Army's 'subcompact' rifle search in doubt

[SBL]

Army's 'Subcompact' Rifle Search in Doubt

http://images.military.com/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheadername1=Content-Type&blobheadername2=Content-Disposition&blobheadervalue1=image%2Fjpeg&blobheadervalue2=inline%3Bfilename%3DFL_pdwsearch_032609.jpg&blobkey=id&blobnocache=false&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1209979801919&ssbinary=true
March 26, 2009
Military.com


It could be a perfect fit for cramped cockpits and truck cabs -- a weapon potent enough to penetrate body armor, but sporting a bantam package that won't turn maneuvering in tight spaces into a Houdini act.
Though the Army says it's interested in putting a so-called "subcompact" carbine into the hands of certain Joes, the effort is likely to get kicked to the curb in favor of a new, full-sized carbine -- the victim of withering budgets and the service's focus on updating the M4.

Late last summer, the Army embarked on an ambitious analysis of the latest weapons the small arms industry had to offer. The effort focused mainly on possible alternatives to the M4 carbine, but its secondary goal was to look at subcompacts, or so-called "personal defense weapons."
These handy little guns can be anything from a submachine gun to a chopped-down carbine. The Army first announced it was interested in such a weapon in 2007, to give pilots, tankers and truck drivers a little more firepower than the Beretta M9 9mm pistol.
The service's interest prompted gun makers to gin up a variety of these James Bond-style weapons in multiple calibers and barrel lengths. Gun companies showed off their new designs at an Army industry day in November, but Army weapons officials still have no concrete plans for the effort's future.
"The subcompact has to serve a lot of different people ... it's much too early to say this is what we are looking for," Jim Stone, the head of the Soldier Requirement's Division at Fort Benning, Ga., told Military.Com recently.
Such a cautious approach has veteran gun makers doubtful that these new, compact weapons will ever make it to formal testing, let alone into Soldier's hands.
"I see this as an uphill battle," said C. Reed Knight Jr., owner of Knight's Armament Company. "The government still doesn't know what it wants."
Knight's Armament unveiled its new 6x35mm PDW at the industry day late last year. The sleek, 4.5 pound package has an effective range of 300 meters and can fire 700 rounds per minute on full auto, Knight said.
But the subcompact concept is nothing new. It all started with the .45cal Thompson and M3 submachine guns of World War II fame.
Over the years there have been innovations to the submachine gun genre, such as the Heckler & Koch MP5, a very popular 9mm weapon developed in the 1960s and still favored by numerous special operations and law enforcement units.
Experts say the only real drawback to the submachine gun is that its pistol ammunition isn't powerful enough for the battlefield. One alternative that emerged during the Vietnam War was the XM177, or "Commando" series of weapons. It fired the same 5.56mm round as the M-16, but came with a telescoping stock and 10-inch and 11.5-inch barrels.
The latest versions of these shorty carbines -- such as the H&K 416 -- emerged in 2004 at the request of some special operations units looking for something more reliable than their M4A1. The key to the 416's reliability is its piston gas system rather than the direct impingement system used on the M4 and M-16, which blows heat and carbon residue into the chamber.
And the most compact version of the 416 sports a 10-inch barrel -- that's 4.5 inches shorter than the M4's barrel.
Since then, the small arms industry has been flooded with new piston-driven carbine designs, many of them small enough for use as PDWs.
Among these is LWRC International's PSD. It has an 8-inch barrel and comes in both 5.56mm and the more potent 6.8mm. The Adams Arms Inc. PDW 5.56 takes the barrel length down do 7.5 inches.
Another type of PDW that's gained popularity over the past two decades combines the compactness of a submachine gun with small, rifle-style ammunition powerful enough to penetrate some types of soft armor vests and ballistic helmets.
The first of these appeared in the late 1980s when FN Herstal introduced its P90. The unique design features a 5.7x28mm round and an effective range of approximately 200 meters. The P90's bullpup layout and 10.4-inch barrel keeps the overall length at less than 20 inches, where and M4 measures 30.5 inches when the stock is fully collapsed.
The P90 has a 50-round magazine and can fire up to 900 rounds per minute. The weapon earned more notoriety when it showed up on the set of the TV series "Stargate SG-1."
A decade later, H&K came out with its version of the hybrid PDW, the MP7. It's chambered in 4.6x30mm and also has an effective range of about 200 meters. The 20-, 30- and 40-round magazines load through the pistol grip, making the MP7 resemble the venerable Uzi submachine gun. With this design, the 7-inch barreled MP7 measures only 16.3 inches with its stock collapsed.
By comparison, Knight's Armament PDW measures 17.5 inches with an 8-inch barrel when the stock is folded. The 6x35mm ammunition gives it an effective range of 300 meters with 50 percent less recoil than the M4 carbine, said Knight, who began developing his PDW in 2004 to fill the gap between the M4 and the M9 pistol.
"The 5.56mm is too big and the 9mm is too small," he said. "We really need something in between those."
As part of the request for information, Army weapons officials maintain the service is looking at all calibers for both the carbine and the subcompact.
The Army has made it clear, though, that it will not have a new requirements document for a subcompact until it completes the carbine requirement sometime late this summer.
"The carbine is the priority over the subcompact," the Army's Stone said. "I don't think you will see a new subcompact requirement this year."
The state of the economy will also force the Army to consider "is this worth my investment or not?" Stone said. "Separating wants and needs sometimes is very tough."
It's this kind of talk that makes Knight doubtful he will get a return on the $2 million his company spent developing its new PDW.
Knight said he knew when he started that the weapon would have less than "a 50-50 chance of it getting adopted.
"I think it will probably die a slow death," he said

http://www.military.com/news/article/armys-subcompact-rifle-search-in-doubt.html?ESRC=dod.nl

[Soldat_Américain]

they're searching for a replacement to the M16 platform...or at least so reported by Army Times in November or somewhere thereabouts, so subcompact needs to wait or grab the MP7 or MP5K.

[Alpha-17]

Really, a "sub compact" is far less important than a reliable, powerful, primary weapon. So if we have to put off issuing tankers, truck drivers, pilots, and other POGs a weapon smaller than an M4 so we Grunts can get a good weapon, I'm fine with it. 'sides, adopt the SCAR or the XM8, and just use the ultra-short stubby version as your "sub compact".

[Soldat_Américain]

Definitely that should be the priority right now...but the bean counters seem to have other ideas.

[kopema]

The state of the economy will also force the Army to consider "is this worth my investment or not?" Stone said. "Separating wants and needs sometimes is very tough."


Isn't it amazing how government spending in general has tripled this year, but somehow the military is the ONLY segment that will need to tighten its belt?

[kopema]

they're searching for a replacement to the M16 platform...

They keep doing "evaluations," but as I understand it the military's criteria is that they won't replace the M16 until they find a system that's a 100% improvement in effectiveness.

That's a pretty tall order for a new rifle vs. one that's been refined for 40 years. We'll never know the eventual capability of a new platform until it's been in service for a while. Personally, all I know for certain is that I would rather have a weapon that gives me even a better chance of survival TODAY, than wait another forty years in the hope that somebody'll invent a real-life phaser.

The government can keep screwing around forever if it wants to. The bottom line is that they won't make a change until they decide to make a change. The real search for a replacement won't start until after that happens.

[SBL]

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there already a 'snub-nosed' variant of the M16/M4 for CQB type stuff?

[Soldat_Américain]

They keep doing "evaluations," but as I understand it the military's criteria is that they won't replace the M16 until they find a system that's a 100% improvement in effectiveness.

That's a pretty tall order for a new rifle vs. one that's been refined for 40 years. We'll never know the eventual capability of a new platform until it's been in service for a while. Personally, all I know for certain is that I would rather have a weapon that gives me even a better chance of survival TODAY, than wait another forty years in the hope that somebody'll invent a real-life phaser.

The government can keep screwing around forever if it wants to. The bottom line is that they won't make a change until they decide to make a change. The real search for a replacement won't start until after that happens.
Yeah...I know...it blows.

[martinexsquaddie]

the British produced the cut down SA80
probably going to have to look at a bullpup type weapon to get 5.56 to do its thing from a short barrel
or a p90
mp7
etc

[Arnie100]

What about the Knight PDW?

[The Dane]

KAC PDW

http://www.youtube.com/v/oRfwdYpOrzc

[deagle]

i would jsut retrofit current m4's (to save on money), and just use a folding stock instead. compact, and with just a quick swing, extended stock.

[Bulletproof]

A W4 w/ 10" barrel look compact enough no? How about some C8CQB? p-)

[Soldat_Américain]

A m4 w/ 10" barrel look compact enough no?
I think we're going for two inches or less...:)

[Hippo]

"The 5.56mm is too big and the 9mm is too small," he said. "We really need something in between those."

lolwut


.........

[Bulletproof]

They want the godly 6.5 :D

[Soldat_Américain]

H&K UMP .45 cal, should be good enough, but just get the MP-7 and be over with it.


They want the godly 6.5 :D No dude they want the 5.8, not the 6.8. They want small and just a fraction bigger:D

[Bulletproof]

Ump .45? Why not the Kriss then?

[Soldat_Américain]

Ump .45? Why not the Kriss then?
I'd honestly take whatever they decided to get for $200, because I like my M16A4.

[DocFrench]

Beretta Storm? Same Mags as the M-9. With a 16" barrel it's only 24" long, and thats with a fixed stock. A 10" barrel would bring it down to about 18"-19". I get 100 meter hits from mine with about a 2" drop.

[Greek soldier]

Why spent money on R&D when there's the H&K MP7A1?

[Soldat_Américain]

because sometimes we have very stupid people in our acquisition programs

[Tribunius]

i would jsut retrofit current m4's (to save on money), and just use a folding stock instead. compact, and with just a quick swing, extended stock.

Folding stocks can't be used on anything based on the m16 series. The gas buffer tube is back there in the stock.

[Eknytz]

they're searching for a replacement to the M16 platform...or at least so reported by Army Times in November or somewhere thereabouts, so subcompact needs to wait or grab the MP7 or MP5K.

From what I've read the AH-6 pilots in Operation Gothic Serpent said the MP5K was not the best choice.

And whats up with this MP-7 business, why not take the P90?
I've also read up on some swedish 9x19mm Armor Piercing ammo(Bofors 9mm HP/M39B round) , they could just use that in the MP-5's that are already in inventory.

[Dan2004]

http://www.imfdb.org/images/thumb/8/87/DDM3GreaseGun-3.jpg/500px-DDM3GreaseGun-3.jpg

[Shadowstorm]

I heard Magpul is developing a new gun called the PDR or Personal Defense Rifle. Here some links about it.

http://www.magpul.com/pdfs/PDRtech_PR.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oLcHkCcz_c

[Dan2004]

I heard Magpul is developing a new gun called the PDR or Personal Defense Rifle. Here some links about it.

http://www.magpul.com/pdfs/PDRtech_PR.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oLcHkCcz_c

Damn that's a sweet lil rifle. :)

A 16" civvie version would be pretty nice.

[James]

What about the Knight PDW?

You mean the one mentioned in the article? What about it?

I wonder why they can't just go to an AR with an 11.5" bbl. Or why bother at all.

[Soldat_Américain]

From what I've read the AH-6 pilots in Operation Gothic Serpent said the MP5K was not the best choice.

And whats up with this MP-7 business, why not take the P90?
I've also read up on some swedish 9x19mm Armor Piercing ammo(Bofors 9mm HP/M39B round) , they could just use that in the MP-5's that are already in inventory.
I'm down for the P90, it really doesn't matter to me, I'd take more ammo for my M16 instead of getting a "subcompact" rifle which, doesn't that mean PDW? That Magpul weapon looks interesting, if they got one of those maybe the bean counters would look at a bullpup design for the service rifle...just give me a TAVOR already...

[Andy-M]

Folding stocks can't be used on anything based on the m16 series. The gas buffer tube is back there in the stock.

Colt Sub-compact weapon

http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1183

bottom post from SMGLee on this page

http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=24931

[martinexsquaddie]

to be fair in blackhawk down no gun would have helped in that situation

[idebo]

watmmmmmmmmmm

[Argysh]

I got the chance to shoot a mp7 only a few times since it's not my standart issued weapon but I'm a HUGE fan of it and I seriously believe there's no better weapon for vehicle crews and similar troops.

I'm also really looking forward to the UCP, but that's another topic :roll:

[JoaMei]

From what I've read the AH-6 pilots in Operation Gothic Serpent said the MP5K was not the best choice.

And whats up with this MP-7 business, why not take the P90?
I've also read up on some swedish 9x19mm Armor Piercing ammo(Bofors 9mm HP/M39B round) , they could just use that in the MP-5's that are already in inventory.

The P90 is quite big, its a good weapon but not usefull for this role we are talking about.

MP-7 is not much bigger than a Pistol and can be carried like one in a holster. And it can be fired quite comfortable with just one hand, like a pistol. Its even small enough for fighter cockpits.

[Soldat_Américain]

The P90 is quite big, its a good weapon but not usefull for this role we are talking about.

MP-7 is not much bigger than a Pistol and can be carried like one in a holster. And it can be fired quite comfortable with just one hand, like a pistol. Its even small enough for fighter cockpits.
Like in Stealth...Jessica Biel...what a hottie!

[len173]

Could Tavor, and micro Tavor be an option?

[Soldat_Américain]

I would so take the Tavor as my service rifle.

[JoaMei]

Could Tavor, and micro Tavor be an option?

Tavor is also a good weapon, but like the P90 to big to be carried like a Pistol or fired with one hand.

For the given Problem so far only the MP-7 is a good answer, and Im not saying that because its from a german company.

[Hammer27]

Let's just give them Vipers and call it a day. Same lower reciever as the M-4, same magazines, same caliber. Keep It Simple Stupid

http://defensereview.com/1_31_2004/M16clinicm16viper.jpg

http://defensereview.com/stories/m16clinic/M16%20Clinic_Medic003.jpg

[Alpha-17]

to be fair in blackhawk down no gun would have helped in that situation
Fully automatic, belt fed 12 gauge shotgun. Definately keep the crowds off your back.... until the ammo went out.


Tavor is also a good weapon, but like the P90 to big to be carried like a Pistol or fired with one hand.


Not if you're a real man:
http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m275/Alpha-17/AVATAR_011.jpg
Sorry, had to.

Joking aside, if this is such and issue, why couldn't the Army adopt a short barreled M4, or a ready made PDW, like the P90 or MP7 as an interim measure, and then solve all the problems of the PDW concept years (decades probably, if ever) down the line with a whole family of weapons that are compatible with what the grunts are carrying, and the helo crews, and the tankers, etc? If said weapon works for the Germans (MP7), or the Belgians (P90), why the hell do we need to spend years testing it, and tweaking it, and making sure it works for us?

[Waterman]

I agree with Hammer......a shorter barreled version of the M4, keep the same ammo, mags and method of operation as what everyone learned from boot camp. Adding another weapon, with it's related spare parts, different ammo, different mags, etc and operates differently from the weapon everyone is trained on from Day 1, is just a dumb idea.

It may need to be a gas piston design, or have the gas system specifically designed for the short barrel (something between 8" & 10" would be good), so that reliability wouldn't suffer (and remember these weapons will mostly go to people who aren't going to spend the same time cleaning them as an infantryman-so they should be able to keep running while dirty or with no lube).

The carbine type stock could be made to collapse down smaller (without being a folder that would remove the recoil spring-have it be able to collapse all the way down to the buffer tube).

Why make the situation more difficult than it has to be.....pick something like what I described above, and you can have it in the field, in troops hands in a very short time.

[Arnie100]

Here's another idea: http://www.zmweapons.com/lr_rifles.htm. A short- barreled version of one those might be the ticket!

[Likvid]

~Year ago, they were available also with 14.5 and 11.5 barrels.

Now it's Para USA by the way.
http://www.para-usa.com/new/product_rifle.php

[SMGLee]

Nothing in the way of the P90 nor the Mp7 has been proven effective... both rounds are a poor performer when it comes to soft tissue.


Any PDW style weapon for the future US combat forces would be in the form of the next generation US Army rifle program.. if that program succeed in the end...or it might just be another still born like many previously

[JoaMei]

Here's another idea: http://www.zmweapons.com/lr_rifles.htm. A short- barreled version of one those might be the ticket!


~Year ago, they were available also with 14.5 and 11.5 barrels.

Now it's Para USA by the way.
http://www.para-usa.com/new/product_rifle.php

Are we talking about the same Problem????

A compact Carbine simply isnt a PDW.

Can you carry it like a Pistol in a holster?

No!

Can you fire it (effectively) one handed?

No!

[Hippo]

dont you(JoaMei) want in your own words, a "tactical carbine" or "compact SMG" as your perfect subcompact rifle?

what does that even mean??

[Likvid]

I don't think that "pistol feature" is necessary for PDW. Armies using compact carbines and submachineguns in PDW role for decades. Besides, shooting such big gun (like MP7 for example) from one hand, can be hardly comfortable.

[Argysh]

I don't think that "pistol feature" is necessary for PDW. Armies using compact carbines and submachineguns in PDW role for decades. Besides, shooting such big gun (like MP7 for example) from one hand, can be hardly comfortable.
actually it's ok. But whenever you get the chance you'll use the buttstock and folding grip.

[Seiran]

Building on what SMGLee mentioned a page back, you're all forgetting that lovely little "NATO Standard" issue. The rounds that the P90 and the MP7 fire don't fall into that category, which would make logistics beyond a nightmare.

As for the Tavor idea - I support it and have supported it since the project was under development, however since IWI has no manufacturing plants in the US, and more than likely wouldn't build one, it's not eligible as a provider for US Military weapon systems. Add in the inherent dislike of bullpup systems in the US Military and you've got a pretty heavily stacked deck to start with.

[Alpha-17]

Building on what SMGLee mentioned a page back, you're all forgetting that lovely little "NATO Standard" issue. The rounds that the P90 and the MP7 fire don't fall into that category, which would make logistics beyond a nightmare.

The NATO standard has always been what we, meaning Americans, want. The Brits wanted .280, we forced 7.62 down their throats. In the late 70's, we did the same with the 5.56 round. If we want a weapon to be standardized, we'll first adopt it ourselves, and tell the rest of NATO "hey, lets do this". Sides, both the P90 and MP7 are used by NATO countries... would make standardizing the round less of a pain.

[JoaMei]

dont you(JoaMei) want in your own words, a "tactical carbine" or "compact SMG" as your perfect subcompact rifle?

what does that even mean??

No, Im just saying the MP-7 offers everything you need for a PDW.

[SMGLee]

No, Im just saying the MP-7 offers everything you need for a PDW.

]
Except for actual terminal effectiveness against soft tissue...

[Baboonass]

Nothing in the way of the P90 nor the Mp7 has been proven effective... both rounds are a poor performer when it comes to soft tissue.




Yup.

Neat little toys, but pretty pointless.

[Arnie100]

Yet the US Secret Service uses the P-90 and the KSK uses the MP-7...

[Baboonass]

Yet the US Secret Service uses the P-90 and the KSK uses the MP-7...


So?


It doesn't preclude the fact the terminal balisitcs are less than steller.

[Soldat_Américain]

So?


It doesn't preclude the fact the terminal balisitcs are less than steller.

so you're saying you don't trust the agency that protects the president...that would not be a first:)

[Baboonass]

so you're saying you don't trust the agency that protects the president...that would not be a first:)



For the USSS mission, it may be a fine choice. I'm not USSS, I don't personnaly know anyone who is USSS, so I'm guessing.

I had a chance to play with the P-90. It's a cool little gun, pretty accurate, but very limited. I read up on the terminal ballistics. The initial geleton testing showed some promising results, but it didn't hold up in further testing.

5.56 is a great little round, and has proven itself in combat for quite a while. It's a very manageable recoil, devestating terminal ballistics, and you can carry quite a bit of ammo without overloading yourself.

Besides, if TSHTF and you need more ammo, everyone around you is an ammo dump.

I don't nessesarily think changing the round and weapon is benifical. Change the weapon to reflect the particular environment, but keep the round chambered to 5.56, untill everyone changes over if that is indeed what they decide to do.

They have been experimenting with very short M-4 type weapons in my AO. It reflects the particular environment were it's needed.

[Soldat_Américain]

For the USSS mission, it may be a fine choice. I'm not USSS, I don't personnaly know anyone who is USSS, so I'm guessing.

I had a chance to play with the P-90. It's a cool little gun, pretty accurate, but very limited. I read up on the terminal ballistics. The initial geleton testing showed some promising results, but it didn't hold up in further testing.

5.56 is a great little round, and has proven itself in combat for quite a while. It's a very manageable recoil, devestating terminal ballistics, and you can carry quite a bit of ammo without overloading yourself.

Besides, if TSHTF and you need more ammo, everyone around you is an ammo dump.

I don't nessesarily think changing the round and weapon is benifical. Change the weapon to reflect the particular environment, but keep the round chambered to 5.56, untill everyone changes over if that is indeed what they decide to do.

They have been experimenting with very short M-4 type weapons in my AO. It reflects the particular environment were it's needed.
I just think they need something reliable and cheap for this mission and should not spend a lot of money on research for it.

[Baboonass]

I just think they need something reliable and cheap for this mission and should not spend a lot of money on research for it.


Latest and greatest toy.

The government is famous for that.

You are probably right.

[Arnie100]

They'll spend lots of money on the project, lots of companies will bring out the prototypes, and then the government will cancel the competition!

[Andyy]

Tavor is also a good weapon, but like the P90 to big to be carried like a Pistol or fired with one hand.

For the given Problem so far only the MP-7 is a good answer, and Im not saying that because its from a german company.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f76wGxg3fzw
:P

[SMGLee]

Latest and greatest toy.

The government is famous for that.

You are probably right.

It will not be a separate requirement, it will spin off the Army's new rifle program...as long as they can keep this program alive this time around.

[Soldat_Américain]

It will not be a separate requirement, it will spin off the Army's new rifle program...as long as they can keep this program alive this time around.
wait we got a new one...totally not informed...link me..please:)

[SMGLee]

wait we got a new one...totally not informed...link me..please:)


http://www.military.com/news/article/army-taps-industry-for-m4-replacement.html

With this above request for info(RFI) from the Army to the industry, a new rifle rpogram is due out sometime this month, maybe next... this will have all the ideas that Army liked from the RFI from last year. and the new rifle program will be officially underway by mid year 2009.

most likely it will be a upper receiver replacement to the exisitng M4 minus the use of buffer tubes. so the stock can be modified according to the MOS. and the upper are most likely a version of the AR18 sytle system which will have the entire action packaged within the upper assembly.

Picture a FN SCAR adapted to a M16 lower, or a SIG SG556, or what ever the industry thinks that will win the next big contract...

[Soldat_Américain]

http://www.military.com/news/article/army-taps-industry-for-m4-replacement.html

With this above request for info(RFI) from the Army to the industry, a new rifle program is due out sometime this month, maybe next...

Ok then I'm not as behind, because I remember reading in Army Times about the replacement and request for info, I was thinking the program was already up and running...that's what I get for thinking then.

[Arnie100]

Another "new" rifle program? Again?? :cantbeli:

[Hippo]

No, Im just saying the MP-7 offers everything you need for a PDW.

your blind nationalism, its showing

[kopema]

I had a chance to play with the P-90. It's a cool little gun, pretty accurate, but very limited. I read up on the terminal ballistics. The initial geleton testing showed some promising results, but it didn't hold up in further testing.

I've never really understood that. The 5.7 slug is (or at least can be) very similar to that of the 5.56. So if you look at impact velocity, that should tell the story.

And the velocity of the P-90 round at close quarter ranges is the same as that of the M-16 after travelling about 200 yards. At that range, the M-16 round's terminal ballistics are considered practically ideal. (You get tumbling instead of the "punch through" effect from the bullet travelling above the speed of sound within body tissue.)

Nevertheless, the simple fact that I haven't been able to find very much P-90 or FiveseveN ballistic data is enough to keep me from buying one.

Do you have a link for the "further testing" results you're talking about? I frankly salivate over the idea of being able to carry that many rounds of ammo in such a small volume - but only if I can be sure the rounds have sufficient penetration.

[Baboonass]

I've never really understood that. The 5.7 slug is (or at least can be) very similar to that of the 5.56. So if you look at impact velocity, that should tell the story.

And the velocity of the P-90 round at close quarter ranges is the same as that of the M-16 after travelling about 200 yards. At that range, the M-16 round's terminal ballistics are considered practically ideal. (You get tumbling instead of the "punch through" effect from the bullet travelling above the speed of sound within body tissue.)

Nevertheless, the simple fact that I haven't been able to find very much P-90 or FiveseveN ballistic data is enough to keep me from buying one.

Do you have a link for the "further testing" results you're talking about? I frankly salivate over the idea of being able to carry that many rounds of ammo in such a small volume - but only if I can be sure the rounds have sufficient penetration.



The tumbling is due to the bullet design (hollow encased copper jacket nose, rear lead fill) just like the AK-74 design.

The P90 and 5.7 pistol have different ballistics (due to the muzzle velocity of the longer barrel), the 5.7 pistol is actually pretty weak.

5.7 MV is 2,350 ft sec

5.56 M855 is 3,025 ft sec

It's a lot of difference.

I too, drooled over both systems at one time. I really liked the egonomics of the P90 and it's simplicity, same same for the 5.7 pistol, but more and more data came in about the terminal ballistics and performance of both systems (which I do not have anymore unfortunatly), and I opted out.

NSW seriously looked at these systems at one time, but both systems proved to be far too limited for our application. NSW and Crane built the 10.5 inch barrel M-4 and it's proven to be a winner.

The 5.7 and P90 is not a bad system, far from it, but in performance, you can do better for much cheaper.

[SMGLee]

I've never really understood that. The 5.7 slug is (or at least can be) very similar to that of the 5.56. So if you look at impact velocity, that should tell the story.

And the velocity of the P-90 round at close quarter ranges is the same as that of the M-16 after travelling about 200 yards. At that range, the M-16 round's terminal ballistics are considered practically ideal. (You get tumbling instead of the "punch through" effect from the bullet travelling above the speed of sound within body tissue.)

Nevertheless, the simple fact that I haven't been able to find very much P-90 or FiveseveN ballistic data is enough to keep me from buying one.

Do you have a link for the "further testing" results you're talking about? I frankly salivate over the idea of being able to carry that many rounds of ammo in such a small volume - but only if I can be sure the rounds have sufficient penetration.

This is a write up by a SME, Doc Roberts has years of experience on various caliber ballistics.



Several papers have described the incredibly poor terminal performance of the 5.7 x 28 mm 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.

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......

A few large U.S. LE agencies adopted 5.7 mm weapons--after being involved in several OIS incidents with P90's, 5.7 mm usage in these agencies plummeted as a result of the poor terminal performance.

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.

http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq319/DocGKR/9mm_vs_57mm.jpg

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?

PDW is an old concept from the cold war days... today, plenty of great CQB-R available that is slightly bigger but does a much better performance than the PDWs...

[James]

I've never really understood that. The 5.7 slug is (or at least can be) very similar to that of the 5.56. So if you look at impact velocity, that should tell the story.

And the velocity of the P-90 round at close quarter ranges is the same as that of the M-16 after travelling about 200 yards. At that range, the M-16 round's terminal ballistics are considered practically ideal. (You get tumbling instead of the "punch through" effect from the bullet travelling above the speed of sound within body tissue.)

Kind of makes you wonder why we should bother changing when the rounds are so close in performance...

[martinexsquaddie]

p90 was designed as remf weapon to replace old smgs

the british just cut down sa80s to even shorter carbines

[California Joe]

Which is exactly what they should do in this case with the M4.

KISS principle.

Everything else is interwebs masturbation.

[SMGLee]

p90 was designed as remf weapon to replace old smgs

even worst is that a pistol was required along with the PDW design.. its likeplinking someone with a 22mag...not fun, but in a firefight, you would want something that could put the opponent down much quicker than just a semi auto 22 mag...

PDW based on the next gen rifle will be part of the package with the upcoming rifle program....as you can see from the prototype Colt SCW.

[Leaper]

LOL

The airsoft version (ALREADY?!): http://www.wgcshop.com/pcart/enlargeimage.php?enlargeimage=vfc_aeg_kpdwpre1_l.jpg

Looks like a really sweet rifle, nice stock.

[Soldat_Américain]

LOL

The airsoft version (ALREADY?!): http://www.wgcshop.com/pcart/enlargeimage.php?enlargeimage=vfc_aeg_kpdwpre1_l.jpg

Looks like a really sweet rifle, nice stock.
well there were airsoft XM8s out years ago

[PvtPyle]

Remember with the 10.5" bbl the M4 has more energy than all but the most powerful handguns. And with the right round for it, say a 77gr it is hell on wheels on soft targets. My 10.5 with the AAC can and 77gr rounds shred rabbits and drop coyotes like they were pole axed.

As for the defeating armor thing, last time I checked the enemy is barely wareing robes, let alone armor. Why the military gets stuck on that crap is beyond me. Not like we cant go back and make an AP round by trading expansion/fragmentation for penetration if the need arises later.

[SMGLee]

Remember with the 10.5" bbl the M4 has more energy than all but the most powerful handguns. And with the right round for it, say a 77gr it is hell on wheels on soft targets. My 10.5 with the AAC can and 77gr rounds shred rabbits and drop coyotes like they were pole axed.

As for the defeating armor thing, last time I checked the enemy is barely wareing robes, let alone armor. Why the military gets stuck on that crap is beyond me. Not like we cant go back and make an AP round by trading expansion/fragmentation for penetration if the need arises later.

and with the new 70gr stuff that you guys are shooting..I have heard target being engaged out to 200-300m range and effectively dropped with this new ammo/CQB-R combo...

[Arnie100]

This looks interesting: http://www.tactical-life.com/online/guns-and-weapons/adams-arms-pdw-556mm/.

[carolvs]

IMO the US Army won't finally adopt a new carbine or derived PDW until the other branches finish abandoning the M4/M16. Once SOCOM takes delivery of enough SCARs to equip all of its units, I expect well see either the USMC or Airforce decide to move to a new rifle. Then as with the me-too UCP camo adoption, it will suddenly move on its latest rifle program, whatever it happens to be at the time.

[martinexsquaddie]

chop an m4 top make a remf version
job done

[cmhm20]

chop an m4 top make a remf version
job done

They cannot make a chopped M4 reliable and durable enough for military use and keep the parts as standard as the logistics people demand.

[SMGLee]

They cannot make a chopped M4 reliable and durable enough for military use and keep the parts as standard as the logistics people demand.

They will......just wait and see!

example wht Colt is doing.....and what trend the rest of the industry has been moving toward...

http://photos.imageevent.com/smglee/ausa/huge/DSCN0954.jpg