Mr. T (MrT4) said:

PDW is a weapon of last resort, for folks that have no clue how to use it,Main job of this sidearm is not to get in the way of other tasks for 99,99+% of the time its not needed, and when it is needed its job it is to deter and suppress the enemy for a moment or two and inspire some courage to poor sucker who is about to get killed, i wouldn't consider the AP performance to carry much weight at all .

Wouldn't it be nicer to have the first two functions and actually accomplish something with the gun? At least until you can get to an MG?

graylion said:

Wouldn't it be nicer to have the first two functions and actually accomplish something with the gun? At least until you can get to an MG?

Mr. T's post is cynical and inaccurate.  Yes, the PDW should be more capable, because sometimes there won't be a machine gun that you can get to.

When the rear echelon troops of the 507th Maintenance Company were ambushed in March 2003, their sole .50 Browning reportedly did not work.

When Taliban fighters infiltrated Camp Bastion airbase in September 2012, pilots and mechanics armed themselves with rifles to fight the attackers.

stancrist said:

If your father wasn't pulling your leg, then I suspect that he may have been pranked by his instructor.  Muzzle climb of a M1911 is too high to make this a serious method -- except for the proverbial "gunfight in a phone booth."

He was serious.  Remember, this is in the era where the pistols were shot one-handed.  With a single outstretched arm, each shot would move his entire arm up a few degrees.  He would wait until the pistol settled back in his hand to shoot again, not at the point of maximum recoil.  The pistol was truly seen as a weapon of last resort and he said marksmanship training with it was minimal.

And do you think Pilots and mechanics, needed an AP round and realy got into the thick of it with the taliban? The body armor defeating round for self defense purposes seems demanding too much when even assault rifle in 5.56x45 is getting to its limits with ever cheaper body armor, but on the other hand, body armor covers only a tiny fraction of the body's vital organs to prevent imminent death.

Last round of PDWs that went in search of AP performance netted us special low power calibers  5.7x28 and 4.6x30  , and main contenders that also found a market P90 and MP7 are about as large as folding stock SBRs ,

Soviets with their AKSU looked as if they have a winner a short firearm with a folding stock with standard combat rifle round on their hands but from what we can read folks that actually used them in combat did not like AKSU that much ,of course with red dots , short barreled rifles like Sig Sauer Rattler become far more effective with the average user of PDW.  

And then there are such oddities US pilots are being issued packable Ar15 survival rifle  ,while its probably solid i am not to convinced its an advantage over a short barreled folding stock MCX particulary if a red dot is used..

nincomp said:

He was serious.  Remember, this is in the era where the pistols were shot one-handed.  With a single outstretched arm, each shot would move his entire arm up a few degrees.  He would wait until the pistol settled back in his hand to shoot again, not at the point of maximum recoil.

Um, if he were to wait to shoot until the pistol settled back down, how could he possibly use muzzle climb to "walk" the shots up to vital areas?

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

And do you think Pilots and mechanics, needed an AP round and realy got into the thick of it with the taliban?

Nope.  But they did need a weapon that could do more than just "deter and suppress the enemy for a moment or two and inspire some courage" to themselves before they got killed.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

Last round of PDWs that went in search of AP performance netted us special low power calibers  5.7x28 and 4.6x30

Yes.  And your point is...?

stancrist said:

Also, it may adversely affect the morale of support troops to have weapons incapable of defeating enemy armor, while infantry does

It's highly unlikely any weapon smaller than the 6.8 NGSW Spear is effective against modern hard armor. 

So the question I'd posit to you is, if thats the case, is there value in issuing any defensive weapon thats not the 6.8 NGSW (or its rough equivalent)? 

If you go back in this thread, tI postulated a pistol size  cartridge that should be able to. The ballistics are very short range compared to 6.8x51. but velocity higher than 1200 m/s

At last something we agree on.

stancrist said:

Mr. T's post is cynical and inaccurate.

I disagree it is spot on. This is what the PDW concept is for.

stancrist said:

Yes, the PDW should be more capable, because sometimes there won't be a machine gun that you can get to.

No there ALLWAYS should be a machine gun that you or your mates can get to. This is not optional. Even with rifles you NEED MGs to win a firefight. The less proficient your riflemen are the more important MGs become.

stancrist said:

When the rear echelon troops of the 507th Maintenance Company were ambushed in March 2003, their sole .50 Browning reportedly did not work.

This is not argument against PDWs and for rifles but against the leadership and maintenance of said unit. Actually to me this short sentence sounds like an investigation for neglect and bad leadership is required. How can this happen? Why is their main assent not in working condition?
I also would question why do they only have one to begin with?

stancrist said:

When Taliban fighters infiltrated Camp Bastion airbase in September 2012, pilots and mechanics armed themselves with rifles to fight the attackers.

Obviously this has not been a situation whre PDWs are required. If you have time to gear up or even go to the armory obviously you don't need to rely on a PDW. Which BTW is the classical approach. Why bother with a small weapon on the person if a big one is just a stoll to the armory away. This approach has been found wanting and the PDW concept emerged.
And just like in the previous case to me it seems the real question is not about weapons but tactics, SOP and leadership. How did the Taliban manage to infiltrate an airbase? This seems the pressing issue that needs to be adressed. Thinking about small arms for pilots is like taking Aspirin against a brain tumor. It does nothing against the cause but numbs the pain. This is the oposit of a solution. Its accepting the status quo but making it a bit more plaletable.