Platoon Weapons

[JonathanF]

Thanks Wilf.

I am extremely familiar with Gel tests and the wounding literature to which you refer. Gel tests are excellent for comparison data, (as is CRISAT) but you can't use Police Firearms criteria for judging these rounds.

1. Military rounds are not just about what they do to humans.

I realise that, but it's increasingly a factor in weapon design and procurement, at least in the US. So what are your thoughts on the gel testing that shows a smaller permanent wound channel and neglible secondary "tissue stretch" effect?

The ability to perforate cover is absolutely critical.

I appreciate there's a difference in military and law enforcement requirements. Again I would suggest that attitudes in this respect are changing and I'd also ask why not consider wound ballistics? If it's important to a policeman to quickly incapacitate his target, why not a soldier?

I also accept that historically, armies have been happy simply to suppress and to score penetrating hits at range. But to equip infantrymen with what are basically less ballistically effective sub-machineguns, seems like a case of baby+bathwater to me. I realise you're proposing that GPMGs, MLGs and sniper weapons can take up the slack, but I just don't see the PDWs cutting the mustard even at the <300m range.

2. As I say in the article, no one ever says, "c'mon lads. They're only using 4.85mm. let's go!" Any round can suppress.

Yes, but not any round can incapacitate, nor make it through cover (see below). I concede that my suggestion that insurgents might adapt to take advantage of platoons armed primarily with short-range weapons was exaggeration to try to make a point.

3. PDW rounds have very low dispersion and good accuracy at <200m. Very few tests take this into account.

True, though of course so does 5.56, which can also work to mid-long range and (with the right ammo) cause reliably incapacitating wounds). Much heavier weapons, of course, which I recognise is really your point in the article - reducing carried weight.

So are you thinking along Project Salvo lines? Lots of grouped small-calibre rounds to increase hit probability, at the sacrifice of terminal performance?

Hoplophile = Lover of Weapons, or "gun nuts".

I did gather (after a google, admittedly) which is why I said it was a good line, didn't apply to the experts I cited, and used the term "gun nuts" myself. Just because a lot of gun nuts support something, doesn't lend it either credibility, or a lack of it.

In the expanded version of what I posted, Roberts (as does 120mm above) states that the 5.7mm round is NOT good at making it through cover, I presume in terms of maintaining velocity and vector (since it can do the CRISAT and soft armour no problem). This is because of its low mass/momentum - AP 9mm is (he says) better at this. So I wonder why you feel PDW rounds do meet this military criterion.

I'm still not sure how you can say that "4.6mm and even 5.7mm weapons are generally more effective in terms of measurable criteria (CRISAT performance and PERMANENT wound channel) than 9mm SMGs." Everything I've seen, and simple physics as Roberts says, strongly suggests otherwise. So whilst I'm not saying terminal effects in bodies should be the be-all and end-all of a military round and weapon, what I am saying is that the current 5.7 and 4.6mm rounds are not the compromise that you're looking for to save weight.

Now, once again, I realise that all I've read has all been online, whereas you have access to some real data that might totally trump the Fackler/Roberts tests. But if you could just clarify why you think those cited articles show a lesser gel result than 9mm ball, where other tests (presumably) contradict that, that would address my main concern (if for the sake of argument I concede that sub-carbine weapons are appropriate IWs). If you can point me to anything online or accessible via say, JSTOR, that would be a bonus for which I'd be most grateful.

[William F. Owen]

JonathanF

I am not sure I would advocate the issuing of small calibre PDWs until I had done all the testing I feel necessary to provide the data. UK Infantry Thinking is incredibly conservative and equipment focussed, so I merely advocate it, to create discussion.

Be very careful of using the word "incapacitate." It's meaningless unless applied to a specific time frame and capability which you seek to defeat.

A .22 long rifle round can incapacitate just as well as a .50 if it hits in the right place. I know I use it as wildly as a lot of folks, but that's the frame of the argument right now.

[slapout9]

JonathanF
A .22 long rifle round can incapacitate just as well as a .50 if it hits in the right place. I know I use it as wildly as a lot of folks, but that's the frame of the argument right now.

That is very true Wif. One of the worst Officer Survival films I have seen involved a South Carolins State trooper who was killed by a .22 fired from what we used to call a mouse gun (small handgun). It entered his armpit just above his body armor and just nicked the top of his heart causing him to bleed to death. Also the trooper fired his .357 magnum at point blank range at his attacker hitting him 3 time I believe. The attacker survived. the trooper didn't.

[Rifleman]

Yep, that was Trooper Coates IIRC.

Of course, that was a big 'ol boy he was wrestling with and ended up shooting. Over 300 easy. Hard to believe those 145 grain Winchester Silvertips - normally a bullet with very good performance - didn't make it to anything vital but they didn't.

I hate to speak ill of Trooper Coats but he did make some serious tactical errors in my opinion.

[Vic Bout]

Bill Rogers replied it didn't matter what kind of gun or caliber you carried as long as you were capable of hitting your opponent in the dominant eye....

[SethB]

The M4 Commando in 5.56 (11.5 inch lightweight barrel and a flat top) and the P90 have the same loaded weight, 3.0 Kg. The M4 has less capacity, but it is in a proven rifle caliber. The magazines (loaded) weigh the same, although the P90 carries 40% more ammunition.

[JonathanF]

JonathanF

I am not sure I would advocate the issuing of small calibre PDWs until I had done all the testing I feel necessary to provide the data. UK Infantry Thinking is incredibly conservative and equipment focussed, so I merely advocate it, to create discussion.

Understood, thanks.

Be very careful of using the word "incapacitate." It's meaningless unless applied to a specific time frame and capability which you seek to defeat.

Incapacitate in my mind means that the enemy is unable to return aimed fire. Timeframe = the sooner the better, surely? From what I'm seeing, even 9mm is sooner and better than 5.7mm, by virtue of a larger permanent wound channel. Plus it's supposedly better at defeating cover without deflection. Bearing this in mind, for your purposes, I would argue that you'd be better off proposing a different weapon. I also note the post above about the comparative weight of the 10" barrelled Colt carbine.

A .22 long rifle round can incapacitate just as well as a .50 if it hits in the right place. I know I use it as wildly as a lot of folks, but that's the frame of the argument right now.

Yes, of course -shot placement, whether by luck, judgement, or a mixture of both, is key. That's a given - why further reduce the effectiveness of your fire by choosing rounds that are shown relatively to be less damaging to the human body and less able to deal with interfering barriers.

I see now that you were poking the hornet's nest, and agree that it's one that needed poking. But needless to say you still have to be able to back up what you say. You don't need to prove anything to me, but if you can show me the evidence that counters what I've pointed to myself, I'd love to see it. I have no horse in any race here, I've ended up studying this area as an offshoot of an offshoot of my real job (historical stuff). And as a paid-up member of the sceptic's club, I try to assess everything from that perspective. The weight of evidence seems to me to be against PDWs, which were designed for a specific role, being capable of serving effectively as a main IW.

Playing devil's advocate to myself for a moment, and being optimistic about the tumbling claimed for the 5.7mm round + the capabilities of the P90 itself, you could see it as a fairly close parallel to the 7.62x39 and the AK family. With the advantages of being lighter, higher capacity, more accurate and better able to defeat soft armour. Viewed in those terms (and in the context of your other proposed changes), it's an option. But in terms of wound ballistics, I still think you'd be sacrificing quite a lot even compared to the "clean wounding" 7.62x39 round. A case would need to be made that the pros outweigh the apparent con of the lacking wound ballistics, and I don't think, on balance, that it has been (if it has, great! I hope to read about it one day.).

Anyway, a bit of a distraction from the real point of the article - my apologies for this. I did find it interesting and thought provoking.

[Kiwigrunt]

Some UK troops in the Falklands dumped their SMGs in favour of Argy FALs because SMGs made them feel more exposed than a streaker at a world cup match. PDWs are really meant to be last resort, emergency weapons and have therefore, IMHO no place in the hands of frontline infantry soldiers, as cute as they are.

Do like your attitude towards provoking thought Wilf, and I totally get that. It’s a good way to get people to think outside the box, provided they are willing to.

[ODB]

Kiwigrunt,
I have to disagree on this point. I whole-heartedly think Infantry troops should have them. If their primary goes down in room then what? I think it is more of a METT-TC call. Need them in the woods probably not. Need them in an urban environment most definately.

[SethB]

ODB, do you think the advantages of the PDW, such as they are, make a PDW better as a secondary weapon than a 9MM handgun?

[ODB]

For the masses (Infantry) PDWs raise the cool bar a lot, but other than that no. Due to the masses of 9mm in our inventories that misused, sorry staff guys you don't need them give them up. It is a realatively simple and inexpensive way to get them a secondary weapon. Additionally a secondary is only for when your primary goes down in a fight, as soon as your immediate threat is eliminated you need to get your primary up. Afraid you use something other than a 9mm, guys will not focus on getting their primary back operational immediately. Now I think a great use for PDWs is in the turret of gun trucks. Beats trying to use your M-4, personally I used an MP5-45 for this, another useful weapon for this is a shotgun with folding stock. Many times in a crowd you cannot use your .50 or M240.