figurehead leader to who the Nazis are, scary. I’m not the only one obviously that can see this.
View attachment 2458

You are so right on its scarry!

 

[Omega21]

I'm with you all on both Star Trek and the figurehead

 

[Guyanaman1963]

I have always been a Star Trek fan... grew up with it and didn’t catch all of the underlying issues of society that was addressed.
As I grew older, I understood a bit more and then a bit more... and then some more.
In the episode let that be your last battlefield, covers a 50,000 years chase because someone was different...
I think it was cutting edge for the time!!!!
M.

 

[AGG]

I have always been a Star Trek fan... grew up with it and didn’t catch all of the underlying issues of society that was addressed.
As I grew older, I understood a bit more and then a bit more... and then some more.
In the episode let that be your last battlefield, covers a 50,000 years chase because someone was different...
I think it was cutting edge for the time!!!!
M.

A lot of "firsts" for such an early series.

Tony

 

[LEMming]

I think one of the reasons behind why the UMP / USC platform gets such a bad wrap is similar to why a lot of other platforms do as well. People seem to view them through the lens of something else as opposed to assessing it on its own merits. They measure based on the MP5, because it is the gold standard (Surprise! Nothing measures up! LOL). A CZ Scorpion because of the price difference (let's be honest, the USC is a $1K gun too, we just effectively pay a "luxury tax" because of .GOV reasons). A B&T because, well, they're cool and new!

The way I look at the platform, at the time when they were produced they were a great next step in the evolution of the SMG / PCC genre. We had other glimpses of this in the 90's to early 2000's in the form of things like the Steyr TMP / SPP, FN P90, MP7, etc. Yes, of course the UMP is blowback. However, think of the simplicity of design and construction that allows. The upper is downright simple. No pressing/folding and precision welding + dealing with roller sizing to ensure proper lockup. Just a big chunk of steel on a big recoil rod. Also, the ejector and extractor; stupid simple and cheap to produce. Anyways, they're effectively a Glock 17 in SMG form in my opinion, and beautiful for similar reasons. Simple, theoretically cheap and easy to maintain, modern accessory mounting methods, somewhat modular, etc. Not without their warts, but a great attempt at updating what an SMG was at the time. They look cool too, and that certainly counts for something!

Deficiencies? In my mind, the stock attachment method is one. I would have much preferred a dual pushpin rear cap or insert sort of like the MP5, so there's no worry of cracking the receiver. The sights are of course another, although at least they're simple and always open for aftermarket improvement. Personally, I'd prefer the front hooks on the lower have been fully enclosed for added durability. The trigger is definitely a big issue (pretty atrocious)! Yes, recoil isn't great, but it's not a big deal either. At the end of the day, measuring against the MP5 is like judging every streetcar against a 911 GT3 RS; you're NEVER going to find enjoyment in life!

I think it's a testament to the platform that the UMP is a 20-25yr old design when you really think about it. If you set aside the obvious issue of price, what do some of these newer platforms really have over this enough to make these obsolete? In my opinion, not much beyond price.

 

[AGG]

I think one of the reasons behind why the UMP / USC platform gets such a bad wrap is similar to why a lot of other platforms do as well. People seem to view them through the lens of something else as opposed to assessing it on its own merits. They measure based on the MP5, because it is the gold standard (Surprise! Nothing measures up! LOL). A CZ Scorpion because of the price difference (let's be honest, the USC is a $1K gun too, we just effectively pay a "luxury tax" because of .GOV reasons). A B&T because, well, they're cool and new!

The way I look at the platform, at the time when they were produced they were a great next step in the evolution of the SMG / PCC genre. We had other glimpses of this in the 90's to early 2000's in the form of things like the Steyr TMP / SPP, FN P90, MP7, etc. Yes, of course the UMP is blowback. However, think of the simplicity of design and construction that allows. The upper is downright simple. No pressing/folding and precision welding + dealing with roller sizing to ensure proper lockup. Just a big chunk of steel on a big recoil rod. Also, the ejector and extractor; stupid simple and cheap to produce. Anyways, they're effectively a Glock 17 in SMG form in my opinion, and beautiful for similar reasons. Simple, theoretically cheap and easy to maintain, modern accessory mounting methods, somewhat modular, etc. Not without their warts, but a great attempt at updating what an SMG was at the time. They look cool too, and that certainly counts for something!

Deficiencies? In my mind, the stock attachment method is one. I would have much preferred a dual pushpin rear cap or insert sort of like the MP5, so there's no worry of cracking the receiver. The sights are of course another, although at least they're simple and always open for aftermarket improvement. Personally, I'd prefer the front hooks on the lower have been fully enclosed for added durability. The trigger is definitely a big issue (pretty atrocious)! Yes, recoil isn't great, but it's not a big deal either. At the end of the day, measuring against the MP5 is like judging every streetcar against a 911 GT3 RS; you're NEVER going to find enjoyment in life!

I think it's a testament to the platform that this thing below is a 20-25yr old design when you really think about it. If you set aside the obvious issue of price, what do some of these newer platforms really have over this enough to make these obsolete? In my opinion, not much beyond price.

TBT upper, FBI 2 position lower, MM bolt + barrel, SL8 front sight, KDG Sidelok quick release RMR mount with a Holosun 509T and the factory RMR adapter.

Nice assessment and CQB and setup.

Tony

 

[Omega21]

The UMP was designed in 1996 with two concepts at the forefront:

1. Make it .45. The MP5 chassis can't handle .45 so they had to start from scratch (not really scratch, they had lots of knowledge gained on where they wanted to go via the SMGI, SMGII, MP5 PIP and MP2000 programs which all aimed at what would replace the MP5). Recall in early/mid 90s mil & LEO were all switching to .45 (e.g. MK23 for USSOCOM, FBI HRT 7 other SWAT teams going 1911, HK designing 1911 for Delta). According to Jim Schatz and Peter Kokalis there was also substantial non-US interest in a .45 SMG. We don't need to get into a discussion here about how HK missed the boat on how everyone was really transitioning to/wanting short barreled 5.56 platforms not SMGs - that's a whole separate topic.

2. Cost effectiveness. LEO was a big target consumer. In the 90s US PDs were highly budget constrained and HK banked on not just the attraction of a .45 cal SMG, but on it's low price. Going all polymer in the chassis and many fire control parts, and abandoning the expensive roller delayed system in favor of blowback, made it so a UMP could be had for $850-$900 per unit in May of 1999 when they first "hit the streets". At that time a MP5/40A3 would set a police department back $1500 - what's that? About a 50% difference? Also, the cost of ownership on a UMP vs a MP5 (parts maint & replacement) was much cheaper.

Comparing the UMP to the MP5 is futile. It's like comparing an Audi A8 to a Toyota Camry.

Also, I'm not sure what everyone is complaining about with the trigger. It's plastic parts on plastic parts. You guys all got spoiled shooting your tricked out 1911s.

 

[Guyanaman1963]

I love me some “tricked out” 1911’s... nothing better in my opinion!!!!
But... I really want a UMP!
I just cant bring myself to cannibalize a perfectly good USC just for the receiver. I realize its “JUST” a USC, but no matter what anyone does, it will NEVER be a anything but a “Clone”... albeit as close as you can get... but still a clone.
So I’m not a purist and really admire seeing the HK UMP logo on the conversions... but I just cant do it... maybe I’m just poor... or just plain old cheap... but I cant bring myself to do it!

Like I said... I want one... so a parts kit (when the price comes down) and a TBT receiver will be in my future... or maybe buy one from a purist who is trying to Sell his?

M.

 

[AGG]

The UMP was designed in 1996 with two concepts at the forefront:

1. Make it .45. The MP5 chassis can't handle .45 so they had to start from scratch (not really scratch, they had lots of knowledge gained on where they wanted to go via the SMGI, SMGII, MP5 PIP and MP2000 programs which all aimed at what would replace the MP5). Recall in early/mid 90s mil & LEO were all switching to .45 (e.g. MK23 for USSOCOM, FBI HRT 7 other SWAT teams going 1911, HK designing 1911 for Delta). According to Jim Schatz and Peter Kokalis there was also substantial non-US interest in a .45 SMG. We don't need to get into a discussion here about how HK missed the boat on how everyone was really transitioning to/wanting short barreled 5.56 platforms not SMGs - that's a whole separate topic.

2. Cost effectiveness. LEO was a big target consumer. In the 90s US PDs were highly budget constrained and HK banked on not just the attraction of a .45 cal SMG, but on it's low price. Going all polymer in the chassis and many fire control parts, and abandoning the expensive roller delayed system in favor of blowback, made it so a UMP could be had for $850-$900 per unit in May of 1999 when they first "hit the streets". At that time a MP5/40A3 would set a police department back $1500 - what's that? About a 50% difference? Also, the cost of ownership on a UMP vs a MP5 (parts maint & replacement) was much cheaper.

Comparing the UMP to the MP5 is futile. It's like comparing an Audi A8 to a Toyota Camry.

Also, I'm not sure what everyone is complaining about with the trigger. It's plastic parts on plastic parts. You guys all got spoiled shooting your tricked out 1911s.

Great explanation.

Tony

 

[copdoc]

I like steel triggers.