PDWs...and other small arms.

[VASCAR2]

I've shot a Friend's 1911 in 22 TCM and if you could get an honest 2400 FPS out of a pistol the size of a Glock 20 with a folding wire stock I think this could be a decent PDW. Short 22 caliber cartridge similar to a 5.7X28 or 22 TCM get about 2000 FPS with 40 grain bullets (22 Hornet performance or less). The 22 TCM bullet is a very versatile bullet and a polymer frame pistol the size of a Glock 20/21 could be carried in a chest horster, hip or leg holster. Add a six inch barrel, a wire stock with red dot sight and a novice could make hits out to 100 yards plus. Current 22 caliber cartridges like 5.7 X 28 and 22 TCM just need a little more velocity IMHO. Even a 22 TCM have a flatter trajectory than a 9 MM.

Add the burst capability of a Glock 18 with a spare 25-30 round stick mag and I'll volunteer to test it.

Realistically I prefer packing a pistol for close range encounters and having a carbine available if things go bad. I feel real comfortable with a Glock 19 or 43 and my Tavor or 16" AR-15 in 5.56.

[LRRPF52]

IIRC, back around 2005 the Commandant's Notes in Infantry magazine called for use of SBR versions of the M4 carbine (like the Navy's 10-inch barrel Mk18) to be used as a PDW.

The M4 was originally intended to fulfill the role of a PDW for support troops, not direct combat arms units.

SF and other units within SOCOM had been purchasing Colt Commando variants like the 653, 723, 727, and 733 as COTS items through channels other than direct military sales through coordinated procurement like the Army, Marines, and USAF did normally.

As the XM4 became more of a reality off the foundation of the Colt 727 (often called the M16A2 carbine), most SOCOM units decided to replace the M16A2 with the M4A1. NSW had already been using 727s as their standard, while JSOC used 723s on the Army side, and 727s on the Navy side.

Once 75th Ranger Regiment and SF started using the M4A1 and ditched M16A2s, it trickled into all the units that were traditionally part of the Joint Rapid Deployment Forces or Light Infantry Combat Divisions, such as the 82nd Airborne, 101st, 25th, and 10th Mountain. This all happened in the 1990s, with SF and Rangers getting M4A1s in the early 1990s starting in 1994, while the conventional units got the M4 in 1997 forward, first in the Scout Platoons, then later in the line.

This was never the intent of the M4 program, but the natural evolution since it proved to be a superior option for dismounted and mounted combat arms soldiers across the board.

I still think the M4 is too large for a PDW for Combat Support and Combat Service Support troops, as LR1955 referred to. I also don't like a protruding magazine for their duty positions, which is why the box-shaped design with unconventional magazine arrangement makes a lot of sense.

The Knight's Armament PDW is a nice little package, but still a bit big for what I think will hit the spot.

[stanc]

I still think the M4 is too large for a PDW for Combat Support and Combat Service Support troops, as LR1955 referred to. I also don't like a protruding magazine for their duty positions, which is why the box-shaped design with unconventional magazine arrangement makes a lot of sense.

The reduced snag hazard of such a design would certainly be desirable for MOS's like tank crewmen, who have to clamber through small hatches. I'd really like to see further development of the concept, although I suspect that's rather unlikely to happen, what with the military's usually conservative mindset.

BTW, here's the statement I referred to earlier:

http://www.benning.army.mil/infantry...AY-JUN2006.pdf

Sounds like it may have been the impetus for the Colt SCW? http://www.colt.com/Catalog/Military...act-Weapon-SCW

[D.Davis]

Stanc, looks like colts XM177 with out the long FH with m4 upgrades. Dave.

[LRRPF52]

Everyone I've seen shot within 10ft had wounds that exceeded anything you could ever hope to get a pistol to produce.

10ft is plenty fine for the M4, especially M4A1 Block II with 10.25" suppressed.

Only guys that survived were because of modern US echelons of care and highly-trained medics, PAs, and trauma surgeons close to the battlefield, facilitated by quick MEDEVAC.

Of everyone I know that does this for a living, the 10" guns seem to be at the top of the list for urban DA raids.

Only time pistols are preferred is for very rare occasions that require more discretion, which is well outside the METL tasks of conventional units.

[hikfromstik]

STANC , I really wish HK would redo the MP5 10mm . The HK MP5K-PDW from the early 90's was a popular close quarters weapon of its day . I'm a big 10mm fan so I'm gonna go with it as my choice of pdw ammo . Lehigh defense has some impressive penetrator bullets that get close to 2000 fps from 5" barrel . Put it in a 10" barrel and it will surpass 2000fps . Some of the 9mm +p+ are impressive too . I agree that in these modern days that pistol rounds need a make over . The 5.7 , 4.6 etc...Need more oomph to win over people and some people don't like the kick of the 10mm , maybe in my lifetime we will see a major powder development to push the envelope.

[n9nwo]

Article on the NATO PDW standard. Requirement was to penetrate Soviet body armor at 150m.

I had read the PDW article by one of our members several years back. The Brugger & Thomet MP9 (TP9 is full auto) seems to be setting the standard. The 6.5x25 ammunition may be the next generation of pistol ammunition.

http://www.sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=625

But the whole PDW market seems to have a Judge Dredd feel.

[stanc]

STANC , I really wish HK would redo the MP5 10mm . The HK MP5K-PDW from the early 90's was a popular close quarters weapon of its day . I'm a big 10mm fan so I'm gonna go with it as my choice of pdw ammo . Lehigh defense has some impressive penetrator bullets that get close to 2000 fps from 5" barrel . Put it in a 10" barrel and it will surpass 2000fps . Some of the 9mm +p+ are impressive too . I agree that in these modern days that pistol rounds need a make over . The 5.7 , 4.6 etc...Need more oomph to win over people and some people don't like the kick of the 10mm , maybe in my lifetime we will see a major powder development to push the envelope.

I've put a few rounds through a 9mm MP5. I like it a lot. Lightweight, easy to shoot well. Offers excellent hit probability. Essentially an update of the M1 carbine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HIywR-m6RI

I can't comment on the 10mm version. My experience with 10mm is limited to the Colt Delta Elite I owned for a brief period, and I no longer recall whether I disliked the pistol or the caliber (or both).

[stanc]

Article on the NATO PDW standard. Requirement was to penetrate Soviet body armor at 150m.

I had read the PDW article by one of our members several years back. The Brugger & Thomet MP9 (TP9 is full auto) seems to be setting the standard. The 6.5x25 ammunition may be the next generation of pistol ammunition. http://www.sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=625

I think the NATO CRISAT target is badly outdated. As best I can tell from the limited research I've done, the CRISAT target was created to simulate Soviet-era body armor.

Protection level of Russian body armor has reportedly been improved several times since the 1980s. The latest 6B43 and 6B45 vests have ceramic inserts that reportedly provide protection comparable to Western hard armor. http://www.armyrecognition.com/weapo..._12705162.html

Below: 6B43 body armor shot with 7.62x54R SVD sniper rifle @ 10 meters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXvgDfE8g2w

If it is desired to prepare for possible future war against the Russians, will any proposed PDW round be adequate to defeat their latest body armor?

Or will it be necessary to use the standard rifle/machine gun caliber?

[LR1955]

I think the NATO CRISAT target is badly outdated. As best I can tell from the limited research I've done, the CRISAT target was created to simulate Soviet-era body armor.

Protection level of Russian body armor has reportedly been improved several times since the 1980s. The latest 6B43 and 6B45 vests have ceramic inserts that reportedly provide protection comparable to Western hard armor. http://www.armyrecognition.com/weapo..._12705162.html

Below: 6B43 body armor shot with 7.62x54R SVD sniper rifle @ 10 meters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXvgDfE8g2w

If it is desired to prepare for possible future war against the Russians, will any proposed PDW round be adequate to defeat their latest body armor?

Or will it be necessary to use the standard rifle/machine gun caliber?

Stan:

You probably won't penetrate it with any single shot from any small arms. Multiple shots and who knows but from guys I know who did get shot in chest plates, the impact knocked them down pretty hard.

May be able to cleave it with your tomahawk or perhaps stab through with your knife.

Why a PDW anyway if the best way to prevent fratricide (when being over run) is to discard your firearm and use 'cold steel'?

LR55

[stanc]

Stan: You probably won't penetrate it with any single shot from any small arms. Multiple shots and who knows but from guys I know who did get shot in chest plates, the impact knocked them down pretty hard.

Yeah, that can sure be seen in these videos. One soldier described it as like being hit with a sledgehammer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxeP9SjJt68

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMMSA3opBk4

May be able to cleave it with your tomahawk or perhaps stab through with your knife.

Why a PDW anyway if the best way to prevent fratricide (when being over run) is to discard your firearm and use 'cold steel'?

LOL. Now you're just being mean.

But seriously, if it should be deemed necessary for small arms to be able to defeat modern hard armor, it looks to me like the only way to possibly achieve that is to go the route that the Russians started down three decades ago: Intermediate caliber, ultra-high velocity.

Developed for machine gun and sniper rifle, the 6x49 Unified (below, center) had a 77-gr steel-core bullet @ nearly 3800 fps.

[Sticks]

...May be able to cleave it with your tomahawk or perhaps stab through with your knife.

Why a PDW anyway if the best way to prevent fratricide (when being over run) is to discard your firearm and use 'cold steel'?

LR55

That's not going away any time soon, is it? Flashbacks of Gecko45.

[LR1955]

Yeah, that can sure be seen in these videos. One soldier described it as like being hit with a sledgehammer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxeP9SjJt68

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMMSA3opBk4

LOL. Now you're just being mean.

But seriously, if it should be deemed necessary for small arms to be able to defeat modern hard armor, it looks to me like the only way to possibly achieve that is to go the route that the Russians started down three decades ago: Intermediate caliber, ultra-high velocity.

Developed for machine gun and sniper rifle, the 6x49 Unified (below, center) had a 77-gr steel-core bullet @ nearly 3800 fps.

Stan:

Once again you come through. Living lexicon of small arms and ammunition. I could look on the internet for days and not find this.

I can imagine that this 6 X 49 Russkie cartridge could go through our ceramic body armor.

Must be ten years ago when one of our guys got hold of a new chest plate that we shot with various NATO cartridges. The one that penetrated the most was M-855. Then M-118 Special Ball. Neither went through but both dimpled the back side of the plate. The 855 more so than the 118. I still have the plate somewhere.

And what you have continually demonstrated the entire time on this forum is that every practical combination of bullet and cartridge probably has already been developed and tested. The ones that worked the best were the ones that became issued. Most likely that Russian 6 mm went through about everything but went through barrels faster so it wasn't put into production.

Thats why I get a kick out of guys who come on screaming about how much better a 6.5 Grendel is than X, Y or Z cartridge or combination of bullet and cartridge. I am sure a Grendel could be selected to replace the issued 5.56, providing the Grendel met what ever requirements were developed by DoD and did so by a great enough margin to warrant the billions it would cost. Same with that Russian 6 X 49. Or anything else for that matter.

LR55

[stanc]

I can imagine that this 6 X 49 Russkie cartridge could go through our ceramic body armor.

And what you have continually demonstrated the entire time on this forum is that every practical combination of bullet and cartridge probably has already been developed and tested. The ones that worked the best were the ones that became issued. Most likely that Russian 6 mm went through about everything but went through barrels faster so it wasn't put into production.

That does seem likely. Although there are other issues which could be contributing factors:

- Development began in the late 1980s, just before the Soviet Union collapsed. The resulting budget cutbacks could have caused the program to be dropped, just as the Germans cancelled adoption of the G11 caseless ammo rifle.

- In that time period, the standard body armor for US troops was the PASGT Kevlar vest, which is easily penetrated by ordinary ball ammo, especially the steel-core stuff the Russkis use.

But, if barrel wear is the determining factor, isn't that what quick-change barrels are for?

Design the new rifle like the Steyr AUG, and issue a spare barrel with every rifle. Problem solved.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3Gzn7XxBaQ

Thats why I get a kick out of guys who come on screaming about how much better a 6.5 Grendel is than X, Y or Z cartridge or combination of bullet and cartridge. I am sure a Grendel could be selected to replace the issued 5.56, providing the Grendel met what ever requirements were developed by DoD and did so by a great enough margin to warrant the billions it would cost. Same with that Russian 6 X 49. Or anything else for that matter.

Yup.

[LRRPF52]

6.5 Grendel with an M855A1 projectile does have arms defeat advantage over M855A1 5.56, and will perforate the CRISAT test at 400m from a 14.5" barrel.

Sectional density and length of projectile to depth of armor shows significant advantage to 6.5mm, as well as BC and retained impact speed or momentum at distance.

Not saying 6.5 Grendel should be a 5.56 replacement, just something to consider.



If one of the main objections to a new PDW cartridge is adding an additional DODIC to the system, then we really should be looking at letting 9mm and 7.62 NATO being left in the 20th Century, and maybe even 5.56 NATO.

A smart move would be to develop a PDW cartridge that is also suitable for a good portion of the Combat Arms Duty positions that are not specifically tasked with engaging the enemy with their primary weapon unless in the defense or in an overrun scenario. Guys like key leaders, RTOs, Ammo Bearers, Assistant Machine Gunners, Forward Observers, JTACs, TAC-Ps, Stinger Gunners, Javelin Gunners, Carl Gustav Gunners, etc.

None of them should be carrying a 9mm pistol. All of them should be carrying a small PDW that is effective out to 300m, but fits in a smaller package than 5.56 NATO, like the 6x35 KAC PDW updated with a better projectile in the form of M855A1.

If that 6x35 PDW was dusted off with engineered propellant, a higher BC, and copper core with steel penetrator construction, you could have something that would do as well as 5.56 NATO M855A1 by making up for MV with BC, while allowing many more magazines to be carried than is currently feasible. Even 5.56 mags become more difficult to carry with out armor. I used to be able to carry a double basic load before Interceptor IOTV and SAAPI plates. Now you have man units who go with an SOP that is less than the older 210 rounds basic load for the M16/M4.

With an improved 6x35 PDW, you could carry 1.5x as many mags as with NATO 5.56 STANAG mags, and have better terminal performance than M855, with higher hit probability than M855A1 5.56 by going with much higher BC.

Have a dismounted cartridge mix of:

PDW/Enhanced Infantry Rifle Cartridge for most soldiers
DM/Light SASS 6.5mm cartridge
6.5mm LSAT (which exceeds 7.62x54R performance)

These would replace the aging 9mm, 5.56 NATO, and 7.62 NATO systems and all their penalties and limitations. 9mm has no place outside the wire, 7.62 NATO is too heavy with not enough juice for the squeeze, and 5.56 suffers from too long of a case with no room for ogive length to increase BC like 5.45x39 has.