Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/4/2005 5:37:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/4/2005 5:46:16 PM EDT by AyeGuy]
With the advent of the FN P-90 in 5.7mm, the Personal Defense Weapon (PDW) concept has at last become a realiy. It arises from the realization the the majority of armed forces personnel have no need for the heavy and powerful Infantry Rifle (IR) as used by frontline troops in direct combat; however, as the IR has been around for such a long time, it was the de facto individual arm issued to all soldiers of an army. The only other catagory of firearm in genearal military issue was the Pistol, which by tradition was usually only issued to officers. But as armies became more mechanized and technical in nature, the IR remained the issue for non-infantry soldiers, who only needed a weapon for the purposes of self-defense, or defending a base area.

By World War I, the Infantry was far outnumbered by support troops: drivers, artillerymen, clerks, military police, etc. These specialists, like combat leaders (infantry officers and NCOs), had to go about their duties encumbered by 12 pound rifles that were often 4 feet in length and could kill at 1200 yards. Then came the Sub-Machine Gun (SMG); while superficially attractive due to their short length and minmal recoil, they were heavy, expensive, and suffered from too short a range and low killing potential due to the pistol cartridge they were chambered for. Besides, the conservative military commanders and ordnance men would never countenance putting into production a weapon that would be needed in greater numbers than the IR. Also, the extant industrial base simply could not support the manufacture of the complicated SMG in the massive numbers needed, and so the SMG remainded a specialty armament for assault troops.

*****

For the most part, ths was the situation in the first part of WWII. Some armies (the Germans) were now issuing the SMG as a weapon suitable for combat leaders. As the war progressed, the need for automatic fire in the hands of the individual soldier led to certain units being issued SMGs on a massive basis. Still, however, in all armies the basic infantry rifle remained the standard issue for all soldiers, no matter what their role.

All armies but one- the United States Army. It was realized here that there was a justifiable need for support troops to have a light and handy weapon that would not encumber them as they went about their duties, and not be as expensive to produce as the IR was; the Pistol was rejected due to its totally inadequate range and accuracy. The new M-1 Carbine, chambered for a new special-designed cartridge (less powerful than the IR cartidge but much more lethal and longer ranged than the Pistol one), fit the role of thje PDW perfectly: a weapon that could replace the Pistol. It was not called a PDW, but that is what it in fact was.

The Carbine was a runaway success; more were produced and issued than the standard IR. The Carbine was easy to shoot, light, short, and had a detachable 15 round magazine. Unfortunatly, it looked like a "rifle"...

Why was this a bad thing? Because the Carbine was soon pressed into tactical uses that would more properly be the domain of the Infantry Rifle, because the standard US rifle was too long, heavy and powerful than was needed. But the Carbine was used as a rifle anyway, and in the eyes of many soldiers it was considered to be a failure, due to the lack of lethality of its cartridge.


*****

That brings us to today. Now I see the PDW concept abused again; one need only look at the P-90. It was purposely designed as a PDW for support troops who do not need a full power rifle. It is very short, and capable of virtually recoiless automatic fire. As such, it has attracted the attention of Special Forces units around the world, despite lingering doubts about its killing power.

Its usefullness in anything other than the PDW role is merely a superficial estimation based largely on its visual appeal in my opinion.

*****

That brings me to my question for you: Is the newly-revived PDW concept still viable? Will it once again be used in tactically unsutable roles by those who do not understand its purpose, and so cause a loss of confidence in it, no matter that it is effective in its intended role?

Also, we now have the Assault Rifle (AR). Would an AR with a short configuration function well in the PDW role? It would have the advantage of standardizing both weapon and cartidge...that is, if the AR cartidge, itself less powerful than an old IR, is still too powerful for PDW use...

Or maybe, due to better body armor, might the full power Infantry Rifle and its cartidge displace the AR in turn? Might the AR, meant to replace many catagories of weapon (Infantry Rifle, Carbine, SMG) be itself replaced by a new weapon trinity: PDW, Infantry Rifle, and Genade Launcher?

*****

What do YOU think?
Link Posted: 9/4/2005 6:05:18 PM EDT
In theory, you are correct on most parts. But..... there is always a "but", looking at arming a large army with 2 different small arms is a logistical nightmare. Different spares, different mags and ammo.

Then you have 2 different courses of BRM.
Link Posted: 9/4/2005 6:09:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 50cal:
In theory, you are correct on most parts. But..... there is always a "but", looking at arming a large army with 2 different small arms is a logistical nightmare. Different spares, different mags and ammo.

Then you have 2 different courses of BRM.



We sent a GIANT army into the field armed with .45 ACP, 30-06, and .30 cal carbine.
Link Posted: 9/4/2005 6:25:18 PM EDT
The PDW was a valid concept for about 15 minutes back in the '90's. Look at our current scuffle, the days of a unit being able to count on not being in close in infantry fights are done. REMF is just a mindset anymore.
Link Posted: 9/5/2005 5:20:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/5/2005 5:27:36 AM EDT by pillbox]
another tie in article /.pdf file of intrest that is intresting.

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2005smalla...y/arvidsson.pdf


the basic consept of "more than a pistol, less than a Infantry rifle" will allways be around... it has resulted in the M1 Carbine, ultra short assault assault rifles like the XM177 colt commando and all that came after, and is the reason for the continued use of the SMG. Its simply not going to go away.....it just differs in what the collective "they"come up with at a given moment that will have better or worse success filling that role.
Link Posted: 9/5/2005 5:50:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AyeGuy:

Originally Posted By 50cal:
In theory, you are correct on most parts. But..... there is always a "but", looking at arming a large army with 2 different small arms is a logistical nightmare. Different spares, different mags and ammo.

Then you have 2 different courses of BRM.



We sent a GIANT army into the field armed with .45 ACP, 30-06, and .30 cal carbine.



But now we have M14's, M16/4's, M9 and 1911. Mk19 and M2's. Nothing like throwing in one more useless cartridge.
The PDW concept is good. But right now with all that is going on, another weapon and cartridge combo isn't a great idea.

If giving rear area troops a PDW, give them 11" barreled M4's. Parts commonality with the M16/4 is already there.
Link Posted: 9/5/2005 6:06:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/5/2005 6:07:04 AM EDT by fnman]

Originally Posted By 50cal:

Originally Posted By AyeGuy:

Originally Posted By 50cal:
In theory, you are correct on most parts. But..... there is always a "but", looking at arming a large army with 2 different small arms is a logistical nightmare. Different spares, different mags and ammo.

Then you have 2 different courses of BRM.



We sent a GIANT army into the field armed with .45 ACP, 30-06, and .30 cal carbine.



But now we have M14's, M16/4's, M9 and 1911. Mk19 and M2's. Nothing like throwing in one more useless cartridge.
The PDW concept is good. But right now with all that is going on, another weapon and cartridge combo isn't a great idea.

If giving rear area troops a PDW, give them 11" barreled M4's. Parts commonality with the M16/4 is already there.



[i]But we know that going short with 5.56 is not the answer as long as we have heavier bullets to shoot. The velocity of a 62 gr M855 out of a 14.5 M-4 barrel is about 2400 fps and the velocity from a 11" barrel would be 2150-2200fps. The M855 was designed for maximum tissue damage at about 3000 fps. The military knows that there has been a problem with enemies being shot with M855 out of a M-4 and the bullet fails to upset. The soldiers using A-2's and A-4's don't seem to have that problem. So, what is mopre effective, a 62 gr bullet punching through without upseting or major tissue damage or a 31 gr, bullet that is designed to upset going 2350 fps and creating a 3-4" wound cavity. PDW's have their place for CQB and for support troops.
Link Posted: 9/5/2005 6:16:53 AM EDT
A lot of your points a good ones fnman. I am going to buy a P90 when it's ready this fall. I like the concept. But for a service wide distribution? I still see a logistic nightmare.
For small unit? It's a great idea.
Link Posted: 9/5/2005 6:42:26 AM EDT
I do like the P90 as a weapon, despite its not having a role anymore. Its got a lot of neat features that could be worked into a larger assault rifle. The mag design is really cool and I wish FN would scale it up to 223 and make a rifle version.

That being said, another reason for lack of distinction between PDW's and frontline weapons these days is that every soldier is expected to be a soldier first and a specialist second. That means not being handicaped by PD type weapons in a fight.

Bullpups are another reason for lack of SMG/PDW use in armies today as well. They offer the same compact package and the same "infantry grade" performance as a PDW versus a standard rifle.

You also failed to mention the HK MP7 which is really a PDW. Its more towards the pistol aspect of things. If it had a longer barrel, more robust stock it might be a great SMG in the UZI fashion, but it is to big to fire without the stock for a prolonged period and if its going to be a long arm with a stock, give it a longer barrel so those tiny 4.6mm rounds get some more velocity and range.

IMO one rifle or family of rifles and one family of pistols is the way to go. Personally as technology allows for lighter weapons, I think every rifle should have a grenade launcher and a quad stacked mag of 50-60 or more rounds. A battle rifle of similar design but w/o the grenade launcher and 25-40 round mags. You know like the pulse rifle from Aliens
Link Posted: 9/5/2005 7:13:10 AM EDT
In all honesty, if the US military introduced an 11" barrel M4 variant as a rear-echelon PDW, it would be brought up to the front lines by soldiers wanting a more compact package, and be misused in that role.

All that fragmentation stuff is irrelevant, because we're talking Personal Defense Weapon. If you are defending yourself, then you really don't need more than 100m of effective range, right?
If such an item were issued, we'd see a situation exactly like WW2 where front line troops are using the shorter, less powerful rifle in the wrong role and wondering why it has such limited capabilities.

Don't get me wrong, it sounds like a great idea. All you'd need to introduce into the system is a shorter barrel; every other M4 part in inventory would interchange. I think the PDW has a role in modern combat, but there still is a need for a full sized rifle (thus the SPR and DMR)
Link Posted: 9/5/2005 5:05:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/5/2005 5:06:48 PM EDT by AyeGuy]

Originally Posted By sic_ness:
In all honesty, if the US military introduced an 11" barrel M4 variant as a rear-echelon PDW, it would be brought up to the front lines by soldiers wanting a more compact package, and be misused in that role.

All that fragmentation stuff is irrelevant, because we're talking Personal Defense Weapon. If you are defending yourself, then you really don't need more than 100m of effective range, right?
If such an item were issued, we'd see a situation exactly like WW2 where front line troops are using the shorter, less powerful rifle in the wrong role and wondering why it has such limited capabilities.

Don't get me wrong, it sounds like a great idea. All you'd need to introduce into the system is a shorter barrel; every other M4 part in inventory would interchange. I think the PDW has a role in modern combat, but there still is a need for a full sized rifle (thus the SPR and DMR)



So: the PDW may be a valid concept, but unrealizable because of human nature?

Interesting!
Link Posted: 9/5/2005 5:12:56 PM EDT

1)An M4 lets a 62 grain bullet go much faster than 2400 fps.

2)An 11.5 would be ideal for CQB

3)The 5.7 has no advantage over an M4 Commando.

4)The Hornady AMX is a promising way to make the 11.5's and CQB-R's more effective.
Link Posted: 9/5/2005 5:14:59 PM EDT
I've got your PDW right here ...

Link Posted: 9/5/2005 8:55:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/6/2005 9:59:23 AM EDT by pillbox]
the downside I can see with a short barreled assault rifle(I have lots of trigger time on the old 10.5 in XM177 colt commando AND the M4 14.5"/M16A1 20") Is its a really crappy weapon for a non shooter rear area type with no hearing protection...horrendis muzzle blast /flash and a lot louder than the regular rifle. In short its harder to use than a 20incher when it comes to shooting rather than carrying. The U.S. Army has been there/done that allready. Folks in VN found out you didnt want the commando in a firefight as you made yourself the center of attention( He who hath the loudist ,with thine most muzzleflash....gett'ith thy most return fire) Thats truly why SMGs hang on in both special ops and police work.....they dont make quite the specticle of them selves while killing at 30yards.
14.5 in is as short as you truly want to go in a 5.56.......rifles make piss poor submachineguns,but as rifles they work well :)
To see the the comparison in blast/flash between the short M16 and a P90 go here:
http://www.d3lf.net/p90/media.htm

go halfway down the page to "P90 at the range" and watch the vid clip......Thats why PDW's keep popping up for non infantry.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 6:00:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pillbox:
the downside I can see with a short barreled assault rifle(I have lots of trigger time on the old 10.5 in XM177 colt commando AND the M4 14.5"/M16A1 20") Is its a really crappy weapon for a non shooter rear area type with no hearing protection...horrendis muzzle blast /flash and a lot louder than the regular rifle. In short its harder to use than a 20incher when it comes to shooting rather than carrying. The U.S. Army has been there/done that allready. Folks in VN found out you didnt want the commando in a firefight as you made yourself the center of attention( He who hath the loudist ,with thine most muzzleflash....gett'ith thy most return fire) Thats truly why SMGs hang one in both special ops and police work.....they dont make quite the specticle of them selves while killing at 30yards.
14.5 in is as short as you truly want to go in a 5.56.......rifles make piss poor submachineguns,but as rifles they work well :)
To see the the comparison in blast/flash between the short M16 and a P90 go here:
http://www.d3lf.net/p90/media.htm

go halfway down the page to "P90 at the range" and watch the vid clip......Thats why PDW's keep popping up for non infantry.




Excellent point. 5.56 out of a short barrel inside a enclosed space will cause you to lose hearing
withour ear protection. The P90/Five Seven really is the best example of a PDW and without a doubt is a viable CQB weapon for the military. The US Marine Corps is evaluating the P90 as we speak.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 6:06:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/6/2005 6:07:08 AM EDT by fnman]

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
1)An M4 lets a 62 grain bullet go much faster than 2400 fps.

2)An 11.5 would be ideal for CQB

3)The 5.7 has no advantage over an M4 Commando.

4)The Hornady AMX is a promising way to make the 11.5's and CQB-R's more effective.



How much faster? Do you have data to support your claim?

Have you ever fired a P-90? Are you famililer with how the projectile works in soft tissue and through Kevlar((SS190)? If you do your research then you will understand that the P-90 is a much better weapon for CQB. Less recoil, more mag capacity, and a round that does not over penetrate soft tissue but does work very effectively to stop bad guys.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 9:43:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
1)An M4 lets a 62 grain bullet go much faster than 2400 fps.

2)An 11.5 would be ideal for CQB

3)The 5.7 has no advantage over an M4 Commando.

4)The Hornady AMX is a promising way to make the 11.5's and CQB-R's more effective.



FNP90 is significantly smaller and easier to keep on the body in the tight confines of armor units and the AMAX is illegal for land warfare. Personally I can stick a loaded P90 in a regualr back pack for discrete carry and I cant do that with a 11.5" AR rifle. Those are two different guns. Its like comparing a Sig P229R to a Keltec P32. Those two guns have vastly different roles and abilities.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 10:04:22 AM EDT
Another point worth mentioning is that a PDW round also has to work in a pistol, for cases where something even smaller than a PDW is needed. The 5.56 won't work in one and the HK 4.6 has yet to be released in a pistol format. Even then, the 5.7 has demonstrated better ballistics than the 4.6 in the NATO testing.

The Five-seveN in 5.7 is pretty much the only one out there and it is light, high capacity, and penetrates soft armor almost as well as the bigger P-90.


-DmL
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 10:24:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DevL:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
1)An M4 lets a 62 grain bullet go much faster than 2400 fps.

2)An 11.5 would be ideal for CQB

3)The 5.7 has no advantage over an M4 Commando.

4)The Hornady AMX is a promising way to make the 11.5's and CQB-R's more effective.



FNP90 is significantly smaller and easier to keep on the body in the tight confines of armor units and the AMAX is illegal for land warfare. Personally I can stick a loaded P90 in a regualr back pack for discrete carry and I cant do that with a 11.5" AR rifle. Those are two different guns. Its like comparing a Sig P229R to a Keltec P32. Those two guns have vastly different roles and abilities.



The AMX is a different bullet which performs much like the Russian 5.45, but dopes like green tip.

Yes, the PDW is small. Too small. And you need all that capacity. I'd rather figure out how to cary a CQB-R than have to deal with the P90's ballistics. As for putting that round in a handgun, the idea is insane. If it ain't auto, you aren't going to be putting enough rounds on target.

Link Posted: 9/6/2005 10:50:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/6/2005 10:50:41 AM EDT by fnman]

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:

Originally Posted By DevL:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
1)An M4 lets a 62 grain bullet go much faster than 2400 fps.

2)An 11.5 would be ideal for CQB

3)The 5.7 has no advantage over an M4 Commando.

4)The Hornady AMX is a promising way to make the 11.5's and CQB-R's more effective.



FNP90 is significantly smaller and easier to keep on the body in the tight confines of armor units and the AMAX is illegal for land warfare. Personally I can stick a loaded P90 in a regualr back pack for discrete carry and I cant do that with a 11.5" AR rifle. Those are two different guns. Its like comparing a Sig P229R to a Keltec P32. Those two guns have vastly different roles and abilities.



The AMX is a different bullet which performs much like the Russian 5.45, but dopes like green tip.

Yes, the PDW is small. Too small. And you need all that capacity. I'd rather figure out how to cary a CQB-R than have to deal with the P90's ballistics. As for putting that round in a handgun, the idea is insane. If it ain't auto, you aren't going to be putting enough rounds on target.




You don't know much about the 5.7 system do you? The Five-seven handgun can put all 20 rounds in a target at 25 yards as fast as you can pull the trigger-no recoil. Insane? It is the hootest selling handgun on the market and as for ballistics, we kill deer here in MO with one shot from the handgun. Please do yourself a favor and do some research on this system.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 11:01:16 AM EDT
I have researched the system. I don't know of anybody who routinely kills people who uses them. The same cannot be said for CQB-R's. I understand the ballistic limitations of the 10.5 M4, but they are insignificant compared to the problems with the P90, and the pistol, which is even worse. I admit that the P90 has a place here engagement distance is shhort and concealment required, but that is all I will give it. I do not expect to be able to take a man's life at 300 yards with it, as I would with a CQB-R.

Being able to put a lot of rounds on the target is good, but they need a little velocity to go with it. There is a reason my go-to gun isn't a 10/22 with 50 round mags.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 11:14:37 AM EDT
Its not supposed to take the place of a 5.56 rifle. It is supposed to take the place of a 9mm SMG for CQB. It was never designed to hit at 300 yards. What problems are you referring to with the P90 and Five Seven? So far, every BG that has been shot with it center mass has died. I have a freind who has killed 5 deer with the FsN and never had to shoot them more than once. If you have done the research you will know that this system works and if it didn't the US Secret Service, Federal Protective Service, DOE, and about 250 state and local LE agencies would not be using it. My go-to gun is 5.56 as well but if I had to be in a CQB situation, I would take the P90. You are comparing apples to oranges.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 1:27:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/6/2005 1:34:58 PM EDT by pillbox]
You know..its the damndist thing I have noticed about anything 5.7........If I said How well I liked a five seven pistol ,the first thing brought up is a 5.56 RIFLE!!! If I say gee I like my .40 Sig P226, I just get"hey you should try it in .357sig as well brother, good pick. No other service pistol is compared to a rifle right off the bat...its flat psycotic lol . they are simply a replacements to a 9mm pistol or SMG. Folks that have MP5's arent faced with constant barrage of "gee if it isnt 7.62x51 it isnt shit, that MP5 will never beat My M1A as a CQB gun lol.(but P90's are hit with exactly that)
Comparing apples to apples is one thing...but it all degenerates into watermellons are better than tangerenes (WTF?) Are folks this remedial that they cant tell one class of weapon from another?

Pistol= Pistol(with me so far?)
PDW= submachine gun
Rifle short or long= rifle short or long

I have 35 years on the M16 family(and like them) and well know what it is and isnt...buts its not the only thing one can use at 0-200 meters, and if I have to shoot at 200+ I want a real rifle with a 20" barrel, not something from wesley snipes movie prop department 5.56mm with a ultra short barrel......by the time you really need a rifle the uberTAC shortski is running out of steam(but is doing a fine job of letting every BG know where you exact firing position is)
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 1:32:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/6/2005 1:34:02 PM EDT by Lumpy196]
A gun with even less wounding potential than the percieved lack of power of 5.56 out of an M4. Seems like simple brilliance!


Iraq is proving that by order or by circumstance, rear eschelon troops can suddenly find themselves duking it out toe to toe with the enemy. So lets give them something LESS potent
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 1:37:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By fnman:
Its not supposed to take the place of a 5.56 rifle. It is supposed to take the place of a 9mm SMG for CQB. It was never designed to hit at 300 yards. What problems are you referring to with the P90 and Five Seven? So far, every BG that has been shot with it center mass has died. I have a freind who has killed 5 deer with the FsN and never had to shoot them more than once. If you have done the research you will know that this system works and if it didn't the US Secret Service, Federal Protective Service, DOE, and about 250 state and local LE agencies would not be using it. My go-to gun is 5.56 as well but if I had to be in a CQB situation, I would take the P90. You are comparing apples to oranges.



Wow, I sure have stirred up some shit. My point is that the MP5 and similar systems have alreaady been replaced byt the CQB-R. It has the advantage of being supported by logistics, including parts and ammo supply, and has the same controls as the M4 from which it is derived.

My uncle used to kill dear with a .22LR. He'd shoot them in the ear and then gut them in the bathtub. I have no intention of applying this technique on the battlefield.

I am not comparing apples to oranges. Firstly, the P90 lacks the wounding mechanism of the CQB-R. It just doesn't hit as hard. As far as a handgun goes, several hundred years of experience has shown that bigger holes cause more bleeding. I'd rather have a .45ACP. Since 5.56 has a velocity advantage, it's wounding mechanism is not determined by crush cavity.

Adding another weapon on which no one in the military is trained, and to which there is no ammo in the system is and overblown solution to a non-existant problem. I'd rather see more grunts go through SOTG and similar courses than waste money on a new toy.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 1:38:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
A gun with even less wounding potential than the percieved lack of power of 5.56 out of an M4. Seems like simple brilliance!


Iraq is proving that by order or by circumstance, rear eschelon troops can suddenly find themselves duking it out toe to toe with the enemy. So lets give them something LESS potent



Welcome back.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 1:39:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 50cal:
If giving rear area troops a PDW, give them 11" barreled M4's. Parts commonality with the M16/4 is already there.

Or even better give almost everyone the M4. One of the problems is relatively few M4 are being bought, and almost all of those go to front line forces. It or another carbine should be the standard A for the majority of the military, vice an almost backward view of weapons you see in US doctrine.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 1:41:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/6/2005 1:45:13 PM EDT by pillbox]
lol Lumpster, if anything you are consistant.....like a rubber stamp, same thing thump same thing thump same thing thump same thing thump same thing re ink thump same thing. too bad it just never says anything I care about yawnnnnn but feel free to continue lol

The Mp5 is alive and well...and has not been totally replaced by 5.56
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 1:48:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By pillbox:
lol Lumpster, if anything you are consistant.....like a rubber stamp, same thing thump same thing thump same thing thump same thing thump same thing re ink thump same thing. too bad it just never says anything I care about yawnnnnn but feel free to continue lol

The Mp5 is alive and well...and has not been totally replaced by 5.56



Firstly, you would do well to listen to Lumpy.

Secondly, the MP5 has a shrinking fan base, and the unsuppressed version becomes less popular every year. That is one reason the UMP has been introduced.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 1:54:35 PM EDT
The reason the MP5 is going out of use is the inability to penetrate soft armor. The P90 has almost double the capacity of the MP5, penetrates a IIIA vest at 200m, and works just as well for left-handers. The ONLY thing you're bringing against the P90 is the supposed lethality. But the 5.7 lethality argument wouldn't matter even if the round's lethality was poor. When you have 20 or 50 rounds in the magazine you shouldn't plan to use one individual round. That is the way the ballisticians were thinking when they measured the wounding potential of this round. They are failing to realize that the P90 spits out bullets at 15 per second and the Five-seveN pistol can almost do the same. If the BG doesn't die from 15 rounds of 5.7x28mm in the space of a second he isn't going to drop from any small arm.

This is all leaving out the fact that switching from the P90 you lose 50% of the capacity, the ambidextrous handling, and you also get the muzzle blast that pillbox mentioned.


-DmL
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 2:06:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/6/2005 2:09:46 PM EDT by pillbox]
I have managed to to live my life for decades and been all over the world without lumpy......Im a bit hard to get into hero worship at this stage So words cannot express just how much I will pass on that idea. I will continue to carry what I carry and you will do the same ...not required that we all use the same thing...as long as any firearm fullfills the needs of the operator using it at the time its all one can ask. they all work...they all fail and I would trade them all for a working Phaser :)
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 2:06:52 PM EDT
Believe me, I understand the muzzle blast issue well.

The fact of the matter remains that simpler logistics are more effective at winning wars than cool guns.

The AR is ambi. I've seen enough lefties shoot circles around me to know that.

I don't want to have to shoot something 15 times to kill it. The M4 already has a hard enough time.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 2:07:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By pillbox:
I have managed to to live my life for decades and been all over the world without lumpy......Im a bit hard to get into hero worship at this stage So words cannot express just how much I will pass on that idea. I will continue to carry what I carry and you will do the same ...not required that we all use the same thing...as long as any firearm fullfills the needs of the operator using it at the time its all one can ask. they all work...they all fail



I like this post.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 2:14:19 PM EDT
lol Mee too...and I never used the term poodleshooter not one time....not one time :) ...wait a minute I own 4 poodleshooters..but I have a M1911 to go with it them..see that got me out of that.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 2:24:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/6/2005 2:25:08 PM EDT by DmL5]

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
I don't want to have to shoot something 15 times to kill it.



A couple points..

1. Too bad if you don't want to do followup shots or full auto fire. That sort of laziness will save your finger some strain but cost you your life in a shooting. You wouldn't count on a single round of anything to flip a BG off his feet.

2. It wouldn't be too hard on your finger anyway. 15 rounds is one controlled 1-sec squeeze of the P90's trigger.


-DmL
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 2:31:58 PM EDT
I am fully aware of the fact that I may have to fire a number of rounds, but I intend to pick my kit to minimize the number of rounds I have to fire, not the amount of time it takes to fire them.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 2:59:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/6/2005 3:59:01 PM EDT by DmL5]

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
I intend to pick my kit to minimize the number of rounds I have to fire, not the amount of time it takes to fire them.



You don't have to worry about saving some for the next BG when the gun holds 50 rounds and the first BG is literally "meat" from a 1-sec trigger squeeze.


-DmL
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 3:11:30 PM EDT
Like I said before, I feel that the P90 has a place, just not in the DoD.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 3:22:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/6/2005 3:40:33 PM EDT by StealthyBlagga]
I'm with CJ on the "not shooting 15 times" deal... even in the close range PDW scenario, is the target really going to be so obliging as to stand still in the open while you hose him with multiple rounds ? What about multiple targets ? I can see how the P90 might work for SWAT applications (i.e. a bunch of door kickers vs a single hostage taker), but on the battlefield targets are fleeting at the best of times and so the ammo should have some expectation of effectiveness with only one or two hits.

I also buy into the importance of logistics and training... a short M16 makes a lot of sense, at least for the US military.

Here's a thought: why can't 5.56NATO ammo be loaded to mimic the P90's ammo (SS190 = 31grn projectile @ 2345fps) ? Seems to me that with the available case volume and similar bullet size/weight of the 5.56, this should be possible. Such ammo would presumably be no worse than the P90 from a ballistics perspective, and would blast a lot less in a shorty M16 (even a 7.5"). Of course, there would be some added logistical complication (e.g. shooting the right ammo in the right rifle would be important).

Anyone here reload 5.56 ?
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 8:29:51 PM EDT
I don't see too much a point in downloading the 5.56 to duplicate the 5.7. The gun prolly wouln't cycle, for starters.

So, maybe with advent of the M-4, a purpose-built PDW is redundant.

At least it was an interesting discussion though! Almost enough to justify all that typing on my opening post!
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 10:26:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AyeGuy:
I don't see too much a point in downloading the 5.56 to duplicate the 5.7. The gun prolly wouln't cycle, for starters.



I was suggesting this from the perspective of reducing the blast from a shorty M16. You are right that cycling would be a potential issue... I suspect this would depend heavily on the type of powder used (pressure curve).
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 3:24:54 AM EDT
The P90 is an excellent SMG. As has been stated, if you try to use an SMG for an assault rifle it will be found lacking. Up close and personal it's just fine.
A PDW should be viewed as a "Get the F#$K OFF ME!!! weapon. I think the military term is break contact. Spray-n-pray and run away. It's more to make the enemy stop shooting at you than to really fight an engagement.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 6:12:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
A gun with even less wounding potential than the percieved lack of power of 5.56 out of an M4. Seems like simple brilliance!


Iraq is proving that by order or by circumstance, rear eschelon troops can suddenly find themselves duking it out toe to toe with the enemy. So lets give them something LESS potent



Welcome back.



How do you know it has less wounding potential than 5.56 out of a M-4? Have you ever shot anything (man or aminal) with a P-90?
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 6:16:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By StealthyBlagga:
I'm with CJ on the "not shooting 15 times" deal... even in the close range PDW scenario, is the target really going to be so obliging as to stand still in the open while you hose him with multiple rounds ? What about multiple targets ? I can see how the P90 might work for SWAT applications (i.e. a bunch of door kickers vs a single hostage taker), but on the battlefield targets are fleeting at the best of times and so the ammo should have some expectation of effectiveness with only one or two hits.

I also buy into the importance of logistics and training... a short M16 makes a lot of sense, at least for the US military.

Here's a thought: why can't 5.56NATO ammo be loaded to mimic the P90's ammo (SS190 = 31grn projectile @ 2345fps) ? Seems to me that with the available case volume and similar bullet size/weight of the 5.56, this should be possible. Such ammo would presumably be no worse than the P90 from a ballistics perspective, and would blast a lot less in a shorty M16 (even a 7.5"). Of course, there would be some added logistical complication (e.g. shooting the right ammo in the right rifle would be important).

Anyone here reload 5.56 ?



Great Idea! I have been thinking the same thing about using the 31 gr. AP bullet in a 5.56 case.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 7:51:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By fnman:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
A gun with even less wounding potential than the percieved lack of power of 5.56 out of an M4. Seems like simple brilliance!


Iraq is proving that by order or by circumstance, rear eschelon troops can suddenly find themselves duking it out toe to toe with the enemy. So lets give them something LESS potent



Welcome back.



How do you know it has less wounding potential than 5.56 out of a M-4? Have you ever shot anything (man or aminal) with a P-90?



fnman, it pushes a lighter bullet at slower speeds. In police work, they call that a clue.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 8:42:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:

Originally Posted By fnman:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
A gun with even less wounding potential than the percieved lack of power of 5.56 out of an M4. Seems like simple brilliance!


Iraq is proving that by order or by circumstance, rear eschelon troops can suddenly find themselves duking it out toe to toe with the enemy. So lets give them something LESS potent



Welcome back.



How do you know it has less wounding potential than 5.56 out of a M-4? Have you ever shot anything (man or aminal) with a P-90?



fnman, it pushes a lighter bullet at slower speeds. In police work, they call that a clue.



Again, you have proven that you don't understand the 5.7 system and how the bullet reacts in soft tissue. Just because is is lighter and going "slower" (which is untrue if we are talking about 11" M-16), does not mean it is less effective. The SS190 bullet does something that the M855 or 193 does not do out of a short barrel M-16) which is upset or turn 180 degrees in soft tissue. This creates a large wound cavity without over penetration and has been proven to stop bg's.

You still have not answered my question "have you ever fired a P-90"?
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 10:38:37 AM EDT
No, I have never fired a P90. I have been present for such an event. Regardless of that fact, getting shot would be a better experience to bring up for this discussion.

I know exactly how it performs and I remain unimpressed. Why not use Hornady AMX for the 5.56? Same thing, bigger bullet.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 11:43:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/7/2005 11:43:56 AM EDT by PAEBR332]

Originally Posted By fnman:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:

Originally Posted By fnman:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
A gun with even less wounding potential than the percieved lack of power of 5.56 out of an M4. Seems like simple brilliance!


Iraq is proving that by order or by circumstance, rear eschelon troops can suddenly find themselves duking it out toe to toe with the enemy. So lets give them something LESS potent



Welcome back.



How do you know it has less wounding potential than 5.56 out of a M-4? Have you ever shot anything (man or aminal) with a P-90?



fnman, it pushes a lighter bullet at slower speeds. In police work, they call that a clue.



Again, you have proven that you don't understand the 5.7 system and how the bullet reacts in soft tissue. Just because is is lighter and going "slower" (which is untrue if we are talking about 11" M-16), does not mean it is less effective. The SS190 bullet does something that the M855 or 193 does not do out of a short barrel M-16) which is upset or turn 180 degrees in soft tissue. This creates a large wound cavity without over penetration and has been proven to stop bg's.

You still have not answered my question "have you ever fired a P-90"?



All pointed non-expanding bullets turn 180 degrees upon striking soft tissue. This is because they become unstable in dense media, and turn to put the center of gravity forward. One of the main complaints about M855 from the short M4 barrel is that is does not fragment consistently. Instead, the bullet turns 180 degrees, doing very little damage. Sounds vaguely like what the 5.7 bullet does, no?

5.56 gets its lethality from the bullets fragmenting. Failure to fragement, and the wound channel is very narrow. The 5.7 is designed to NOT fragment, leaving a very narrow wound channel. All else being equal, big wound channel is better than small.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 1:21:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By fnman:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:

Originally Posted By fnman:

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
A gun with even less wounding potential than the percieved lack of power of 5.56 out of an M4. Seems like simple brilliance!


Iraq is proving that by order or by circumstance, rear eschelon troops can suddenly find themselves duking it out toe to toe with the enemy. So lets give them something LESS potent



Welcome back.



How do you know it has less wounding potential than 5.56 out of a M-4? Have you ever shot anything (man or aminal) with a P-90?



fnman, it pushes a lighter bullet at slower speeds. In police work, they call that a clue.



Again, you have proven that you don't understand the 5.7 system and how the bullet reacts in soft tissue. Just because is is lighter and going "slower" (which is untrue if we are talking about 11" M-16), does not mean it is less effective. The SS190 bullet does something that the M855 or 193 does not do out of a short barrel M-16) which is upset or turn 180 degrees in soft tissue. This creates a large wound cavity without over penetration and has been proven to stop bg's.

You still have not answered my question "have you ever fired a P-90"?



All pointed non-expanding bullets turn 180 degrees upon striking soft tissue. This is because they become unstable in dense media, and turn to put the center of gravity forward. One of the main complaints about M855 from the short M4 barrel is that is does not fragment consistently. Instead, the bullet turns 180 degrees, doing very little damage. Sounds vaguely like what the 5.7 bullet does, no?

5.56 gets its lethality from the bullets fragmenting. Failure to fragement, and the wound channel is very narrow. The 5.7 is designed to NOT fragment, leaving a very narrow wound channel. All else being equal, big wound channel is better than small.




+1

fnman, any FMJ or "ball" .mil rifle ammo will "tumble" or yaw after sudden deceleration through soft tissue. This is due to an ass-heavy bullet that has been forced into a nose-hevy flight through gyroscopic stabilization suddenly slowing down - think of a spinning top when it slows enough to begin to wobble.

A yawing bullet cretes a "stretch" cavity which is more or less temporary.

Or you could just read the Oracle, but that would be too easy I suppose.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 1:26:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/7/2005 1:28:02 PM EDT by DmL5]
There are a number of differences between a tumbling 5.56 and a tumbling 5.7x28..

1. The SS190 goes into tumble much earlier, in fact almost immediately.

2. The SS190 projectile is .85 inch long. (longer than the 5.56 projectile, making a larger wound)

3. The SS190 always tumbles because it was designed to tumble. You have your facts wrong because it does not simply tumble on occasion like "all pointed non-expanding bullets". The projectile design uses two unequally weighted sections. One section (the aluminum) is lighter than the other. See below picture:




-DmL
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 3:48:47 PM EDT
I don’t believe what people have been saying! Not needed!? Does any one here recall a Jessica Lynch? The army only issued their 4 person hummer 1 rifle for all of them, thinking that all of them being armed would just be cumbersome to there real duties.
In the coast guard (like other branches I would conjecture) bean counters keep saying that a firearm is a liability. Maybe they’re right if the weapon is heavy or takes a lot of training to be proficient at. Just look at the idea behind glocks (simple) and the FBI (an agency of white coller cops).
I feel that the fact that PDWs have not been issued is a black mark of shame on military bureaucracy, and the reason Jessica Lynch is still alive is not that there is no need for PDWs, but that God supports the troops more than any bean counter or civilian shooter with internet.
PDW is where bean counter and warrior are in agreement, why would some any one else try to discredit it and say its not needed?......
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top