I guess ammo is the best section to put this, but if not, please advise......

I keep reading on-line and in gun rags about the HK 4.6mm PDW round and its firearm and the FN 5.7 (and the recently released PS90) and its P90 and the role of the Personal Defense Weapon in the military.

Let me preface this question with the fact that I have NO military experience or training, which is why I'm curious about this issue--so here's the question:

Why design a new weapons-system and new, smaller caliber? Wouldn't it make more sense to use the 9mm pistol and increase the effectiveness of the round, or use AP for those instances where body armor is a concern? Or, dust off the tried and true .45ACP, for which numerous rounds exist?The logistical issues surrounding issuing a new weapon(s), ammunition, getting everyone (like NATO) to agree (obviously, this would be a rather lucative contract for the supplier(s)) seem daunting.

This may seem like a dumb question, and I absolutely have no problems with tax $$$ going to new and better weapons--but since I have no military experience, it seems like using available weapons with better ammo would be the way to go, not changing to something smaller without a track record.

Anyone?

The PDWs are designed to defeat body armor which is something standard handgun calibers can't do.  The 4.6 and 5.7 are able to defeat armor due to the high velocities and small caliber (concentrates more of the kinetic energy in a smaller area).

I dont care what you say, there is no way in hell I would trust my personal protection in a hostile enviroment to a firearm that spits out  measly 25 grain bullets.

I understand what a PDW is supposed to be from the info I've read, but don't understand why adpot something unproven and new? Apparently, there have been numerous 9mm AP rounds made--steel core, all brass or bronze, tungsten--like Arcane, KTW, THV. If you sling something hard at enough fps, it should work with soft armor. I'd guess most terrorists would not have body armor, but I could be wrong.... It seems like the PDW is for military who won't likely be in combat, but MAY need a firearm.

I thought a pistol was meant to be the "Personal Defense Weapon" of infantry, etc. when they had other duties, like supply.

If AP is the sole issue--designing a more effective projectile would seem easier than a new caliber, weapon, etc.

Quoted: I understand what a PDW is supposed to be from the info I've read, but don't understand why adpot something unproven and new? Apparently, there have been numerous 9mm AP rounds made--steel core, all brass or bronze, tungsten--like Arcane, KTW, THV. If you sling something hard at enough fps, it should work with soft armor. I'd guess most terrorists would not have body armor, but I could be wrong.... It seems like the PDW is for military who won't likely be in combat, but MAY need a firearm. I thought a pistol was meant to be the "Personal Defense Weapon" of infantry, etc. when they had other duties, like supply. If AP is the sole issue--designing a more effective projectile would seem easier than a new caliber, weapon, etc.

Your ideas are flawed, AP 9mm does not have the capability of 5.7, pistols are not accurate, 5.7 has 2/3 the recoil of 9mm while holding 50 rounds in a mag instead of 15 or 30, 2/3 recoil of 9mm, the rilfe and ammo is neither uproven nor new... just new to you, I could go on but why you will just keep the same misconceptions and dismiss anything you are told.

DevL--not true about your perception--that's why I'm asking. Just don't know enough. It's like the whole small caliber, high velocity vs. large bore, slower velocity debate. I understand both sides. If you read my question, it asks about the logistics of such a switch....if you have military experience you can share--as well as additional info on these newer cartridges--I'm interested.

No matter what you make a handgun bullet out of, you're still stuck with the fact that the ballistics will be pretty poor past 30-40 yds.  If you want to penetrate body armor, you need a bullet of suitable construction AND you need velocity.  You have to reduce the bullet weight of a 9mm round to a very light weight (~50-60 gr) to acheive the velocity required.  It will start out fast but lose velocity fast as well.  By 50 yds it may not have to velocity required to penetrate armor.

The 4.6 and 5.7mm rounds, on the other hand, can penetrate armor out to 200 yds, though terminal performance is anyone's guess.

The only handgun round I can think of that might make a good PDW is the 7.62x25mm.  With 70-86 gr bullets at up to 1600 fps from a Tokarev handgun, it could defeat light body armor.  Possibly neck it down to a smaller caliber or use a sabot and it should penetrate at longer ranges.

Quoted: Quoted: I understand what a PDW is supposed to be from the info I've read, but don't understand why adpot something unproven and new? Apparently, there have been numerous 9mm AP rounds made--steel core, all brass or bronze, tungsten--like Arcane, KTW, THV. If you sling something hard at enough fps, it should work with soft armor. I'd guess most terrorists would not have body armor, but I could be wrong.... It seems like the PDW is for military who won't likely be in combat, but MAY need a firearm. I thought a pistol was meant to be the "Personal Defense Weapon" of infantry, etc. when they had other duties, like supply. If AP is the sole issue--designing a more effective projectile would seem easier than a new caliber, weapon, etc. Your ideas are flawed, AP 9mm does not have the capability of 5.7, pistols are not accurate, 5.7 has 2/3 the recoil of 9mm while holding 50 rounds in a mag instead of 15 or 30, 2/3 recoil of 9mm, the rilfe and ammo is neither uproven nor new... just new to you, I could go on but why you will just keep the same misconceptions and dismiss anything you are told.

Man, what is your problem, Devl? He is just asking a question. What makes you think he wouldn't listen to an answer? Why do you have to be such a jackass?

Bloodroot basically has it right - AP 9mm handgun ammo is made which has good penetration, but the very high velocity means that recoil is heavier and the light bullet weight means that it slows down faster. The Russians have actually adopted such a loading in 9x19 to replace the 9x18 Makarov as their standard handgun ammo, plus a pokier 9x21 AP round for special forces guns. These are much hotter loaded than other 9x19 or 9x21 (+P+ or higher - much higher in one case).

NATO established a competition in the early 1990s for a PDW round to replace the 9x19. A key spec was that it had to penetrate CRISAT body armour (similar to the contemporary Russian stuff) at 150m plus inflict a suitably serious wound behind it. The guns envisaged for the ammo were a handgun and a light SMG. The 5.7x28 appeared to be heading for a walkover until HK came up with the 4.6x30. Tests showed that they both met the spec, but the countries couldn't agree on which to choose (national pride got in the way...) so the idea of establishing a new NATO standard round was dropped in 2003.

The US decision to revert to .45 ACP seems odd in that it has even less AP capability than 9x19 ball, and is I suspect less suited to stoking up with AP ammo. From what I have read so far, the decision seems to have been entirely informed by the effectiveness of ball rounds against unprotected targets at short range, with body armour not being considered - despite the fact that the BGs in Iraq are starting to wear it.

Coincidentally, I have just had an article published on the PDW ammo issue in this week's Jane's Defence Weekly.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

TonyWilliams--Thank you! I appreciate your answers and info. Can you comment on how difficult it is logistically to re-arm troops with a new weapon and ammo?

As I'm sure you know, in the US there are ammo manufacturers making frangible pistol rounds--light weight at a very high velocity that seem to have less felt recoil. Frankly, I've wondered why the US/NATO didn't make a SLAP 9mm round, or something comperable.

As I said in my original post, I have absolutely no military background, but in working in small organizations (health care) of around 300 people--changing anything seems to "throw a spanner into the works...." I cannot imagine dealing with a switch dealing with hundreds of thousands of people.

Thank you again.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I understand what a PDW is supposed to be from the info I've read, but don't understand why adpot something unproven and new? Apparently, there have been numerous 9mm AP rounds made--steel core, all brass or bronze, tungsten--like Arcane, KTW, THV. If you sling something hard at enough fps, it should work with soft armor. I'd guess most terrorists would not have body armor, but I could be wrong.... It seems like the PDW is for military who won't likely be in combat, but MAY need a firearm. I thought a pistol was meant to be the "Personal Defense Weapon" of infantry, etc. when they had other duties, like supply. If AP is the sole issue--designing a more effective projectile would seem easier than a new caliber, weapon, etc. Your ideas are flawed, AP 9mm does not have the capability of 5.7, pistols are not accurate, 5.7 has 2/3 the recoil of 9mm while holding 50 rounds in a mag instead of 15 or 30, 2/3 recoil of 9mm, the rilfe and ammo is neither uproven nor new... just new to you, I could go on but why you will just keep the same misconceptions and dismiss anything you are told. Man, what is your problem, Devl? He is just asking a question. What makes you think he wouldn't listen to an answer? Why do you have to be such a jackass?

I had a bad day.  Sometimes I am a complete dick head online when I have a bad day.  My appologies. I am not an asshole in real life... I just play one online.

Quoted: TonyWilliams--Thank you! I appreciate your answers and info. Can you comment on how difficult it is logistically to re-arm troops with a new weapon and ammo?

I have no specialist knowledge about that, but it would obviously require some work. All possible users would eventually need to be trained in using it, the armourers would need to be trained to look after it, and a new supply system would be required for the guns and their ammo.

As I'm sure you know, in the US there are ammo manufacturers making frangible pistol rounds--light weight at a very high velocity that seem to have less felt recoil. Frankly, I've wondered why the US/NATO didn't make a SLAP 9mm round, or something comperable.

The closest to it may be the SAAB-Bofors CBJ MS, a machine pistol chambered for a new 6.5 x 25 CBJ cartridge. This fires a saboted 4mm tungsten-alloy sub-projectile at high velocity, achieving good armour penetration out to a claimed 400 metres. The gun is a compact machine pistol with a clip-on bipod available for use at longer ranges. The cartridge has the same overall dimensions as the 9 x 19, and the gun can fire either round with a change of barrel. This weapon so far does not appear to have achieved any success and its current development status is unknown. Of course, the terminal effectiveness of a 4mm bullet would be questionable, to put it mildly.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

The whole 5.7 or 4.6 or whatever caliber got me thinking--and the logistics.

I'd really hate to be the poor son of a gun trying a new gun and round, hitting the target, then finding out the terminal performance is......sub-optimal. Reminds me of what I read about Moros and the .38.....Yikes!

I guess I didn't take the 100-300 meter issue into consideration with the pistol, so now it makes more sense....but I really hope whatever  the round they choose works! There's not a good way to discover something like this doesn't work as advertised.....

Thanks!

ive heard that some of the original 10mm loads could punch through lvl II(A?) armor

Quoted: The whole 5.7 or 4.6 or whatever caliber got me thinking--and the logistics. I'd really hate to be the poor son of a gun trying a new gun and round, hitting the target, then finding out the terminal performance is......sub-optimal. Reminds me of what I read about Moros and the .38.....Yikes! I guess I didn't take the 100-300 meter issue into consideration with the pistol, so now it makes more sense....but I really hope whatever  the round they choose works! There's not a good way to discover something like this doesn't work as advertised..... Thanks!

Consider the weapon is fring at 900 RPM and has 2/3 the recoil of a 9mm.  You can buzz the hell out of people with the 50 round magazine.

You will note that a single .33 caliber pellet of 00 buckshot has poor terminal effect.  Why dont people complain about the poor terminal effeciveness of 00 Buck from a 12 ga?  I mean the individual pellets are fairly similar in wounding potential to the 5.7 ammo.  12 ga obviously sucks in the terminal effetiveness department.  See where I am going?

Like I said originally, DevL, I've read the stuff on-line--I understand the theory....but, as the eloquant Yogi Berra once said: In theory, there's no difference in theory and practice, but in practice--there is.....As you know, there's 2 sides (sometimes more) to every concept. So while the idea behind the PDW is logically sound, introducing a new weapons system, caliber, training, maintenance, etc. is far more cumbersome than a new bullet that would be fired from an existing weapon that's already available. My question has been about the logistics of this change and an alternative. That's why I asked for folks with "real world" experience--someone in the military or police who unit transitioned to a new weapon, or some other item.

I don't have any military training--but in my experience in corporate America & hospitals of different shapes and sizes--It's a big transition to change anything--a computer system, the way something is done and recorded, operating room instruments, etc. and there are ALWAYS problems. In this case, the problem may be that 6 rounds later, the SOB who's charging you is still charging--I wouldn't want to be that guy wishing for a 7.62 NATO and wondering why the heck I was issued something of questionable efficacy.

BTW, sorry you had a bad day at work--don't misunderstand this--but my guess is you probably have as much military or police experience as I do....I could be wrong and not that there's anything wrong with that....but like I said, I was looking for info from folks that could participate something to my education in this area.

I would really like to meet the average joe supply infantry man, who's main role is not combat, who uses a PDW to shoot someone past 100 yards and hit them...

you ever tried to shoot anything with a pistol at 100 yards? I would be luck to hit it one time after a full magazine....

lightfighter.net/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/1931084651/m/3621062102

lightfighter.net/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/1931084651/m/6311097081

Read the posts by "Timmy"--his agency has EXTENSIVE experience shooting bad guys with the 5.7 mm round and a few of the other folks whose organizations have used the 5.7 mm in actual shooting incidents.

--------------------------------

Other than being able to perforate soft body armor, the 5.7 x 28 mm used in the FN P90, as well as the 4.6 x 30 mm fired from the HK MP7 cause wounds less incapacitating than those made by 9 mm FMJ fired from a pistol.

I have personally fired the 5.7 x 28 mm FN P-90; velocity, penetration, and tissue destruction is like a .17 Hornet--far less than we see with 75 gr TAP or 77 MK out of our M4’s. Winchester RA45T 230 gr JHP’s fired from our duty 1911’s crush more tissue and penetrate further than the 5.7 x 28 mm. Use of the 5.7 x 28 mm is a good way to ensure mission failure.

Several papers have described the incredibly poor terminal performance of projectiles fired by the FN P90:

--Dahlstrom D, Powley K, and Gordon C: “Wound Profile of the FN Cartridge (SS 190) Fired from the FN P90 Submachine Gun". Wound Ballistic Review. 4(3):21-26; Spring 2000.
--Fackler M: "Errors & Omissions", Wound Ballistic Review. 1(1):46; Winter 1991.
--Fackler M: "More on the Bizarre Fabrique National P-90", Wound Ballistic Review. 3(1):44-45; 1997.
--FBI Academy Firearms Training Unit. FBI Handgun Ammunition Tests 1989-1995. Quantico, U.S. Department of Justice--Federal Bureau of Investigation.
--Hayes C: “Personal Defense Weapons—Answer in Search of a Question”, Wound Ballistic Review. 5(1):30-36; Spring 2001.
--Roberts G: “Preliminary Evaluation of the Terminal Performance of the 5.7 x 28 mm 23 Grain FMJ Bullet Fired by the New FN P-90 , Using 10% Ordnance Gelatin as a Tissue Simulant”, AFTE Journal. 30(2):326-329, Spring 1998.
--Roberts G: “Terminal Performance of the 5.7 x 28 mm 31 Grain SS-190 FMJ Bullet Fired by the FN P-90 in 10% Ordnance Gelatin.”, AFTE Journal. In Press.

The early 5.7 x 28 mm 23 gr FMJ bullet fired by the FN P-90 had insufficient penetration for law enforcement and military use. The current 31 gr SS-190 FMJ bullet has nearly adequate penetration, but the wound resulting from this projectile has a relatively small permanent crush cavity, as well as an insignificant temporary stretch cavity. Although the 5.7 x 28 mm penetrates soft body armor, wounding potential is at best like a .22 LR or .22 Magnum. Even 9mm NATO FMJ makes a larger wound--and we are all aware of the awe inspiring incapacitation potential of M882 ball from the M9......

It is all basic physics and physiology.  Look at the surface areas in contact with tissue for 9 mm FMJ and JHP compared to 5.7 mm.  When both are point forward, the 9 mm FMJ crushes more tissue than the 5.7 mm; for the short time that the 5.7 mm is at FULL yaw, it crushes a bit more tissue than the 9 mm FMJ.  At no time does the 5.7 mm crush more tissue than the expanded 9 mm JHP--even when the 5.7 mm FMJ is at full yaw, an expanded 9 mm JHP crushes more tissue.  The relatively small temporary cavities produced by both the 9 mm and 5.7 mm projectiles are not likely to cause significant injury to the majority of elastic structures of the body.  As with any penetrating projectile, if either a 9 mm or 5.7 mm bullet is ideally placed to cause significant damage to the CNS or major cardiovascular organs, a fatal result is likely.



The P90 can definitely penetrate soft body armor, but then so can 9 mm AP rounds.  The greater momentum of 9 mm bullets allow them to defeat vehicles and other intermediate barriers better than the 5.7 mm bullets.  Standard 9 mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP JHP loads crush more tissue, offer ideal penetration, and are equally likely to not exit the opponent as the 5.7 mm.  5.56 mm and 6.8 mm weapons offer significantly superior terminal effects compared to 5.7 mm.  Bottom line—what does the P90 offer that is not already available?  The best uses for the P90 might be for executive protection details where the threat is expected to be wearing body armor and perhaps as a PDW for vehicle crew and pilots.

Quoted: Bottom line—what does the P90 offer that is not already available?  The best uses for the P90 might be for executive protection details where the threat is expected to be wearing body armor and perhaps as a PDW for vehicle crew and pilots.

Thanks for publishing all that info. Your final comment (above) does raise the key question of what PDWs are for. At the moment, they seem to be being used by various special units rather than as designed - as Personal Defence Weapons for troops who are not issued with rifles.

Issued as PDWs to troops who will have relatively little training or practice in using them, the characteristics of the P90 and the MP7 of light recoil, large magazine capacity, much greater hit probability than a pistol, and greater compactness than a carbine version of a rifle, start to make more sense.

Furthermore,  they will penetrate more than just soft body armour: the CRISAT target they were both developed to penetrate includes a titanium plate, and they can get through that at ranges of 150-200m.

IMO the most interesting rival to the FN/HK PDW concept is the new Russian 9mm AP ammo. This has excellent penetration at short range but can't be expected to match the 5.7 or 4.6 at longer ranges. OTOH, you get full-calibre wounds against unprotected targets, so it might be considered a better compromise.  These loadings are, however, very hot and seem likely to produce lots of blast and recoil, which you don't really want in a PDW. Some comparative practical testing (including use in the hands of ordinary troops) would be interesting...

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

If anyone from the government want to use my idea of using a 0.356 plastic sabot and putting a ss109 or  a tungsten 5.56NATO projectile in it for CQB....I just hope I'd get $0.01 per round "inventors fee"

But even then--I' not sure I'd want to be the guy going.....New ammo--it's supposed to work....

Do they do autospies (when possible) on bad guys shot with new ammo and publish the results? All I ever see is 10% jello testing....while it's a standard--it sure ain't  human. Anyone who knows anything about anatomy will tell you that the same human shot with the same round, distance, etc. can have different injuries simply because the person was at deep end expiration or inspiration as organs can move that much.....