gatnerd

Military Guns and Ammunition

Hosted by gatnerd

This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.

  • 3358
    MEMBERS
  • 191133
    MESSAGES
  • 0
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

PDW again   Small Arms <20mm

Started 20/12/20 by DavidPawley; 123574 views.
stancrist

From: stancrist

17-Sep

schnuersi said:

My opinion is based on the original PDW concept. As being a general issue weapon for all non infantry personel that can be carried on the person all the time. But some argue that the power of a SBR using 5,56 is a requirement. The 7,5 BRNO has been my counterargument that this means a 5,56 SBR is needed. The 7, BRNO delivers the same level of performance at 100 m and can be used form a weapon of the same size and layout as the MP7 or MP9. This a true PDW is still possible and an SBR which would require the additional issue of handguns not necessary.

A weapon the size of the MP7, chambered in 7.5 BRNO would probably weigh about 5.0 lb / 2.3 kg unloaded.

IMO, that is much too heavy (and too bulky) for a true PDW intended to be carried on the person all the time.

schnuersi said:

There also is a noticable tendency to turn a PDW into a general issue short range assault weapon... which of course leads to the conclusion that 5,56 carbines are the way to go. This IMHO is on the focus of the needs of infantry at the detriment of all other personell.

Well, the infantry are far more likely than "all other personnel" to have to engage the enemy with small arms.

Would you focus PDW design on the needs of the "all other personnel" who are unlikely to ever be in combat?

stancrist

From: stancrist

17-Sep

JesseH1234 said:

I love/hate being a constant contrarian BUT: I can't see the BRNO 7.5 cartridge being remotely viable to any military.

It seems to me that the question of "What caliber should a PDW be?" depends upon the body armor issue for which NGSW was developed to counter.

If Level IV armor defeat is required for NGSW, it seems logical to select a PDW cartridge that can also defeat said armor, albeit at much shorter range.

I don't know if the 7.5 BRNO would be the best choice to accomplish that, or if another cartridge of greater or lesser power would be a better option.

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

17-Sep

stancrist said:

If Level IV armor defeat is required for NGSW, it seems logical to select a PDW cartridge that can also defeat said armor, albeit at much shorter range.

That likely negates any hope of a PDW given that Level IV is stopping m993 7.62 130gr Tungsten at 2850fps from a 16" barrel from 40' away. 

I suppose in theory 7.5FK could fire a tungsten SLAP round...but who knows.

I'd say a more reasonable PDW option is being able to penetrate a current IIIA+ ballistic helmet, as thats something a compact weapon and even handgun could actually do with a steel core projectile. 

  • Edited 17 September 2022 23:51  by  gatnerd
gatnerd

From: gatnerd

17-Sep

JesseH1234 said:

Otherwise Tony's old idea for a long barreled "artillery luger" FiveSeven with a wire stock would probably be about as good as one can get. 

I prefer (and own) 5.7, and have advocated repeatedly for a B&T MP9 sized weapon in 5.7 as the sweet spot for a PDW.

My point with the 7.5fk or really any other PDW cartridge is that a magazine in grip format is really optimal, and that the P90 top mounted magazine really isn't as cool as it looks. 

stancrist

From: stancrist

18-Sep

gatnerd said:

I'd say a more reasonable PDW option is being able to penetrate a current IIIA+ ballistic helmet, as thats something a compact weapon and even handgun could actually do with a steel core projectile.

I don't know if I'd call that a "reasonable" option.  Soldiers are typically taught to shoot center of mass.  Against assaulting enemy infantry, that means aiming for the chest.

How reasonable is it for non-infantry personnel to try for headshots at rapidly moving enemy troops?  And if headshots are the way to go, why even bother using AP ammo?

Why not just use Ball ammo and aim for the unprotected face?

  • Edited 18 September 2022 2:13  by  stancrist
stancrist

From: stancrist

18-Sep

gatnerd said:

My point with the 7.5fk or really any other PDW cartridge is that a magazine in grip format is really optimal, and that the P90 top mounted magazine really isn't as cool as it looks.

I would be inclined to agree on the format, but if you're going to arm cooks and clerks with a SMG and tell them to make headshots, having a gun with 50 rounds just seems to make a lot more sense than having a gun loaded with only 15 rounds.

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

18-Sep

stancrist said:

A weapon the size of the MP7, chambered in 7.5 BRNO would probably weigh about 5.0 lb / 2.3 kg unloaded.

I am not convinced that a MP7 chambered in 7.5 or 5,7 for that matter would significantly differ in weight compared the original version in 4,6.

Furthermore I am absolutely convinced that it is possible to keep a 2.something kg weapon on the person all the time. Even 3 or 4 kg is absolutely doable. Weight wise an M4 carbine could be on the person all the time IMHO. Its just the form and size that makes this unrealistic.
What weight can be carried on the person depends allmost entirely on training and getting used to.

BTW: I met plenty of people who argued the standard issue service pristol is to heavy to be kept on the person all the time... if we concider these people to be correct effectively no usefull weapon can achieve this requirement.

stancrist said:

Well, the infantry are far more likely than "all other personnel" to have to engage the enemy with small arms. Would you focus PDW design on the needs of the "all other personnel" who are unlikely to ever be in combat?

Because its not for infantry to use.
Infantry troops have, carbines, rifles, DMRs, LMGs, GLs etc to fight an infantry fight. Why would they need an additional weapon? Why should the one weapon intended for everybody else be designed to infantry specifications rooted in infantry combat.
A PDW is an emergeny self defense weapon. Its purpose is to be there when needed and give the user a chance to defend himself and buy time until a serious infantry or heavy weapon can be brought to bear.
This is why IMHO compactness and carryability are paramount. Performance is secondary.
If ones understanding of the PDW concept differs the requirements differ.

I am also not convinced that the 7.5 is a sensible replacement for either the 4,6 or 5,7. IMHO the flat trajectory and high ammo count of the latter two is a huge advantage for use by a mediocre or worse shooter. The 7.5 happens to deliver the same KE as 5,56 from a 10" barrel does at 100 m. But it definetly will be harder to shoot and the ammo count would be lower. For a well trained shooter for whom impact energy deliver is a more important criteria than shootability because he can reliable score hits either way this might be different. Such a person most likely is not part of the intended user group of a general issue PDW.

stancrist

From: stancrist

18-Sep

schnuersi said:

I am not convinced that a MP7 chambered in 7.5 or 5,7 for that matter would significantly differ in weight compared the original version in 4,6.

Since the 7.5 BRNO is a significantly larger and more powerful cartridge than the 4.6 HK, I figure the MP7 design would probably have to be "beefed up" to use it.  However, I could be wrong.

schnuersi said:

Furthermore I am absolutely convinced that it is possible to keep a 2.something kg weapon on the person all the time. Even 3 or 4 kg is absolutely doable. ... What weight can be carried on the person depends allmost entirely on training and getting used to.

Weight is not the only issue.  Size is at least as important, if not more so.

I question the idea that a SMG of the size and weight of an MP7 would be practical for carry on the person of every non-infantry soldier, all of the time.

schnuersi said:

BTW: I met plenty of people who argued the standard issue service pristol is to heavy to be kept on the person all the time... if we concider these people to be correct effectively no usefull weapon can achieve this requirement.

LOL.

schnuersi said:

       stancrist said: Well, the infantry are far more likely than "all other personnel" to have to engage the enemy with small arms. Would you focus PDW design on the needs of the "all other personnel" who are unlikely to ever be in combat?

Because its not for infantry to use. Infantry troops have, carbines, rifles, DMRs, LMGs, GLs etc to fight an infantry fight. Why would they need an additional weapon? Why should the one weapon intended for everybody else be designed to infantry specifications...

It shouldn't.  I misunderstood your earlier comment.

schnuersi said:

A PDW is an emergeny self defense weapon. Its purpose is to be there when needed and give the user a chance to defend himself and buy time until a serious infantry or heavy weapon can be brought to bear. This is why IMHO compactness and carryability are paramount.

As I think I've said in the past, IMHO "compactness and carryability" matter to very few military occupations. 

The only jobs that come to mind which truly need a lightweight, compact PDW are armored vehicle crewmen.

Clerks, cooks and most other non-infantry do not actually need to have a weapon on their person at all times.

  • Edited 18 September 2022 15:35  by  stancrist
In reply toRe: msg 656
stancrist

From: stancrist

19-Sep

No PDW proponents have comments?  Perhaps I should have phrased the above as questions.

Are "compactness and carryability" actually needed by the vast majority of military occupations? 

Other than armored vehicle crewmen, which personnel truly need a lightweight, compact PDW?

Why do you think most non-infantry actually need to have a weapon on their person at all times?

autogun

From: autogun

20-Sep

What about infantrymen whose primary task is deploying weapons such as anti-tank or AA missiles, grenade launchers or anything else other than a rifle or LMG?

TOP