# Renewed Interest in PDWs for the CF?



## Ex-Dragoon (27 Feb 2005)

Saw this figured I would ask.

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-pdw.htm


----------



## big bad john (27 Feb 2005)

I have post photos of the MP7.  It is in service with the Heer.


----------



## KevinB (27 Feb 2005)

Yes there is funding for a trial in '06 - I keep thinking it is the CSS desire for LCF with a unique weapon.

Personally I think the 10.3" C8CQB is the shortest system one should use - even then it is offering fragementation to the 10m point with C77/SS109 ammuntion.

 We found in Afghan that the 16" C8SFW was too long for some uses - and the pistol not really adequate.

Instead of funding a new weapon system that will not be Infantry orientated (thus who will be the SME for it?) we woudl be much better off replacing all the CSS types C7's with the C8CQB and EOTECH.


Non of the PDW systems have any ballistic advantage over the 9mm handun with available ammuntion.


----------



## Thompson_JM (15 Mar 2005)

personally as a CSS Type, i could care less about the LCF, although P90's would be pretty high speed... I would much prefer a weapon that can be quickly deployed from a vehicle, and is still effective. as was already stated i can imagine that the C8 would probabbly be an acceptable replacement for most CSS requirements.
IMHO


----------



## McG (15 Mar 2005)

Would the CF still see a need for the C8 if we had a C7 based PDW?


----------



## KevinB (15 Mar 2005)

I think we'd call it a C8 based PDW  

 Realistically with the majority of the Infantry (reg) to be outfitted with both the C7A2 and C8SFW upper receivers - and other combat arms with the C8A1 (from when till when ???) I cant see it going bye bye.


The current argument the couch commando brigade are using is the C8 is to big and heavy to use in a CSS role  :  Thus they need a smaller more manuverable Personal Defence Weapon...
  Hey chico go to the gym...


The other problem with the Diemaco 4 and 6" PDW's is that they use a different buffer and a different collapsible stock and buffer tube than the normal C8/C7A2 ones - yes it is smaller and more compact - but it takes away from the commonality of parts.


IMHO

We should abandon the 5.56mm 20" rifle - go to two 5.56mm Platfroms the 16" Midlength and a 12.5" Shorty Midlength, and a 7.62mm 20" gun for DM work.

 Keep the pistol - just put night sights on it and get over the fact that we don;t have as great armour pentration as we might like - but the fact is despite the what DLR woudl like to think the Wall did come down - and our enemy these days does not use armour.


----------



## Kal (18 Mar 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> We should abandon the 5.56mm 20" rifle - go to two 5.56mm Platfroms the 16" Midlength and a 12.5" Shorty Midlength, and a 7.62mm 20" gun for DM work.



Kevin - so are you suggesting the shorty midlength be used for the CSS types and for the infantry when the Midlength is still too long?  Or would you have it the CSS rifle use a 10" C8CQB weapon?


----------



## Ghost (18 Mar 2005)

Why don't they go with the XM8 chambered for the 6.8 SPC


----------



## KevinB (18 Mar 2005)

XM-8 and 6.8 are both non-starters 

 but thanks.


I think ideally a 12.5" midlength shorty is an option.  For a CSS gun  - for the Inf the 16" midlength.


----------



## Kal (19 Mar 2005)

As for the 6.8 SPC, why a non-starter?  I was led to believe the round had great ballistics, or is it the fact of aquiring a whole new round and weapons for it?


----------



## KevinB (20 Mar 2005)

The advantage of the 6.8 is minor IF using good 5.56mm ammo

 So I'd rather go to the 77gr BHTP  in 5.56mm.  Secondly the 6.8 requires different mags - so the advantage of a smilar platform is partially negated - and I still want someone to show me a 6.8 bolt that has lasted 5,000 rds...

 6.8 is a good round don't get me wrong - but I dont see it as a feasible system yet - and I bought one...  


The HK XM-8 is a POOR idea IMHO - I handled one was was underwhelmed - I got to hang aroudn a shoot and was even more disappointed.  The only ones that seem to like it are the sellers - or their shills.


----------



## ArmyAviator (21 Mar 2005)

I know we were watching the PDW programme with great interest at 1 Wing.  The tac hel gang would love to upgrade from the Browning HP to a better personal weapon.  The Sig would be a great improvement but two factors weigh against it.  First is it is still a 9mm pistol.  A pistols effective range with even the best shooter is only in the 20m range.  This is a combination of bullet performance and that innate abilities of someone trying to aim a hand held weapon (i.e. no butstock to stabilize the weapon).  The second is that our units don't have armourers and rely on the Service battalion for this support.  Since the general issue sidearm in the LFs is the Browning that is all they will guarantee support for.

The tac hel aircrew would love to have a better weapon.  Something that can reach out a hundred or two hundred metres; to deal with the problem sooner than later.  Also, if nothing else, and we are down in the LZ with the soldiers at least we can protect ourselves and be given an arc of fire (the RSM speaks..... SIR your arc is from towards the rear of the company, 5 degrees left and right of [whatever] and try not to shoot anyone that's on our side  ).

The problem for us is the lessons learned from the US Army and the British.  If your helicopter goes down in a combat zone due to enemy action or even aircraft malfunction, you will likely only have the time to take with you that which is strapped to your body.  (Less than a 50% chance of getting anything out of the back.  I will try to find that report for better detail.)  So for us the C8 PDW concept is still too large. In the interim we would love to have a pistol strapped to us and a C8 strapped to the seat.  Thus, if one has the time they can get the better weapon but will still have a weapon if they don't have the time.  There is one rule that I believe came from Wyatt Earp or Wild Bill:  " if you're going to show up to a gunfight at least have a gun".


----------



## George Wallace (21 Mar 2005)

Armyaviator

I think your fears about the Sig and lack of armourers is ill founded.  Svc Bn will have to service them, as they are now issued to MPs.  As more come into the system, there will be less of a problem, as I see it.

As for the C8; if it were stowed in a better position so as to be "basically in the way of egressing" it may still be a viable option.  I don't mean by this that it actually be stowed in a bracket to actually block the crew from exiting, but to be in such a position that it will become an 'instinctive' action to grab it on the way out.  Part of a handrail or something.

GW


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (21 Mar 2005)

My understanding about the Sigs was they got enough for the MPs, MH crews and NLBPs.


----------



## KevinB (21 Mar 2005)

ArmyAviator,

 C8CQB (10.3") - at least you will have ammo compatibility with the troops -- IF you are down and with us - I dont think if you coudl not grab a C8 - you will have time for all the exotic ammo and mags that the other PDW contenders have.

 I still think we are better off with upgrading the Brownign slide for night sights, de-activating the mag safety, and bashign on - usign the costs saved for more ammo for training.


Ex-Dragoon - Frm what I was informed that is what happend.  There was no new pistol trial - just a certain (2K?) SigP225's acquired to replace some of the .38 spl Revolvers and the MP pistols.

Certain units/commands have tried (some apparently successfully) to acquire SigP226's based upon the theory that since the Hill has them they must be good and in the system.  I know this drove the LCMM SA nuts.


----------



## Spr.Earl (21 Mar 2005)

KevB re "the C8 to heavy" you must be kidding?
The C8 was designed as a crew weapon i.e drivers as we all know.
But I do like the F.N. with 5.56 but with a heavier gr.


----------



## ArmyAviator (22 Mar 2005)

> I think your fears about the Sig and lack of armourers is ill founded.  Svc Bn will have to service them, as they are now issued to MPs.  As more come into the system, there will be less of a problem, as I see it.



GW

I'll admit my experience is dated.  When we (I was with 408 THS at this time) went to Kosovo with the LDSh Recce Sqn, ahead of the PPCLI BG, the MP plt that provided the Airfield security had to take Brownings.  I inquired with the Plt OC and was told that the NSE could not support the Sig.



> As for the C8; if it were stowed in a better position so as to be "basically in the way of egressing" it may still be a viable option.  I don't mean by this that it actually be stowed in a bracket to actually block the crew from exiting, but to be in such a position that it will become an instinctive action to grab it on the way out.  Part of a handrail or something.



That idea has been floated and still exists however I would still want a pistol strapped to me.  Egressing out of a burning wreckage or upside down in the water, I may not have all my wits about me and completely forget about the C8.  This is why US Army aviators carry both. (Their equivalent of the C8 and the Beretta pistol.)  The problem is the Air Force says "choose one or the other, we aren't buying any additional weapons for 1 Wing".



> C8CQB (10.3") - at least you will have ammo compatibility with the troops -- IF you are down and with us - I don't think if you could not grab a C8 - you will have time for all the exotic ammo and mags that the other PDW contenders have.



Very good point (even if it doesn't read well  ;D).  One wonders if the C8CQB could be attached to the back or side of the LPSV (survival vest) in a manner so as not to interfere with flying ops?  Could we mod the seat back rest to allow this?  Maybe the gang at Wing could look into this? Duey?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (22 Mar 2005)

Does not lefrance (or something like that make an even compact version of the M4..the M16K or something?


----------



## KevinB (22 Mar 2005)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Does not lefrance (or something like that make an even compact version of the M4..the M16K or something?


Unfortunately anything shorter than the 10.3" barrel cannot use the carbine gas tube and is a "special" item - and ammuntion effectiveness is drastically reduced.  16" C8SFW is pretty much ideal


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (23 Mar 2005)

ArmyAviator,

I also like the idea of "crewmen" having both a pistol and a C8.  There is a bit more of a training and ammunition bill but I think that it is worth it.  Much like the crashed helicopter scenario, if you are bailing out of an AFV that has been hit you may not be able to grab the C8.  Pistols are also good to have for crews when dismounting to talk to locals etc.  Still, if you are getting out to establish security you certainly want more than a pistol and you would have the time to get the C8.  I think that an operational requirement could be demonstrated to justify the expenditure.

Cheers,

2B

p.s. KevinB, do you know if a pistol system for the Small Arms Trainer will be coming along any time soon?  I was told that we do not have it because the Army is thinking about a new pistol.


----------



## KevinB (23 Mar 2005)

2B

I heard (those birds  ;D ) there should be a Sig system out soon for the MP's etc...


----------

