New Russian smg: PP-2000 [Archive]

GazB

07-24-2004, 10:23 AM

It's the only attribute that can be judged by a picture.

And the value of a judgement of how pretty a weapon looks by looking at one picture is... ?

Ergonomics, that the word. Someone should teach the Russian ergonomics in weapon design. No sticked out parts (rivets), no fire selectors in strange parts of the gun etc.

Well I studied ergonomics as part of a design course I did a few years ago and just looking at the weapon in question it seems alright to me.

Just looking at it I would say that the rear grip seems to be of a comfortable shape, the front grip seems to be close to the muzzle which should be good for control. the level selector seems to be in a position where you could operate it with your thumb, the magazine seems to stick out far enough to get a decent grip of it to pull it out... it looks a little rear heavy but the foregrip should counteract that. Also the magazine through the pistol grip design aids reloading in the dark as it is easier for hand to find hand.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder... those pictures you posted Remov looked like a water pistol. Yuk! So curved it looks like it was designed by a freken tree hugger.

bloddyaxe

07-24-2004, 10:37 AM

I have to agree on that the PP-2000 not being very beautiful, but the Drozhd isn't any better looking. It looks a bit like some *** toy or something.

The PP-93 however is in my opinion the best looking Russian smg yet.
http://www.world.guns.ru/smg/pp93s.jpg

Poontang_Dan

07-24-2004, 04:21 PM

Would I be really far off if I said that the PP-2000 seems to be a chip of the PDW block? I see remote resemblence to HK MP7 and The FN P90...

Now thats just by looking how pretty it is :P

Viktor_s

07-24-2004, 05:39 PM

why is all the russien weapons have to be so ugly

Ah, attention seeker.

Catch22

07-24-2004, 05:53 PM

MEGR

07-24-2004, 09:08 PM

Looks pretty neat.

GazB

07-25-2004, 12:51 AM

some new russian AR in bullpup configuration and very similiar design - both made by the same company. Anyone got the detailed photos and info?

That wouldn't be the A-91 (note NOT the 9A-91 which is completely different) would it?

This is the A-91M:

http://www.world.guns.ru/assault/as66-e.htm

(this is the 9A-91):

http://www.world.guns.ru/assault/as64-e.htm

Poontang_Dan

07-25-2004, 04:40 AM

Anyone like to guess the stainless steel portion on the frontpart of the gun? Slide/bolt?

How about the barrel? The barrel has to be very low in the frame, due to the frontsight placement. And the sight radius is very short as to imply that an optical reflex sight is recommended. The obvious place for a optical sight could be on the rear part of the upper. There could be a rail if Im seeing correctly. Or I might not.

The cartridge would seem to be 9x21mm, just by looking at the relation of dimensions. Not 9x18mm I think...just seems a little longer. Mag capacity seems to be at around 20...25 rounds.

I'm kinda leaning towards an assumption that this is strictly a concealed self defense weapon, for vip security personnel, le people and the such. The forward grip is simply there to assist the control of the gun in full auto. Then again, the rear spare magazine storage(if it really is that) implies a PDW function. I'd suppose there's a benefit for it in undercover work also where the spare mag holster might be too difficult.

But I'm just guessing here.

Catch22

07-25-2004, 06:43 AM

Rigt GazB. At Eurostaory PP2000 was presented together with A91-M (5,56 NATO).

REMOV

07-25-2004, 09:01 AM

Would I be really far off if I said that the PP-2000 seems to be a chip of the PDW block?The first thing connected with the modern PDW's (i.e. pistol and submachinegun) is ammunition and its ballistic characteristics not a shape of weapon (naturally Russians and GazB probably would have a completly different opinion ;) ). Russian PP-2000 it's only a normal submachinegun, the only PDW created in Russia was (PP-SShS) Gepard (with 9mm x 30 Grom ammunition).

REMOV

07-25-2004, 09:13 AM

the level selector seems to be in a position where you could operate it with your thumbOnly "seems to be" I afraid. Moreover this weapon is not fully ambidextrous - the fire selector is located only on the right side of the weapon.
it looks a little rear heavy but the foregrip should counteract that. In my opinion the shape of the foregrip is not well chosen - too short for men with big hands, and the angle is also not so good.
Also the magazine through the pistol grip design aids reloading in the dark as it is easier for hand to find hand.Where is a magazine release button? What is that strange sharp-edged "thing" above the trigger?

Also the straaaaaaange reloading system, copied from PP-90M1 (the also KBP company product)
http://www.world.guns.ru/smg/pp90m1-charge.jpg

The most weird feature of PP-90M1 is its charging system, which is made as a button, located just above the muzzle. It had to be pressed with the finger (see arrow) to **** the gun. Not the safest way, if anyone will ask me.
those pictures you posted Remov looked like a water pistol. Yuk! So curved it looks like it was designed by a freken tree hugger.Compare to the FN P90, ok? ;)

DPGLAW

07-25-2004, 09:22 AM

I saw someone posted a picture of a russian "air gun"....what do you eman by air gun, any informaiton on this because it seems interesting to me, i mean how can an air gun fire real bullets???

Poontang_Dan

07-25-2004, 09:28 AM

Would I be really far off if I said that the PP-2000 seems to be a chip of the PDW block?The first thing connected with the modern PDW's (i.e. pistol and submachinegun) is ammunition and its ballistic characteristics not a shape of weapon.

I'll have to disagree with you here. The PDW ammunition fashion as shown to us by the P90 and the MP7 comes from the fact that they were designed to comply with the NATO PDW requirement. That is the main reason why they were developed around a new cartridge. If no requirements had been made on ap properties both companies I believe would have sticked to existing cartridges, mainly the 9x19mm would have been the choice. And just to sell my opinion, P90 in 9x19mm would be a big time hit! Hell, I'd take it! With the current 5.7x28mm they've met huge terminal ballistic problems which has almost killed the P90 sales. The FN has worked really hard to sell their little PDW package and the cartridge.

REMOV

07-25-2004, 09:30 AM

If I remember well that new PDW was presented together with some new russian AR in bullpup configuration and very similiar design - both made by the same company. Anyone got the detailed photos and info?The PP-2000 is not a PDW, but a normal submachine gun fed by Russian 9mm x 19 Parabellum ammo. This "new" Russian assault rifle is another A-91 which has been developing well... for a long time ;)

http://www.shipunov.com/eng/str/strelk/images/a91.jpg
7,62mm A-91 assault rifle

PS. nTW 07/04 s.27 ;)

REMOV

07-25-2004, 09:40 AM

The PDW ammunition fashion as shown to us by the P90 and the MP7 comes from the fact that they were designed to comply with the NATO PDW requirement. Its obvious.
That is the main reason why they were developed around a new cartridge. If no requirements had been made on ap properties both companies I believe would have sticked to existing cartridges, mainly the 9x19mm would have been the choice. Nope, because the NATO program name called PDW defines the weapon and its ammo.
And just to sell my opinion, P90 in 9x19mm would be a big time hit! There is a lot of 9mm Para submachineguns - why other couldn't be such hit? The answer is - the ammunition characteristics. None of normal pistol ammo hasn't such parameters like the new one - 5,7mm or 4,6mm.
With the current 5.7x28mm they've met huge terminal ballistic problems which has almost killed the P90 sales. I'm afraid you have wrong informations. There is no problem with 4,6mm or 5,7mm ammunitions with elimination of the living targets. And there is 17 000 P90 sold mainly to the special units and AT squads. You suggested that special units selected the bad ammunition? It's some kind of a joke, right? ;)
The FN has worked really hard to sell their little PDW package and the cartridge.Because its only for LE and military market not sold to the civilians. Lots of SWAT/SRT units, as well as Secret Service uses that weapons. Tell me, the Presidential security in the USA always use the weapon with bad terminal effects? ;)

REMOV

07-25-2004, 09:41 AM

how can an air gun fire real bullets???It cannot. Where you read the info that air gun can do it?! The pellet has diameter of 4,5mm, probably this information mislead you.

Herrmannek

07-25-2004, 09:46 AM

how can an air gun fire real bullets???It cannot. Where you read the info that air gun can do it?! The pellet has diameter of 4,5mm, probably this information mislead you.

Airguns can shot but of course not fire real bullets.. As remov said this one is toy rather than wepon if we don't count pest control...

Herrmannek

07-25-2004, 09:51 AM

Here something real replica of Girandoni:
http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/8883/Girandoni-R-lock-off-copy.jpg
http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/7803/Girandoni-inside-lock-copy.jpg
http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/9359/Gir-left.jpg
http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/4510/Gir-mag.jpg
http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/2461/Gir-rifle-full-900-copy.jpg
http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/5943/Gir-top-mid.jpg

Poontang_Dan

07-25-2004, 09:59 AM

Let's kill the 5.7x28mm debate from this thread ok? Again, it's not the special cartridge. The NATO PDW program defined it's view of a personal defense weapon. PDW's however have been used with most of the NATO requirement points way back when. The NATO requirement just made those points leading to new cartridge development. To proof my point the US M9 pistol is considered a PDW. So was the M1 Carbine. Just think about it.

And I'm not going into the debate on 5.7x28mm and it's terminal ballistics. I'm not interested. I believe there are other threads to express your opinions on that subject.

There is a lot of 9mm Para submachineguns - why other couldn't be such hit? The answer is - the ammunition characteristics. None of normal pistol ammo hasn't such parameters like the new one - 5,7mm or 4,6mm.

I don't follow you? What's your point? The best thing about the P90 is it's the design overall and specifically the ergonomics. mated with a proven cartridge such as the 9x19mm it would be a hit. As to P90 as it is: the thing that has hindered it from the beginning - the cartridge. I'm not the one driving the global events here. It's a fact. End of story.

And it isn't a joke that the terminal ballistics is not the only driving factor in weapon selection programs. The US Secret Service selection is a good example of this. But you already know this.

REMOV

07-25-2004, 10:28 AM

Let's kill the 5.7x28mm debate from this thread ok?No problem.
Again, it's not the special cartridge.It is. Only such cartridge can meet the requirement of the PDW program.
The NATO PDW program defined it's view of a personal defense weapon. PDW's however have been used with most of the NATO requirement points way back when. Yes, most but not all of them. Only the weapon meets all criterion of modern PDW should be consider as PDW. Thats my point.
The NATO requirement just made those points leading to new cartridge development. To proof my point the US M9 pistol is considered a PDW. So was the M1 Carbine. Just think about it.I thought about it. The PDW (sometimes called APDW, OPDW to be exact) characteristic was changed many times before led to the actual one. And M1 AFAIR was never called PDW.
The best thing about the P90 is it's the design overall and specifically the ergonomics. Nope - the best thing in the P90 is an ammunition. Without this feature it's just another submachinegun, nothing more nothing less. There are also ergonomics or modern designed submachineguns, also with large magazines.
And it isn't a joke that the terminal ballistics is not the only driving factor in weapon selection programs. The US Secret Service selection is a good example of this. But you already know this.Yes, but its most important factor - to fly over 100-150 meters, pierce a buletproof vest and eliminate the living target behind the armor. The shape itself is secondary factor. Thats why the competed SMG i.e. MP7 and P90 are so different in the shape or even action (gas operated vs. blowback), but the ammunition is very similar in shape and characteristics.

Poontang_Dan

07-25-2004, 03:07 PM

Remov, I'm going to touch this P90 thing one more time, as it's not this thread's subject of interest.

Clearly, we have different views as to what PDW means. M1 Carbine was never called PDW. Come on, I didn't say it was, I said it is infact a PDW by definition of it's usage. That's what I've been saying all along. It's the use that dictates PDW, 5.7x28mm IMO(pay attention to this part here!) has nothing to do with PDW. It has everything to do with the NATO requirement on ap properties.

But, please, let's leave it to this concerning the P90. Maybe someone cooks up a PDW thread that I'll be more than happy to join in.

REMOV

07-25-2004, 04:54 PM

Come on, I didn't say it was, I said it is infact a PDW by definition of it's usage.The problem is that the PDW is now the name of very specific military program, not wide word definition.
It's the use that dictates PDW, 5.7x28mm IMO(pay attention to this part here!) has nothing to do with PDW. As I said, it's not true. The PDW is strictly defined name of USA/NATO program which main aim is to developed new familiy of weapons - a pistol and a submachinegun. The only way to meet the requirements of this program is to introduced a new pistol ammo. The use of PDW dictates also the introduce of the ammo, because there is no pistol ammunition which meet the criterion of PDW program.
But, please, let's leave it to this concerning the P90. Maybe someone cooks up a PDW thread that I'll be more than happy to join in.In my opinion you don't feel the difference between the PDW program and "personal defence weapons" as a wide category of well... weapons used to personal defence, but there IS a difference.

Thats why the P90 fed by 9mm x 19 probably would be another personal defence weapon (generally - every submachinegun and pistol are personal defence weapons) but is not a PDW. But for me changing the P90 to different ammunition (i.e. normal pistol cartridge) is senseless.

Catch22

07-25-2004, 06:21 PM

REMOV, lets just say what the current requirements of the NATO PDW programme are (European Staff, October '99):

Weight: handheld-1kg (preferably about 700 gr), shoulder-up to 3kg
Range: 100-200 m, against CRISAT armour 30-50 m
Suitable when wearing armour, NBC suits and winter clothing

These are basic requirements of PDW, however UK specified their own more strict requirements: MoD want it to replace 9mm. Other expectations are: combat weight >3kg, size>0.5m, defeat CRISAT at 150m.

I understand that both curently produced APDW systems (P90 and MP7) are using smaller caliber but it isnt - from what I know, actually a NATO commission requirement (it's rather a marketing action). Russians for example presented very effective 9mm Makarov AP ammo. And there are similiar 9mmx19 projetcs as well. Anyway PDW class seems to be wider class than you suggested (now I've seen official documents stating for egzample MP5K is a PDW). While its definition isn't so precise I'd focus rather on compactness of a given firearm than on it's ballistic capabilities. Hence differing between PDW and APDW may be quite useful for a moment.

GazB

07-26-2004, 04:18 AM

naturally Russians and GazB probably would have a completly different opinion

Absolutely... a personal defence weapon is a weapon for soldiers that have duties other than directly engaging the enemy with small arms. A politically correct term for Sub Machinegun if you like. It has a well defined criteria, which is really meaningless to other weapon types.

The closest thing the Russians have in service to a PDW would be the AKS-74U. Considering its commonality in use, design, parts, and manufacture as well as ammo and ammo feed it is rather better than most western solutions offered for the PDW competition. (a .223 version of an HK or M4 carbine would be an equally more sensible solution than creating a whole new calibre of weapons just to defeat body armour).

Only "seems to be" I afraid. Moreover this weapon is not fully ambidextrous - the fire selector is located only on the right side of the weapon.

Why should it be amidexterous?

In my opinion the shape of the foregrip is not well chosen - too short for men with big hands, and the angle is also not so good.

Seems fine to me... you could tuck your little finger in so that four fingers are around the front and the thumb is around the rear. The foregrip seems to be vertical, while the rear grip is angled slightly forward.

The problem is that the PDW is now the name of very specific military program, not wide word definition.

And PC was a term for IBM compatible Personal Computers, but now PC can mean any type of Personal Computer.

The idea of a personal defence weapon is not anywhere near new and the solution up until the NATO requirement was a SMG or a knife or a pistol or a range of other close quarter weapons.

Just looking at Catch22s post with that spec it seems they are after either a pistol (700g) or a SMG. In that case you'd have to add Gurza and any other 9 x 21mm weapon the Russians are working on (heard anything about the Baksan 9 x 21mm pistol designed as a potential replacement for the APS?).

REMOV

07-26-2004, 06:05 PM

Range: 100-200 m, against CRISAT armour 30-50 mNope. Against CRISAT it is 100-150 metres. But the NATO requirements changes very often.
These are basic requirements of PDW (...)Nope, that are the datas you copied from Walter S. Balsavage Jr.'s document (2000), nothing else ;)
I understand that both curently produced APDW systems (P90 and MP7) PDW, not APDW. The APDW was a different PDW program, derivated from ACR.
are using smaller caliber but it isnt - from what I know, actually a NATO commission requirement (it's rather a marketing action). Yes it is. I tell you more, NATO already recommended an ammunition i.e. 5,7mm, but this choice was rejected mostly by Germans.
Russians for example presented very effective 9mm Makarov AP ammo. So what? Its ammo doesn't fits the PDW requirements. That's all.
Anyway PDW class seems to be wider class than you suggested (now I've seen official documents stating for egzample MP5K is a PDW). I'm afraid you're wrong. The PDW is the name of the NATO program, so there is no wider classes than defined there (PDW1 - pistol, PDW2 - submachinegun). And yes, there were tests in early 80s where USA (not NATO) wants to choice a machine pistol (i.e. small submachine gun) mostly for air crews, there were tested MP5K PDW and TMP and other etc. But it has nothing in common with actual PDW program.
While its definition isn't so precise I'd focus rather on compactness of a given firearm than on it's ballistic capabilities. Catch22, read your own words - which normal, classic pistol ammo fullfile the PDW program requirements (even that you've copied from Balsavage's document)? The answer is simple - none. Only the new developed ammo - i.e. 5,7mm, 4,6mm, .224BOZ (5,56mm bullet in 10mm Auto case), 4,82LWS etc. do.
Hence differing between PDW and APDW may be quite useful for a moment.I know what the APDW program was. The one and only APDW ever made was a wooden mock-up of G11 PDW.

REMOV

07-26-2004, 06:24 PM

Absolutely... a personal defence weapon is a weapon for soldiers that have duties other than directly engaging the enemy with small arms. Naturally it is. But this term has little to do with the PDW program.
A politically correct term for Sub Machinegun if you like. Over and over again, the PDW is a program name, and its elements are a pistol and a submachinegun.
It has a well defined criteria, which is really meaningless to other weapon types.I'm afraid you're wrong.
The closest thing the Russians have in service to a PDW would be the AKS-74U. Considering its commonality in use, design, parts, and manufacture as well as ammo and ammo feed it is rather better than most western solutions offered for the PDW competition. Again you're wrong. The western solutions eliminates intermediate ammo and very short carbines from PDW program because - ammo is too expensive, the weapon is too heavy and its dimensions are too large. And last but not least - there is no service pistol fed by intermediate ammo. The idea of PDW and its ammunition is to replace old pistol cartridges (mostly 9mm). That's why you completly lost the point, and as usual give the Russian solutions first. I understand you're real freak of Russian equipment but sometimes you really should stop it. Even the Russians at least understands that AKS-74U is bad solution and they back to the submachineguns (in early 90s). You smarter than they are GazB? ;)
(a .223 version of an HK or M4 carbine would be an equally more sensible solution than creating a whole new calibre of weapons just to defeat body armour).Again you're wrong. You simply cannot understand what PDW is and creates your own theories.
Why should it be amidexterous?Because 20% people on Earth are lefthanded and if you really finished the ergonomics course you should know that devices should be designed also for them. In my opinion it obvious.
Seems fine to me... I doubt you ergonomics knowledge, see above.
And PC was a term for IBM compatible Personal Computers, but now PC can mean any type of Personal Computer.So what? We talking about the specific PDW program not your own definition.
The idea of a personal defence weapon is not anywhere near new Naturally is not. But the idea of PDW is new.
Just looking at Catch22s post with that spec it seems they are after either a pistol (700g) or a SMG. Thats why I wrote consistently about the program, not a interminate "personal defence weapon" as you and Catch22 do.
In that case you'd have to add Gurza and any other 9 x 21mm weapon the Russians are working on And this weapon could fulfil the requirements of PDW? Yes or no? I'm asking of PDW program not a GazB's "personal defence weapon" definition.

thatguy96

07-26-2004, 06:54 PM

Even the Russians at least understands that AKS-74U is bad solution and they back to the submachineguns (in early 90s).
I just saw this, and yes, the Russians have gone back to the SMG because of the issues with extremely short-barreled rifles, but this is a conclusion that a lot of people have come to, if in different ways. This may be completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, but the Russians have also decided to basically stop pursuing the projects around small dart-like projectiles, much in the same vein as either the FN or the HK PDW catridges (5.45x18mm being a good example), and have gone about it differently. Their new breed of SMGs remains chambered in normal pistol cartriges like 9x18mm PMM or 9x19mm NATO (or even 7.62x25mm TT), and they've also gone off and designed larger intermediate cartridges like the 9x39mm SP-5.

Catch22

07-27-2004, 07:46 AM

Point taken REMOV :) Can you give us some more details on requirements of PDW1/2 NATO programme then? Have they changed much since that report from ARMS magazine I quoted?

And CRISAT armour standard is something like 1mm of titanium + 20 layers of kevlar?

Poontang_Dan

07-27-2004, 10:42 AM

Herrmannek

07-27-2004, 11:06 AM

Only the weapon meets all criterion of modern PDW should be consider as PDW. Thats my point.

That pretty much sums your view on this matter. Past doesn't matter. How cute. And that's why it's not necessary to discuss the meaning of a pdw any further. There's a variety of professional people and manufacturers that don't share your view. But...I'll guess your reply to this would be "Your wrong."

Anyway, Have a good 'un. p-)

PDW sounds realy artificial and I dont think that this term was widely if at all used before creation of PDW program... Now every weapon producer want catch on that name marketed and popularisied for free by NATO, even his gun is nothing more than standard sidearm feed by 100 years old ammo type or assault rifle "mockup" ....

WoodChipper

07-28-2004, 03:26 PM

I wonder if anyone has blown away a finger yet? with the forward handgrip being in line with the muzzle. They could have added at least a half inch to the barrel. :bash:

REMOV

07-28-2004, 06:44 PM

That pretty much sums your view on this matter. Past doesn't matter. How cute.Past doesn't matter if you use the actual program name (i.e. PDW) to the different projects.
And that's why it's not necessary to discuss the meaning of a pdw any further. There's a variety of professional people and manufacturers that don't share your view. Again, you're wrong. All of the manufacturers which wants to participate in PDW project have to meet the NATO requirements. There is no other PDW designed weapons at the market now. And all of them use completly new ammunition (5,7mm x 28, 4,6mm x 30, .224BOZ, 7,82mmLWS also Chinese 5,8mm x 21 DAP92-5,8).
But...I'll guess your reply to this would be "You're wrong."Yes, because you've got no arguments at all, except your personal thoughts and some flashes from the past. Which are already forgotten.

REMOV

07-28-2004, 06:45 PM

And CRISAT armour standard is something like 1mm of titanium + 20 layers of kevlar?Yes, 1,6mm thick titatnium plate and 20 layers of Kevlar.

bison3255

07-28-2004, 07:40 PM

from janes
"KBP is showing its new PP-2000 9mm submachine gun for the first time and reports strong interest from the market.

Extensive use of high-strength plastics has enabled the company to manufacture a weapon with an empty weight of just 1.4kg, but without compromising performance. Indeed, the PP-2000 provides effective fire at ranges out to 200m and the use of the 9 x 19mm 7N31 armour-piercing round makes it possible to penetrate body armour.

The new weapon has a rate of fire of up to 650 rounds per minute and care has been taken to design it ergonomically to ease control while achieving high accuracy. The PP-2000's magazine has a capacity for 20 rounds but an extra magazine can be carried to serve as a shoulder rest, doubling the number of rounds to 40. A mounting rail can accommodate various types of scopes and sights; if required, a silencer can be fitted."

Poontang_Dan

07-29-2004, 01:30 AM

Indeed, the PP-2000 provides effective fire at ranges out to 200m and the use of the 9 x 19mm 7N31 armour-piercing round makes it possible to penetrate body armour.

Exactly when have the russians jumped the 9x19mm wagon? Have they ditched the 9x18 and 9x21 in favour of 9x19 on smgs in general?

That 200m sounds like marketing to mee, the round might be effective in that distance but hitting a man sized target with that shoulder support could prove just a tad too hard.

GazB

07-29-2004, 03:44 AM

The western solutions eliminates intermediate ammo and very short carbines from PDW program because - ammo is too expensive, the weapon is too heavy and its dimensions are too large. And last but not least - there is no service pistol fed by intermediate ammo.

First of all this PDW program is not universal. It is a western program. If anyone wants to call a personal defence weapon a personal defence weapon then it is not subject to the criteria of a western weapon program.

Second there is no service pistol using 155mm howitzer rounds either... so what?

Thirdly I believe the Russian army is using 7.62 x 39mm versions of certain new silenced weapons because they already use that type of ammo and it is already in mass production. If you want ammo powerful enough to defeat body armour then you are looking at intermediate powered ammo or very special bullets... neither of which will be cheaper than standard ball ammo for your asault rifle.

The idea of PDW and its ammunition is to replace old pistol cartridges (mostly 9mm). That's why you completly lost the point, and as usual give the Russian solutions first.

Yes, very unusual to mention Russian solutions... considering the THREAD TOPIC, and the weapon being discussed!!!!! Don't really know what I was thinking.

Even the Russians at least understands that AKS-74U is bad solution and they back to the submachineguns (in early 90s). You smarter than they are GazB?

Submachineguns are being offered and I have heard plenty of criticism of the AKS-74U when it is used as an assault rifle, but does that make it a bad weapon? Wonder why they are bothering with 9 x 39mm weapons like Vikhr and A-91?

Again you're wrong. You simply cannot understand what PDW is and creates your own theories.

Perhaps you could be helpful instead of critical and actually contribute some information about what you think the PDW program is for.

Because 20% people on Earth are lefthanded and if you really finished the ergonomics course you should know that devices should be designed also for them. In my opinion it obvious.

Actually closer to 10%... including me. Anyone can learn to fire from any hand... it is just a matter of training and practise. Designs that are compromised by being ambidexterous are usually less comfortable for both firers and therefore less effective. Most pistols and SMGs are fired two handed anyway so there will always be a hand close to a control...unless you are watching the movies too much.

So what? We talking about the specific PDW program not your own definition.

The PC was a specific program... now it has become a general term meaning any personal computer. From hindsight it was very egotistical of IBM to call their computer a personal computer after other computers designed for home /personal use had been designed and produced. Could say the same about NATO really.. but it seems they now own the whole concept of a personal defence weapon... I guess everyone else will have to call their personal weapons they use in self defence something else?

But the idea of PDW is new.

Correction, the term PDW is new.