We wrote about this back in March…that industry was skeptical that the Army would seriously pursue a subcompact rifle for Joes who can’t carry an M4 but need the punch of a rifle in a pistol package (truck drivers, tankers, pilots, officers).
Well, after talking with Col. Doug Tamilio yesterday about the Wanat report, I came away with the story that the service seems as least to be pretty enthusiastic about the weapon and will move forward on its development.
You saw the teaser yesterday, so I’ll give you a bit more, but I ask that you read the entire story over at Military.com.
I’ll post more on my interview regarding the Wanat report and other topics later this morning.
The Army’s preliminary evaluation tested a host of weapons in different scenarios and conditions, their accuracy at different ranges and how well Joes could control the small weapons with a big punch while firing.
“We tested how Soldiers worked with those weapons and what seems to work form, fit and function better than others,” Tamilio explained. “We got some great data on that.”
Though Tamilio wouldn’t say who participated in the evaluation, an industry source said that about six manufacturers may have submitted weapons for the shoot.
The search for a weapon that delivers a Mike Tyson punch in Sugar Ray Leonard package was included in an Army solicitation last year for a possible alternative to the M-4 carbine. The solicitation left open size, weight, barrel length and caliber, but many companies had already developed so-called personal defense weapons, or PDWs, for contract security teams and other covert operators.
“We found out a lot of good things,” Tamilio said of the early summer evaluation. “There are a lot of good weapons out there [and] Soldiers can hit accurately, hit very well with all of the weapons that were out there.”
“So now it comes down to what are the best parts of all of these?”
Officials with the Army’s soldier weapons office said the Army Infantry School is working on final requirements for the subcompact weapon, and while it may be two years before a Joe commanding a supply convoy gets to sling one of these bantam bad boys, Army officials are moving with deliberate speed to get the program in gear.
“We got a lot of great data,” Tamilio added. “So, now as the Infantry School writes the requirement they’ll be more informed on what they’re looking for.“
– Christian
{ 43 comments… read them below or add one }
They should be looking at magpul’s PDR… where has that thing been? last I saw was SHOT 2008
I hope they don’t go for the P-90. That weapon was intended specifically for non-front line troops… like cooks and MP’s.
The problems with it include the magazine being difficult to cycle and awkward to carry, and the cartridge is an odd caliber.
Personally, I think the MP5K would be an excellent choice here… its reliable, has established logistics for parts, comes in a common caliber, and is compact enough to be worn in a holster configuration… while maintaining select-fire capability.
Here we go again ,they will start a development programe instead of just having a run off and buying an of the shelf piece of kit
Mystick,
A subcompact is never intended for front-line troops. And the MP5K? Really? Barrel is way too short, the P-90 has a much better range and accuracy.
Mystick,
The MP-5K does not meet the requirements because it cannot penetrate body armor. Unless we’re developing a new armor piercing 9mm round.
It’s long past time that we give the REMF something more powerful than a pistol.
http://americanmohist.blogspot.com/2009/02/us-army-mtoe-rifles-pistols-pdws.html
I give up.
Hmm, PDFs they are thinking of here? My list of candidates goes like so:
The FN P90 is in this category. 50 round top loaded magazine utilizing the 5.7mm round which include a very powerful armor piercing round.
The MP7 will be next. This weapon utilizes the 4.6x30mm round. It has the collapsible stock on it so it can be utilized like a rifle or used as a machine pistol.
The MP5K will be in the list as well but that uses a 9mm round and the Army said its looking for something with more punch than a pistol so my guess this out.
The Knights Armament Company’s 6mm PDW will be included as well since it can reach out 250-300 yards but keeping it a very compact design. Its also a US company which Congress might like.
The Magpul PDR most certainly is in the list since it utilizes 5.56x45mm rounds.
Fortunately, with the exception of them just saying the M4 is good enough, Colt arms is probably not on the short list.
Doesn’t the Army already have a CQBR with a 10.2 inch barrel and SOCOM has the SCAR-L Mk 18 with a 9.8 inch barrel. Couldn’t they deploy these today without a two year study.
The main problem with using standard 5.56 x 45 in a short barreled weapon is the 62 grain bullet. If they used the Mk 262 Mod 1 77 grain bullet the short barrel wouldn’t be much of an issue.
Gah, bloody typical. No real development for a frontline weapon for the grunts, but, millions to develop a “new” weapon for truck drivers. Yet, people wonder why I get so frustrated with our weapons procurement.
“I’m excited about the subcompact,” said Col. Doug Tamilio, the Army program manager for Soldier weapons, during an Oct. 15 interview with Military.com. “There are a lot of Soldiers today who do not need to carry either a carbine or an M-16, but yet a pistol may just not be enough.”
Translation – These will be going to the folks at CENTCOM HQ first, then to all the subordinate battle staffs and then finally the mechanics, welders, supply clerks, and the folk in the S-1 shop, hehehe…
TDS4S…i agree!
http://www.craigspr.org
At the risk of jumping on the bandwagon and picking on Mystick you could have skipped with the discussion over the p-90′s ergonomics and just mentioned the odd caliber because when push comes to shove that is the real clincher with us trying this weapon. What we have in this case is a weapon that sounds really useful–50 rounds, whats not to love?– and looks really cool–they probably wouldn’t have started using it in stargate if it hadn’t and hence most of us would never have heard of it–but the part i guarantee is the deal breaker is whether the 5.7/28 can deliver. It’s lightweight, and you can pack a lot of the little buggers into a magazine, and if the weapon delivers as promised, said rounds are able to punch through armor like it was butter, hence why congress recently tried unsuccessfully to ban the companion handgun, the Five SeveN from the public (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S9191&dbname=2005_record). And by all the tests, the round is extremely accurate, produces little or no recoil and if properly placed extremely lethal. Just like proponents of the 9 mm NATO cartrige claim their rounds are capable. I realize i’m probably opening up a can of worms with that comparrison considering the debates that have happened in the past with the whole .45 vs 9mm debate, but the arguments are similar in that people doubt the knock down potential of the weapon. The primary difference of course is that where as the 9mm round has been around since before the Luger, the 5-7 has only been around since the late 80s and hasn’t really been applied to practical use. That being said, i think the round design has a great deal of potential and if the military is really looking at a PDW, we should look more into these concepts
the Fn P90 was originally developed for people in the army who needed to work with “their hands” or in confined spaces, like vehicle personel, cooks or medical staff.
That it can give a mean punch is a pro.
If you have doubts if it is combat ready, then ask several special forces in some european countries, who are replacing the MP5 in favor of the FN P90 and tested it in serious and sometimes extreme conditions.
For those griping that this is headed forward while M-4 replacement is stuck in the mud: Killing this won’t get an M-4 replacement accepted any faster, but a smooth and successful Subcompact program could grease the skids for the M-4 replacement.
I like many things about the KAC PDW and the two European heavyweights, but for a US Army application the Magpul PDR would seem to be the best fit since it uses a standard caliber. Would they team with Bushmaster again for production, or would someone like Colt get in bed with them?
MP5 family is pricy as hell and basicaly a 40 yould design ,P-90 is well designed proven and reliable ,and even tough it was designed as a PDW it is mostly used for offensive use by spec ops.weight being its main drawback.As it is only a pound lighter than Compact g36 or x8.If you want lighter then MP7 is probably the main choice .Remember this is for cooks,pilots,drivers,pen pushers etc ment only to best a pistol not an M4 so don’t start faping about high power rifles. Both these guns use their own calibres but are well established by now unlike many PDW designs that were almost all handloaded.
And if you want modular PDW you have ST kinetics CPW
That can be converted easily from/to 9mm ,5.6×28 and 4.6×30 and is about same shape & wieght as MP7
But remember P90 has by far the longest barrel just over 10in that is actualy just a bit longer than Scar light CQB.
Good Morning Folks,
Both the P-90 and the MP7 have been tested by the DoD and got rave reviews for all who handled the weapons. And both also served a tour of testing in Iraq with SPec. Ops. What we are looking at here is finally a replacement for the WWII era M-3 .45 cal. submachine gun.
As I’m sure Christian knows the P90 has been in use by the Secret Service for a while now, and is being bought by DHS, using agencies are not know.
After looking at both weapons, either would be a step in the right direction for arming service and support troops serving
in a combat zone. The P90 (50 round cap.) has a inovative magazine that seems to function OK, the MP7 uses a conventional stick magazine (40 round cap.) that would be more familiar to the troops.
Of the two the MP7 appears the easiest to handle with one hand which would be better for vehicle drivers or someone with communication duties who would need a free hand.
Both present an ammunition supply problem in that neither weapons use any standard NTO rounds. That though should be a secondary concern to the improved utility of either weapon.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Why armor piercing??? WHY?!???? They won’t succeed if their goal is to create an armor piercing round in a subcompact package. It’s a stupid goal that nobody will really take seriously. The armor piercing bullets aren’t as effective as a 9mm bullet at stopping an un-armored enemy, sure they’ll poke holes in armor, but the enemy these days doesn’t use armor.
The Steyr TMP, now known as the Brugger & Thomet TP9SF is the perfect weapon. It is very lightweight, uses commonly available ammo, very controllable for it’s size… MP5k but smaller basically.
Why does the military take so long to adopt new weapons? Why are they still using that old 9mm pistol when they could be using what the police all over this country are using???
Jeff M,
Please take a second to read about the NATO PDW requirements. In the 360 degree, high intensity battlefield, you can expect the enemies to wear body armor. In fact, in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Coalition has sometimes run across anti-coalition militants wearing stolen body armor.
Armor piercing is a requirement for all PDWs. 9mm and .40 are good as a backup, secondary weapon (like a pistol), not as a primary weapon.
Speaking as a staff officer… I enjoy shooting my M9 on the range and it is a wonderful little pistol – but given its size and range I’m not entirely convinced I could use it to protect my life. At the same time, the M16A3 that I also carry is typically more than I need and so blasted sensitive to dirt that I’m also not too sure I trust my life to it, either. I’m a staff officer, not line infantry. In all honesty, I don’t have the time or the practice to keep my M16A3 fully functional. What I would prefer to carry is something with greater lethality than the M9 but which is also more tolerant of benign neglect than the M16A3. This sounds like a great program, which means of course the Army will foul it up and the Navy will never see the weapon in my career.
Jimmy,
I realize that it is a requirement, which is what bothers me about it.
There is a trade-off between varying barrel lengths and bullet diameters, so when we are shooting these needle sized bullets to penetrate armor it’s not as “efficient’ with the powder and it doesn’t really do a whole lot of trauma. You end up making the same situation with the 5.56×45 but worse. They have a needle gun that doesn’t drop people. If I were in a firefight at <100 yards with unarmored combatants, I think I would actually prefer an MP5.
As you pointed out, the only people with body armor are the ones who stole it off of US soldiers, it’s a tiny, tiny fraction of the combatants. We don’t need to be thinking about tomorrows war today, we need to deploy a weapon in 1 year, use it for 10 years, and then consider the needle gun at that point.
Why not just get the Scar light with 11 inch barrel and folded buttstock? Too heavy?
The PS-90 is a possibility but I think its just too expensive and esoteric. (different magazines,
different ammo, ergonomics) Its also a bit bulky and heavy. Its a great weapon, but not for military use.
The best option would be the Bushmaster ACR with 10.5 inch barrel and folding stock. Essentially a much lighter SCAR with all the familiarity of the M4. Much cheaper too, no doubt.
Of course Magpul’s pdr prototype trumps all of these, but we don’t know if they have a working weapon yet. And there is also the niggling worry that the weapon is not entirely ambidextrous. Pretty exciting if they get a shot.
Also armour penetration is very important, since all modern armies use armour that will stop a 9mm round.
Good Evening Folks,
The armor piercing requirement in a PDW is rather simple. A lot of the situations of where these weapons might be employed would involve engaging people in thin skinned vehicles such as light and heavy trucks, taxi cabs or regular passenger cars, where a round that would still be lethal after passing through a vehicle door would be highly desirable.
The standard 4.6x30mm round for the MP-7 already comes with a hardened steel core inside it’s copper jacket. The P-90′s standard 5.7x28mm round come with a composite core that the manufacturer says is an armor penetrator and can defeat most body armor. It would appear that both weapons meet this requirement. Both rounds are rated at 200 meters lethal range and both weapons work better with the addition of a RED DOT optical sight.
I’m not a betting guy but because of it’s wider use world wide and adaption by the Department. of Home Security, the P-90 would be the odds on choice if the DoD decided to go with PDW.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Perhaps it is best to refer to the US Army’s solicitation notice to gain an idea on the type of weapon that is targeted.
It specifically states that the purpose is “assessing the enhanced carbine and subcompact small arms technologies as well as production capacity of the US small arms industrial base.”
The primary weapon functional information requested was:
“o Performance Improvement. Request information on potential improvements in individual weapon performance in the areas of accuracy and dispersion out to 600m, reliability and durability in all environments, modularity, and terminal performance on a variety of target mediums. Modularity includes, but is not limited to, compatibility with accessory items such as optical sights, image intensification sights, thermal sights, laser targeting systems, bipods, tactical lights, MILES, bayonets, and accessory type grenade launchers. There is specific interest in improvements to zero retention and zero repeatability. Note: Although this request for information is not limited to 5.56mm NATO systems, it is limited to ammunition that will meet International Convention standards.”
This all suggests that the primary weapon sought is the carbine, with a subcompact variant included. This would essentially remove smaller caliber PDWs and typical subguns from the equation.
The Army keeps getting burnt lately by trying to take “leaps & bounds” in systems development. I think this will cause them to target short gains for now since weapons are getting worn out and need replacement. I would expect both weapons (carbine & subcompact) to share a great deal of commonality with the current M16/M4 systems, if simply for ease in force introduction. Any possible change in base caliber will hedge on availability.
The Army is firmly committed to the Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT) program so it is foolish to expect any major changes in weapons procurement until that technology has matured past its current test bed/technology demonstrator status. While this program is using 5.56×45 for both the cased telescoped and caseless ammunition, it is to enable a comparison with currently fielded systems. The program has a requirement to provide scalability in cartridge caliber.
So, the LSAT program would not preclude the Army from adopting a new caliber “interim” battle rifle system.
It should also be noted that the Army is currently examining procuring a replacement for the M249. Mainly due to the fact that large quantities of the weapon are wearing out, and a lighter weapons is targeted. Expect it to remain a 5.56×45 belt fed system (butt load of that ammo left), probably along the lines of the FN MK 46, but possibly a lightened HK MG4
10–Improved Carbine and Subcompact Individual Weapon System
Solicitation Number: W52H0908CARBINESV:
https://www.fbo.gov/index?print_preview=1&s=opportunity&mode=form&id=62f58fab956f5f9ed42d31cb98fea3f8&tab=core&tabmode=list&cck=1&au=&ck=
5.6×28 is basicaly 5.56 bullet in shorter case so you can expect balistics on 100yards target someting like 5.56×45 at 300-400yards and when every one complains about small calibre,light hi velocity bullet makes for biger wound and trauma than slow heavy round that is fact. Energy is velocity square x times mass so 5.6×28 has more energy than 45ACP out of the muzzle and much more down range.And most military ammo is designed to wound not kill as WIA needs 2-3 able bodied men and a medical system to take care of him KIA none.That the theory of army vs army fight and is probably true even against insurgents as we see they don’t leave wounded and dead behind and US forces dont seem to be in control enough to prevent them from practicaly clearing the scene of all wounded and dead so all body counts are mostly just estimates.
For god’s sake… just buy the MP7, P90, MP5, or some such and be done with it.
Ok, give some folks short-barreled carbines already! Enough hand-wringing.
There’s the problem, though. Follow my logic, please:
- M1 Carbine
- M2 Carbine
- M3 Carbine
- M4 Carbine (!)
Surprise! The Pentagon originally positioned the M4 carbine as the philosophical and functional decendant of the M1 carbine. This is where I ask a real, hard-hitting question.
Why in Sam Hill are we generally-issuing the M4 to combat troops? 50 years ago, we would NEVER have distributed M1 carbines this widely as a substitute for combat rifles.
For those wondering about the Magpul PDR’s fate, I’ll quote Magpul on AR15.com (bottom of the page):
“When the official sources sought came out we submitted the PDR but we (Magpul) never even received so much as a call back on the idea.
The US Military was our biggest potential customer on the PDR and without them it will be hard to justify the expense of the weapons development.
That said the concept is not dead but because we fund all our development in house using no Government funding, we have to be selective about which projects we undertake to production.
Who Dares Wins is fine so long as you do not bankrupt the compay doing it.”
Why are they handing out M4′s to combat troops?
Urban combat, vehicle patrol and CQB in Iraq convinced the brass to shorten the weapon.
All things which are now irrelevant in Afghanistan.
So now troops are fighting against AK’s with peashooters at long distances. No wonder they carry their ‘dead’ away, they aren’t dead, those tiny bullets have no penetration or stopping power.
Why the hell does the US Military hate off-the-shelf so much? Why reinvent something that someone else has already mastered?
Oh, right, because there’s dozens of millions of dollars that can flow out in feasibility studies, prototype developments, counter-studies, career-maintaining subcommittees and post-mil jobs….
I’m with DualityOfMan: just buy the P90 or MP7 and get it done now.
As a former support troop, (Yes I was a REMF) I believe a shorter weapon would be an asset to support troops. We had to stack arms when working because they were just too long to work with. The M16A2 became a hazard in itself when working with say, petroleum hoses and 20,000 gallon bags. Lets be frank, lot of soldiers in the service support, cooks and supply,I would not trust with an automatic weapon. They would be a danger to themselves and too others. Typically a soldier who has a quasi civilian position were not that good of shots. with 200+ yards in a tactical situation forget it! In conclusion the PDW weapon needs to be short, easy to use, and still leave a mark on the enemy.
Yes 5.56mm calibre military arms have been introduced under influence of this doctrine that indentified WIA as the highest cost to enemy and for some time even smaller bullets like flechete (2-3mm) ammo were considered.The mines follow same logic and most aren’t meant to kill at all but to wound as many as posible.Ammo weight was oviously the factor.A military unit with just 10% WIA becomes combat ineffective very soon as manpower is used to take care of WIA with 10% KIA not nearly as much and huge resources are required for WIA off the battle field.For insurgents or other irregular fighters a similar effect is multiplied as they don’t have a medical system set and running.WIA are the bigest problem of long war and modern armor,MRAP’s and medicine save great many of lives,+ great use of PMC contractors also makes for a less gruesome picture,if you try imagining fighting this wars with equipment from 40 years ago number of KIA would be much greater ,now the WIA count is rising much faster.
Straight shot trough is not as common as movies suggest especialy at range over 50yards and even if it happens the wound inside is not just a 6-7mm hole ,damaged tissue is closer to 4in in diameter as light bullets tumble once they hit the body.And large calibre 9mm 45acp are better at limited range required of a pistol and PDW was designed to be able to defeat armour at 100yards ,and even if not many insurgents wear armor,but it is only a question of time when they do.And even if armor is uncommon helmets are less so and most stop hand gun ammo.
Magpul only has a mockup and would take 2-3 years(if ever) to develop a reliable PDW while FN P90 and its 5.7×28 cartridge was a winner of some Nato PDW competition where most mayor weapons manufacturers competed and HK decided that it had developed good weapon and started selling them even if the 4.6×30 is not Nato standard .
Yes of the shelf is no good for US forces ,of teh shelf means the best product/offer wins .
But with these development programs you make a lot of fog and lots of money can spread around and it then more of a competition who has the most lobyist ,generals and politicans in their pocket.
Its so good for business that there are very few private venture systems adopted in US forces,on the other hand many European and Israeli companies developed very good products as private ventures as many smaller countries dont spend much on weapons so are more interested in of the shelf stuff.
why not the g-36c? the p-90 has a high rate of fire, not hard to use, and it fires a nice cartridge. the g-36c is a compact 5.56mm folding stock weapon built for close qauters. which one? hell if i know. you can make an argument for the mp-5 too. they will f it up, bet on that.
“You’re saying the guns are supposed to wound? Are you just arguing with me because you like to argue? The energy doesn’t matter if the bullet goes right through you without losing any. At stand-off range the 45mm would have more stopping power. The reason I advocate the 9mm though is for other reasons… mainly that it’s already a common thing in the military” Jeff M
Yeah, I’m sure the 45 mike-mike has plenty of stopping power, for all the times you need to take down a freakin jeep! Sorry I couldn’t resist.
FYI, both HK and Colt have “subcompact” AR based weapons. The Colt uses either the standard DI gas system or some of their newer gas system offerings while the HK version uses a shortened version of the 416 gas system. Both have some sort of super short buffer system, which looks to shorten the buffer tube to about 4 inches or less, allowing a slidng stock on the HK and a folding/sliding stock on the Colt version. Both have a short barrel of about 10 inches or so.
“Gah, bloody typical. No real development for a frontline weapon for the grunts, but, millions to develop a “new” weapon for truck drivers. Yet, people wonder why I get so frustrated with our weapons procurement.” – Steve
The requirement for a new weapon makes sense to me. The discovery that the U.S. Army has come to terms with in Iraq and Afghanistan is that in counterinsurgency missions there is not “frontline.” A requirement for a more powerful compact weapon for truck drivers and the like is the natural complement to the armored Humvee, the MRAP, the Stryker and the Joint Tactical Vehicle project. All of these projects share the notion that we need greater military resources for soldiers who traditionally would have been behind friendly lines and at low risk of harm.
Most U.S. troops that get killed die in ambushes (often of less protected convoys) and IED attacks; very few are dying on head to head battles, when they are looking for trouble, on the grounds that their weapons are inadequate.
No U.S. war has been more “democratic” in its casualty figures, by which I mean casualties have not been confined to low ranking infantry troops. Everybody who gets off a secure base appears to be equally likely to become a target. These wars have produced a lot of casualties among higher ranking soldiers and support troops who didn’t suffer nearly as many casualties, proportionately, in prior wars. (Of course, sailors and Air Force personnel, in this, as in all prior wars, and Army personnel deployed away from active conflicts, have had much lower casualty rates than soldiers in the Army and in the Marines.)
Second, even in Wanat, which was more of a frontline battle head to head against front line troops, the problem was not that an M4 wasn’t accurate enough or packed enough punch, the complaint was that it jammed after too little use. There is nothing wrong with getting a new and improved version of what is otherwise the same old weapon.
Third, it isn’t as if the frontline troops don’t have more firepower. It just happens to come in the form of the power to call in smart bombs from manned aircraft, missiles on drones, guided artillery and the like. The fact that you aren’t hauling a weapon around on your shoulder, doesn’t mean that it isn’t available to you. Those who trust no one but themselves are also seeing RPG weapons with limited guidance options like a setting that causes it to explode a few feet after it passes over a wall or through a window. By comparison, this program for soldiers who are not frontline combat troops is a mere crumb.
Perhaps the M3A1 Greasegun in 9mm would meet the requirement. If not, then why not the STEN? If the guns are purely for self defense, why are we trying to invent something? As earlier stated, they are not intended for front line fighting but situations where “more than a pistol is required…”
Just buy the kel-tec SU-16D with 12 inch barrel. it weighs 4.9bs LOADED and its length is 22.5 inches folded. It is by far the lightest most compact AR compatible weapon in existence. Or get the 9inch barrel version which is even lighter and smaller.
Have a look at it. Cheap and reliable can’t be beat.
http://www.kel-tec-cnc.com/su16d.htm
I remember seeing somewhere an even smaller M4.
Oh, here it is…the “Close Quarters Battle Receiver”. Have a looky.
Considering they’re already in the system I’m surprised we’re looking to blow dough on more weapons. Keep the crappy weapons we have, and when enough officers and truck drivers complain, then they HAVE to replace the M16/M4 family of weapons.
would the new FN2000 fit the bill? it’s short and light but being a bullpup it has a longer barrel then most guns it’s size letting you keep better balistics.
would the new FN2000 fit the bill? it’s short and light but being a bullpup it has a longer barrel then most guns it’s size letting you keep better balistics.
Yeah, gimme that LWRC 6.8mm PDW..its so f-ing obvious. Thats the Colt monopoly, and it sux!! Come on now, most have seen the “CQB” weapon show, DAMN!!! Iam gonna buy a Bushmaster 6.8mm SPR, its $1,600, plus, but damn it looks and felt so fine..damn that gas and carbon, its not always reliable. We all know WAT we should do, its those who procure who mess it up.