PDW's... FN PS90, M1 Carbine, AR pistol or something else?

[goon]

No doubt you guys are familiar with the concept of a PDW - a Personal Defense Weapon. The M-1 Carbine was an early version... basically a long gun that you issue to people who don't have a front line role. Generally they have better range and accuracy than a handgun and are easier to train people to hit stuff with, but aren't quite a full-power rifle.

In the civilian world, do they do anything that can't be done as well or better with a semi-auto carbine?

What are the most useful non-SBR PDW's available today?
Some options I'm thinking would include a very light AR carbine, the M1 Carbine, the PS90, and an AR pistol with something like RRA's full-length buffer tube to add some extra stability.

http://rockriverarms.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=category.display&category_id=231

Any ideas?

 

[RBid]

I'm of the opinion that PDWs are useless for private civilians. Here are reasons why:

1. Long guns in private use are best suited for hunting, static location/land/homestead defense, pest control/ranch gun, and recreational shooting.

2. PDWs are inferior to rifles or carbines in all of the above roles, excluding recreation. That is a wash, at best.

3. PDWs are designed to be armor defeating, 0-200 yard defensive tools for vehicle crews and such. What they are NOT is rifle powered. The P90 and MP7 have been heavily criticized when groups have tried to replace carbines with them. The rounds simply don't perform as well as 5.56.


What we're left with is no context of use, and no reason to step down in terminal performance.

 

[Rock185]

I agree with Rbid. I believe that a PDW is something you have with you when you are going about your daily life, or engaged in duties where you are not actively involved in armed combat, but may be at any time. Those short, rifle caliber aberrations are just silly to me. Giant, heavy, awkward, unweildy pistols. I carried my PDW for years 40+ hours a week in the real world. Initially that was a S&W revolver, then morphed over a period of almost 40 years into various semi-auto pistols, culminating in a Colt Government Model .45 ACP. If I were unable to have a handgun, I would happily carry an actual carbine ,over a cut down sorta wannabe almost a rifle fantasy kinda thing, any day of the week...ymmv

 

[Deus Machina]

In a civilian role, not much to be gained from it.
The only selling point I can see is that you can get the gun right down to the bare minimum length, and that's the biggest point anyway.
Obviously not as helpful as the short-barreled equivalent, but the shortest you can get an AR (assuming common stocks) is about 31". The PS90, even with a 16" barrel, is just breaking the 26" threshold. Five inches feels like a lot, if you're in a narrow hallway or running a competition.

 

[rskent]

I vote something else.

Like a good reliable handgun and maybe a little extra ammunition. But then I'm not in a war zone.

If I was, I think I would be fine with a M4. If you are going to carry something almost as big as a
rifle it may as well be a rifle. (rifle caliber)

 

[Zoogster]

Most modern ones also rely on volume of fire to compensate for reduced ballistics. In fact that is part of the design, and why they are intended to have less recoil than would matter in semi auto (and as a result give up some terminal performance to achieve.)
However fully automatic firearms are greatly restricted and so modern civilian versions are limited to semi auto.
They can only be fired so fast in semi auto, which tends to not be much faster than something in a more potent cartridge.

They also tend to be balanced around size. A small PDW with collapsed telescoping stock and short barrel is very handy. Several designs have stocks that add no overall length or about 1-2" of length when collapsed but can then add a full 12"+ stock when pulled out. They are meant to be very small packages. I would appreciate a pistol caliber carbine that is only 1-1.5 feet long when collapsed but can become a longer shoulder fired weapon if I desire.
Yet if you then put a 16+ inch barrel on one that ceases to be the case. Or it must meet an overall length restriction while having the stock out. Civilian market versions either don't have the stock option or have long barrels and overall lengths. Or are NFA items with all the accompanying restrictions and hassle to acquire and transport.

So you are getting a design that is intended to be balanced around features that most of the civilian market have won't have available.
While most military can openly carry long guns, and so gain little by sacrificing rifle ballistics to openly carry something a little smaller.

 

[kBob]

Starting in the early 1970's I placed the Pistol grip only/buttstock-less carbine in the toy class. My first experiences were with the pistol grip only shortened barrel M-1 carbine, pistols. They were great for making a lot of noise and just flinging our bullets in a "Ya-ho-Brazzoossss" sort of way. It did occure to me at the time that IF it were not tax stamp time if one put a shoulder stock on one that it might be actually useful as a truck gun or something in in a patrol car.

Come the 1980's I got to play with a Leder pistol based on the Leder carbine from OZ. Sort of a simplified AR-180, in this case with a PGO and I think 10.5 inch barrel. Again it was mainly a great noisemaker (even noisier than the carbine/pistol) and made way bigger dirt splashes in back stops.

Now both these guns could be used to hit at pistol ranges with some work on your part and even out at 100 meters.........but this took both hands and actually for me was more difficult at most ranges than a handgun. Only plus side was high cap and high power.....but if you miss even more often what difference does that make?

I must admit that the idea of taking the Leder pistol and putting an AR-180 like stock on it, somewhat like the AR-18s offered as an SMG in the early 1970's to governmental agencies was appealing. But at the time I was determined to never have to go the tax stamp route by owning or possessing a taxable gun and so just blew it off. I must admit I am considering a suppressor these days but again it seems like just too much hassle to bother with to have a more better toy.

The pistol ARs seem more of the same and the rubber tube covers that some folks use as super short stocks seem like just asking for trouble from the BATFE. This latest wrist brace BATFE has approved seems to make the guns pretty bulky.

Nope.....for a PDW I wil just stick with a decent handgun.

-kBob

 

[Zaydok Allen]

I had a Sig P556. It was fun on the rage and if needed it would suffice for home defense IF it was equipped with a laser, like mine was.

The reality is that while they are a lot of fun, for any serious situation, a rifle or carbine handles much more stabilly and is much more effective.

They aren't a total waste of money, but unless you have a lot of money to burn, they really don't seem worth it to me. If you really get off on spray and pray games, it's fun. I don't personally.

I traded mine for two revolvers.

Go with the M1. JMO

 

[Zaydok Allen]

Double post

 

[barnbwt]

If not for SBR laws, who wouldn't buy a detachable stock or foregrip for their service gun? Both would probably cost a grand total of 50$ or so at the low end, make the thing incontrovertibly easier to control and aim at distance, and result in a platform smaller than any SBR service rifle. For home defense, recreation, and just about anything but holster or concealed carry (where an even smaller envelope is dictated), the platform is for sure superior to a hand pistol, and for sure smaller than a rifle-caliber carbine.

As far as PDWs being useful only in full auto? If an M9 doesn't need to be mag-dumped into a target to get a reliable stop, why would a carbine variant require this? I think the burst fire tactics we hear about were designed around the assumption that the bad guy would be wearing armor, and not all rounds (especially if 9mm or similar) might penetrate. In the P90's case, F/A recoil is reputedly not much less controllable than semi, which combined with the 50rnd mag, means there is very little incentive to not ventilate the hell out of whatever you're shooting (whether it needs it or not). The P90 also has a very rapid rate of fire for an SMG (900rpm, compared to the 500rpm or so considered "controllable" from a heavy 9mm SMG)

M4's come with select fire, too, but semi is more accurate, since F/A is much less controllable. I think PDWs would be more common and very popular if not for SBR laws and the fact that all development on them ended when the M4 was deployed. The P90 is arguably the only PDW on a technological par with modern carbines like the M4. Comparing the M4 to an M1 Carbine is a tad unfair, no?

TCB

 

[goon]

The pistol ARs seem more of the same and the rubber tube covers that some folks use as super short stocks seem like just asking for trouble from the BATFE. This latest wrist brace BATFE has approved seems to make the guns pretty bulky.

Well... RRA has gotten away with it for several years now. You'd think if the ATF was going to come down on them for using longer buffer tubes that could be used as a de facto stock, it would have happened by now.

Comparing the M4 to an M1 Carbine is a tad unfair, no?

Maybe, but not really.
An AR carbine is superior to the M1 Carbine or PS90 in ballistics, but people still do find the Carbine and PS90 better for their needs in some cases.
The discussion isn't only about ballistics. It's about light, handy firearms with decent firepower too, so that's a place where something may have a better balance of characteristics than an AR carbine.

 

[Girodin]

When you eliminate SBRs then you basically restric the choice to the same size weapon as normal carbine/rifle cartridges. You in effect size yourself out of pdw's. for a civilian a RDS equipped pistol probably makes more sense than an oversized pdw.

 

[9mm+]

Hmmmm, I concur with a lot of these opinions, but I do think the answer depends on what situation (as a civilian) you're facing. The key word in PDW is defense. These are not offensive weapons, but designed to fend off an attack up close (for tank crews, transport, etc.). As a civilian with a semi-auto only equivalent of the P90 (the PS90), I would say there is a lot of utility in that platform. Again, it will depend on what you think you'll face.

If you're a rancher or farmer and you're looking to defend a fence line, then forget it -- a PDW will not help you much. If you're an urban dweller and looking for a defensive firearm in case of a massive disaster (hello, Katrina), then a PDW makes perfect sense along with a sidearm as a backup. A PS90 magazine holds 50 rounds, and these mags are not big at all. It's completely conceivable to have a PS90 and 5-6 loaded mags in a small backpack while you're on the move. That's 300 rounds at your disposal. Semi-auto will do quite fine, and if you're in a pinch, just squeeze the trigger a lot until the threat stops.

I'm not putting down the M4, which is a very capable carbine with a proven battle record, but there's a difference between 300 rounds of 5.56 and 300 rounds of 5.7. Yes, the ballistics of the 5.56 are better, but a PS90 has smaller profile and easier logistics and lethality (albeit less than the 5.56). If you're hauling out of Dodge with wife, kids, water, food, etc., etc., etc., etc., I wouldn't hesitate to grab a PS90 and several loaded mags to take with me.

 

[goon]

When you eliminate SBRs then you basically restric the choice to the same size weapon as normal carbine/rifle cartridges. You in effect size yourself out of pdw's. for a civilian a RDS equipped pistol probably makes more sense than an oversized pdw.

At least with the AR, there are ways to compensate for the lack of a stock.

http://rockriverarms.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=category.display&category_id=231

Having said that, I wonder if a 14.5 inch AR carbine with a permanently installed FH to bring the barrel length to just over 16" still isn't better. The difference between a 16" rifle upper and a 11" pistol upper isn't much and you can have an actual stock on the carbine.

 

[Sam1911]

Funny, I just had a conversation with a pal today that touched (sort of) on my opinions here. He was saying something I've long believed -- that a trained person with a handgun will be faster on-target and just more effective with a handgun than any sort of shoulder-stocked arm -- out to 25 yards or so. His experience matched my own: When presented with the option of shooting through a scenario with targets presented between 3 and 25 (or more) yards, the fastest shooters were ALWAYS pistol shooters. (Based on his experiences as a 3-gun safety officer for several years.) The rifles, for all their vaunted ease of aiming and better accuracy and optics, just don't transition as fast and sight as quickly.

(That's not (exactly) to say that I don't believe there are defensive instances where a legitimate shot might need to be made exceeding 25 yards, but they are significantly in the minority of cases.)

So no, I don't see any need to go to any sort of shoulder-stocked weapon for close-ish work, unless you are demonstrably LESS skilled with a handgun than you are with a rifle. (Then...well, we'd have to test you with both, I guess.)

Throwing in the oddities of 5.7mm or whatever other oddball rounds, or the very minor improvements in external ballistics of running pistol rounds through a longer barrel (or even the neat, but so-what, .30 Carbine!) I just don't see a reason.

Seems to me that most of the movement toward PDWs (with possible exceptions in the days of body armor) stems from various powers that be accepting that they weren't going to bother teaching anyone to shoot handguns well, so hey, maybe they'll do a little better with THIS thing...and hope to goodness they never really have to use it.

 

[amd6547]

I'm quite skilled with handguns, and of course, a handgun is what is handy for most HD uses.
But I would much rather have my M1 carbine in my hands if I needed to defend myself.
For one thing, the M1 carbine is one of the liveliest, most responsive long arms I have ever held. Perhaps it's design just fits me perfectly, but it points like finger, and does so quickly and without effort. Its almost magical in this regard. It is more compact than most, and very light. The 30 carbine round in soft point or hollow point form is very effective from close range to 150yds, and the carbine holds 15 of them.

 

[Sam1911]

In my case, an M1 Carbine is the rifle I've tested this with second most regularly. Even as lively and easy shooting as the "war baby" is, I just couldn't come close to touching the speed and accuracy I could muster with a handgun. The scored targets and timers don't lie, and they're the only way to KNOW, not guess, which works more efficiently for you.

After my testing, ONLY if I knew or suspected that I might have to make a 30+ yard shot would I feel more confident with the carbine, and I'd have to be assuming that I'd have no need of my best work at much closer, more strictly defensive, ranges.

 

[Girodin]

I'm not putting down the M4, which is a very capable carbine with a proven battle record, but there's a difference between 300 rounds of 5.56 and 300 rounds of 5.7. Yes, the ballistics of the 5.56 are better, but a PS90 has smaller profile and easier logistics and lethality (albeit less than the 5.56). If you're hauling out of Dodge with wife, kids, water, food, etc., etc., etc., etc., I wouldn't hesitate to grab a PS90 and several loaded mags to take with me.

I don't want to turn this into a 5.7 terminal ballistics pissing contest thread. I have a PS90 and a few ARs. I have shot animals with both. Based on what I have seen from shooting animals with each, I would much rather have a 5.56 carbine.

So no, I don't see any need to go to any sort of shoulder-stocked weapon for close-ish work, unless you are demonstrably LESS skilled with a handgun than you are with a rifle. (Then...well, we'd have to test you with both, I guess.)

Terminal ballistics? Now if we go with typical PDW rounds I'm not sure there is again. If we are talking M4s, etc, then there sure is a significant difference. Ability to defeat body armor? Maybe not a huge concern for civilians.

Seems to me that most of the movement toward PDWs (with possible exceptions in the days of body armor) stems from various powers that be accepting that they weren't going to bother teaching anyone to shoot handguns well, so hey,

I think it is a combination of the ability to defeat armor (one of the speced requirements when these weapons were first developed), the ability to make longer range shots. Most people would be pretty hard pressed to make a COM shot at 150 yards with a Beretta M9 (As an aside, the new trend of RDS on pistols makes these types of longer range shots sooo much easier for most people). It is not difficult at all to do so with a PS90. Also, most of the PDW guns I am familar with hold more rounds than a standard service pistol with flush fitting mags.

I also have an AR pistol. For any kind of defensive shooting I would rather have one of my AR's with a stock.

For a civilian I guess I would ask what the envisioned use is? For HD, what advantage does a PS90, an AR pistol or the life have over a my AR, my Aug?

For SHTF, I'd rather have my AR than PS90, or other PDW class weapons.

For having a gun to use for defensive use outside of the home I think a pistol is really the only practical weapon for most civilians. A pistol can be carried on you person at all times. A PDW not so much. Some people like the idea of "trunk gun." I seriously question what defensive scenario you will be able to to access that weapon. Also if one is going to keep an off body long gun, why use a less capable PDW?

I think the most useful setup for a civilian would be something like a G17/19 with an RMR. It can be concealed and carried everywhere that is legal. One can make longer shots should some extremely unlikely scenario require that. With a couple spare mags the capacity is fairly respectable and there is always the option for 33 rd mags. I'll take the G17 on my hip over the _____ in my trunk.

 

[goon]

I've never tried skeet shooting with an M-1 Carbine, but I did with a 10/22. And I shot clays out of the air with it. Took a few tries, but once I learned what to do, I was astounded that I could hit the damn things in the air with a rifle.
Just saying... if you have a rifle that fits and some practice, a quick hit on a small fast moving target isn't impossible.
FWIW, I don't think I could do it again right now. But I also couldn't shoot a clay pigeon out of the air with a handgun either.

(FWIW, I was shooting across and down into an old strip-mine cut, so I did have an enormous safe backstop while I was doing this.)

One thing I do have to admit is that you can't get past the size difference. A handgun is smaller and more portable than a rifle or a PDW. If carrying a full size handgun isn't possible for you, then keeping a PDW close enough to be of use would probably be even less possible. It's hard to get around that.
I guess I see why PDW's or their civilian equivalents take a back seat to handguns or rifles.

 

[paintballdude902]

i think PDWs are great for people that need the most power they can get in a small package. ever watched the video of Reagan being shot? that secret service agent whipped an Uzi out of nowhere. and they're great for that, but if i was going to be someplace that i was openly going to be carrying a long gun than i would want as much capacity and as much power as i can comfortably carry

why would i want a weapon that is under powered at range if im not worried about concealing it and not worried about tough maneuvering? i see the argument for cqb type situations where a longer weapons means you have to expose more of your body and make moving around in confined space hard, but not it im out in the open

 

[AJumbo]

I'd rather have a PDW than a handgun in the event of a home emergency, but I'd also rather have a rifle-caliber carbine than a PDW. Plenty of handy ARs out there.

 

[C-grunt]

Without doing a SBR I think a PDW is pretty much pointless. The whole point of it is to be smaller than a rifle and with a 16 inch barrel you might as well go with a carbine like a M4/Mini14/AK.

Another problem with PDWs is the lack of terminal performance most have. That being said I think a 7 inch barreled 300 Blk makes just about the perfect PDW. Small enough to carry easily and has good terminal performance out to at least 200 yards.

 

[Sam1911]

ever watched the video of Reagan being shot? that secret service agent whipped an Uzi out of nowhere. and they're great for that,

And yet, if that agent had actually needed to SHOOT Hinckley (or any other assailants) he'd have been much better off with a standard issued sidearm. The Uzi is great for commanding respect of a crowd or suppressive fire to get a group of attackers to hit the dirt while you're beating your retreat. For direct, fast fire -- hits on a target -- a handgun is far superior.

 

[ugaarguy]

Without going SBR the IWI Tavor is now available in the US at the minimum 26" OAL. That with a 60 round Suerfire mag would be a mighty strong alternative for a non-SBR PDW.

If we go the SBR route one could always SBR an MPA57 pistol with the 5" bbl to get down to HK MP7 length. If they were available here in semi-auto form, the 5.56 NATO X95 from IWI is 580mm (22.83") OAL vs. the real P90 at 500mm (19.7") OAL.

And there are also the 20" OAL HK93 pistol clones that be turned into super short semi-auto HK53 clones id SBR'ed with the HK sliding stock, and the various AKM pistols that can likewise be turned into semi-auto Krinkov clones with side or under folding stocks. I bring up the HK and AKM pistols because those don't have buffer tubes like an AR, so they're typically shorter for the same bbl. length. On that note there's the 20" OAL (stock folded) Kel-Tec SU-16D with 9.2" bbl.

For comparison an AR-15 SBR with 7" bbl, A2 flash hider, and M4 type stock is is 23" inches with the stock collapsed.

 

[amd6547]

Somehow, I have a feeling that a well trained secret service agent with an Uzi would put your handgun in the dirt...and Jim Cirillo, with his M1 carbine would too.