XCR Forum banner
1 - 20 of 65 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,339 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,623 Posts
That pretty damn interesting,It seems I have heard of such conversions before.I will modify my original statement to the point of this:The M1 carbine intended(I believe it was) or not was conceptually the first attempt at a PDW.I'll not argue whether the attempt was successful or not... ;D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,339 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
With 6,000,000+ M1 carbines produced, I guess it could be rated at least moderately successful. ;) ;D

Personally, I don't consider carbines -- even short-barreled variants like the 5.56mm Mk18 and 6mm KAC -- to be true PDWs, because they're too big and heavy to be worn on the person constantly. IMO, a true PDW needs to be sufficiently compact and lightweight for practical holster carry.

So, I think I'd have to view holster-stocked pistols and machine pistols like the Browning Hi-Power and Mauser Schnellfeuer as the earliest -- albeit less than satisfactory -- attempts at PDWs.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
325 Posts
When I see PDW I think of HK's MP5 PDW, personal defense weapon, the one that can go in the special briefcase with the outside trigger setup.....




 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,623 Posts
With 6,000,000+ M1 carbines produced, I guess it could be rated at least moderately successful.
I didn't mean it's success in general as a design,I meant as an attempt at a successful PDW.
Personally, I don't consider carbines -- even short-barreled variants like the 5.56mm Mk18 and 6mm KAC -- to be true PDWs, because they're too big and heavy to be worn on the person constantly.
I completely agree.
IMO, a true PDW needs to be sufficiently compact and lightweight for practical holster carry.

So, I think I'd have to view holster-stocked pistols and machine pistols like the Browning Hi-Power and Mauser Schnellfeuer as the earliest -- albeit less than satisfactory -- attempts at PDWs.
I believe that your right about those early firearms being an attempt at such is correct(you might throw the Luger with the shoulder stock and snail drum mag in there too) However I don't think a modern PDW should use a pistol cartridge because of limited range and body armor penetration,which if I'm not mistaken were NATO requirements.Here's what Wikipedia says a PDW is:
"A personal defense weapon (often abbreviated PDW) is a compact semi-automatic or fully-automatic firearm similar in most respects to a submachine gun, but firing an armor-piercing round (often proprietary) which gives a PDW better range, accuracy and damage capability than a submachine gun firing pistol-caliber cartridges.
The class of weapon as it exists today evolved from the submachine gun as a hybrid between an submachine gun and a carbine, retaining the compact size and ammunition capacity of the former while adding the ammunition power, accuracy and penetration of the latter."
In my opinion it's spot on.I know Wikipedia cannot be considered an absolute as to it's accuracy,but in this case it fit's my idea of how a PDW should be defined.
As per our discussion of the M1 carbine they also submit that it was one of the first weapons of this evolution,and before you ask,I didn't get the idea from them either.The 30 carbine cartridge given it's power/velocity being in between an "assault rifle" round and a pistol or submachinegun round ,fit into what we would consider today as a PDW cartridge.Obviously select fire,a shorter barrel and a folding stock would make it fit the definition pretty well.The only other requirement that the PDW needs is body armor penetration.I'm not sure how the 30 carbine fmj load would perform on body armor,but I'm sure given the proper bullet type(spitzer tip,with a steel penetrator core)It would probably be more than adequate for some body armor types.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,339 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
IMO, a true PDW needs to be sufficiently compact and lightweight for practical holster carry.

So, I think I'd have to view holster-stocked pistols and machine pistols like the Browning Hi-Power and Mauser Schnellfeuer as the earliest -- albeit less than satisfactory -- attempts at PDWs.
I believe that your right about those early firearms being an attempt at such is correct(you might throw the Luger with the shoulder stock and snail drum mag in there too)
Certainly the Luger would qualify, as would a number of other handguns of the period. In the interest of brevity, I just mentioned a couple of examples.
However I don't think a modern PDW should use a pistol cartridge because of limited range and body armor penetration,which if I'm not mistaken were NATO requirements.
Here's why I consider pistol ammo to be a viable option:

PDWs are secondary weapons for tank crewmen, aviators, and other personnel whose primary duty does not require them to function as riflemen. They are unlikely to receive anywhere near as much training and practice with small arms as do infantry squad members. Based on personal experience and observation, I'd expect the typical PDW user would be able to consistenly hit only to about 50 meters, maybe 100 meters at best. Indeed, early editions of the US Army's Small Arms Master Plan (SAMP) specified a high probability of a hit only out to 100 meters. Pistol ammo is quite adequate for such distances.

The ability to defeat body armor was also a goal of the SAMP, although it did not specify what type of body armor. IIRC, the NATO (CRISAT) requirement was based on the titanium/Kevlar armor that the Soviets were expected to field. The CRISAT armor requirement may be obsolete; I think I recall reading somewhere that the Russkis are not using it, and probably won't in the future. I've heard no instances of our current opponents in Iraq and Afghanistan using any type of body armor, so for the current fight, pistol ammo would suffice.

If body armor is a valid concern for possible future conflicts, and if the CRISAT armor is no longer a threat, then that leaves Kevlar-type soft armor and Interceptor-type hard armor. Soft armor and Kevlar helmets can be defeated by steel-core and other 9mm ammo (See Testing the War Weapons: Rifles And Light Machine Guns, by Timothy Mullins), so a pistol caliber would be adequate for that problem. As for hard armor, the PDW rounds (5.7mm FN and 4.6mm HK) created for the CRISAT requirement can't penetrate hard body armor any better than 9mm NATO. For that matter, 5.56mm NATO Ball (and KAC's 6mm TSWG) is stopped by hard armor, too.

Anyway, that's why I think a pistol caliber would be quite capable of meeting realistic PDW requirements.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
264 Posts
I was under the impression that true 5.7 ammo could defeat most body armor out there and that is what the P90 was specifically designed for.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,623 Posts
Here's why I consider pistol ammo to be a viable option:

PDWs are secondary weapons for tank crewmen, aviators, and other personnel whose primary duty does not require them to function as riflemen. They are unlikely to receive anywhere near as much training and practice with small arms as do infantry squad members. Based on personal experience and observation, I'd expect the typical PDW user would be able to consistenly hit only to about 50 meters, maybe 100 meters at best. Indeed, early editions of the US Army's Small Arms Master Plan (SAMP) specified a high probability of a hit only out to 100 meters. Pistol ammo is quite adequate for such distances.

The ability to defeat body armor was also a goal of the SAMP, although it did not specify what type of body armor. IIRC, the NATO (CRISAT) requirement was based on the titanium/Kevlar armor that the Soviets were expected to field. The CRISAT armor requirement may be obsolete; I think I recall reading somewhere that the Russkis are not using it, and probably won't in the future. I've heard no instances of our current opponents in Iraq and Afghanistan using any type of body armor, so for the current fight, pistol ammo would suffice.

If body armor is a valid concern for possible future conflicts, and if the CRISAT armor is no longer a threat, then that leaves Kevlar-type soft armor and Interceptor-type hard armor. Soft armor and Kevlar helmets can be defeated by steel-core and other 9mm ammo (See Testing the War Weapons: Rifles And Light Machine Guns, by Timothy Mullins), so a pistol caliber would be adequate for that problem. As for hard armor, the PDW rounds (5.7mm FN and 4.6mm HK) created for the CRISAT requirement can't penetrate hard body armor any better than 9mm NATO. For that matter, 5.56mm NATO Ball (and KAC's 6mm TSWG) is stopped by hard armor, too.

Anyway, that's why I think a pistol caliber would be quite capable of meeting realistic PDW requirements.
I agree with damn near all of what your saying,except because it fires a pistol cartridge,it's still a submachinegun... ;D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,339 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
I was under the impression that true 5.7 ammo could defeat most body armor out there and that is what the P90 was specifically designed for.
I don't know if there are any sources on the web that could be cited as references, but the info I've collected over the past 15+ years is that CRISAT (Soviet) and soft body armor is what the P90 was designed to defeat. According to a brochure that FN Herstal sent me, the 5.7mm SS190 round will punch through more than 48 layers of Kevlar @ 150 meters. H&K literature comparing MP7 and P90 shows that the 5.7mm round will defeat CRISAT armor (1.6mm titanium plate and 20 layers of Kevlar) at 140 meters.

The bullet is simply too light and too slow to penetrate Interceptor-type hard armor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
264 Posts
I was under the impression that true 5.7 ammo could defeat most body armor out there and that is what the P90 was specifically designed for.
I don't know if there are any sources on the web that could be cited as references, but the info I've collected over the past 15+ years is that CRISAT (Soviet) and soft body armor is what the P90 was designed to defeat. According to a brochure that FN Herstal sent me, the 5.7mm SS190 round will punch through more than 48 layers of Kevlar @ 150 meters. H&K literature comparing MP7 and P90 shows that the 5.7mm round will defeat CRISAT armor (1.6mm titanium plate and 20 layers of Kevlar) at 140 meters.

The bullet is simply too light and too slow to penetrate Interceptor-type hard armor.
When you say "interceptor-type hard body armor" are we talking something along the lines of lvl 4 rated at .308. Just curious
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,339 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
When you say "interceptor-type hard body armor" are we talking something along the lines of lvl 4 rated at .308. Just curious
I don't know what level it's rated at, but the armor plate used by the U.S. military to protect the torso will stop commonly-used bullets in rifle calibers such as 5.45x39, 5.56x45, 7.62x39, 7.62x51 and 7.62x54R. Here's an old video of a G.I. hit in the chest plate (by a 7.62x54R, presumably):
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
568 Posts
IMHO M1 Carbine is still a valid PDW platform. I believe it to be the at the large limit of size though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,623 Posts
Yea the M1 carbine was a new an interesting idea at the time,not entirely new,but more(I think) conceptually in line with what we today would consider a PDW.Unlike some of the Machine pistols like myself and Stanc were discussing earlier,it used a more powerful round,but still not quite up to modern assault rifles.
I think,that's one true determining factor involved in how to properly classify a weapon,is cartridge size.The only two weapon types I can readily think of that overlap in cartridge size are submachineguns and machine pistols,in that they fire the same cartridges.Battle rifles,M14,FN-FAL,G3 etc(if you want to call them that) and machine gun's(belt fed) overlap somewhat too.Although it becomes a bit more confusing when you divide them into sub categories such as GPM's(general purpose) and SAW's(squad automatice weapons)heavy machine guns,light machine guns,well you get the idea,as not all of them chamber full size rifle cartridges.
The PDW is a niche weapon whose time may just have come.That's why I don't consider pistol caliber submachineguns as PDW's,surely they can substitute in that role for close quarters,but that's the whole point of having just that much extra power from these proprietary cartridges that they use.The 6x35 that Knight is using is in my opinion damn near perfect for it's intended role.Better than a submachinegun for stopping power and penetration,just as controllable,just as much if not more ammo capacity,longer range ability,in the package size of a submachinegun.I'm not that up on body armor so I can't tell you all the varables,but I know it has to penetrate better than 9mm ball,the sheer velocity gives it an advantage.What's not to love?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,296 Posts
I certainly agree that the M1 carbine was an early attempt to fill the niche for what we now call a PDW.

It will be interesting to see what happens with the Knight PDW. I suspect the civilian market might be more lucrative than the military.

tk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,339 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
The PDW is a niche weapon whose time may just have come.
It seems like a no-brainer to me, but even though the Army pays lip service to the PDW concept, it has yet to implement it. Back in 1969-70, the Colt SCAMP was looked at by the Army and immediately ignored, and they seem to be continuing that tradition with the latest generation PDWs like the MP7 and MP9. In mid-2006 the Infantry School Commandant noted that the personal defense requirement would be met, not by fielding a true PDW, but by using two conventional weapons: service pistol, and short-barreled carbine.
The 6x35 that Knight is using is in my opinion damn near perfect for it's intended role.Better than a submachinegun for stopping power and penetration,just as controllable,just as much if not more ammo capacity,longer range ability,in the package size of a submachinegun.I'm not that up on body armor so I can't tell you all the varables,but I know it has to penetrate better than 9mm ball,the sheer velocity gives it an advantage.
Certainly. However, the ol' 9mm round is capable of being upgraded to improve its ability to penetrate body armor. The WWII German and post-WWII Czech steel-core 9mm stuff easily punches through PASGT vest and helmet. Or, make an ultralight bullet, such as MagSafe did with its "New Jersey" load, and 9mm velocity can be boosted to 2000+ fps. I once tested the MagSafe 9mm ammo by shooting a double thickness of Level II body armor at 25 meters -- sliced through the Kevlar like the proverbial hot knife through butter!

From my viewpoint as a former tanker, I can't advocate the KAC 6mm carbine as a PDW. It's just too bulky and heavy for the role. Try having one slung over your shoulder while sitting in the driver's seat, or when manhandling massive 120mm rounds into the breech of the main gun, and you'll understand my desire for a personal weapon of much smaller size and weight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,339 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
I certainly agree that the M1 carbine was an early attempt to fill the niche for what we now call a PDW.

It will be interesting to see what happens with the Knight PDW. I suspect the civilian market might be more lucrative than the military.
Out of all the rifles I've owned, I rate the M1 carbine as my favorite for pure shooting pleasure. Judging from the FutureWeapons video, the KAC 6mm carbine looks like it might be even better in that regard, and I'd love to have one.
 
1 - 20 of 65 Posts
Top