***Additional edits/ information *** According to Vlad's research, the 7N21 (the slower traveling sabot penetrator 9mm) pre-dates the NATO development, but the 7N31 100% came after the NATO trials. Same with the PP2000, which was developed around the 2001-2003 timeframe. Also there was an error: the 9mm / 556 base cased .224 BOZ was a later development that post-dates the trials and the original .224 BOZ was a 10mm parent case. Firearms used were the Glock 20 and the MP5/10 to accommodate the 10mm parent case. Still can have some firearms retrofitted, but not nearly as easily than if they used a 9mm parent case, which would have struggled to perform with the 2500fps that the .224 BOZ was able to achieve. The PDW trials did still kick-start the Russian PP2000 project and still had a direct influence to the importance of the further development of the Russian 9mm AP rounds. Furthermore, if you are interested in this type of research "rabbit hole" you should look up the 6.5mm CBJ and the 22 TCM which are also taking these 9mm-based AP concepts to strange depths.
Sweden started using the M39B for the SMG, a 9mm AP in 1955, after reviewing combat reports from the Korean War. Denmark a NATO member got some ammo from Sweden and repackaged it as M/41 Steel Jacket. The Danish M/41 9mm can be very different and from different sources. Using a magnet and weighing the OAW, can give and idea of what you got.
Yup, I really like their logic: "we need small ak": AKS-74u, "We need long AK": SVD, "We need quiet AK": VSS ... And so on. They save so much money and time not trying to "reinvent" things they will likely barely use in the first place.
@@unarmored9973 And sometimes this logic has its disadvantages, for example rimmed 7.62x54 which doesn`t allow to construct high - capacity magasines for SVD, or lacking supersonic suppressors among the troops. BTW, SVD is not an upscaled AK, it is completely different inside, and VSS has some major differenses from AK either
@@unarmored9973 PK is completely different, like m249 and m4. I can agree with ots-14, pp19 and saiga which are same aks with different calibers and designs. Maybe Val too. But if you say that svd is ak, than let's say m417 is a custom ar15, mk18 is a fancy ar15. Svd differs more from AK than g36 from m4. It just looks familiar because of same production methods used(large steel stamping, steel magazine, wooden parts), but all major internal parts are different
@@ВячеславФролов-д7я I am NOT saying SVD is the same as AK. Nobody would say that! haha. I do not mean "Platform". Such as: AK74, AK100, AK101, AK102, AK103, AK104, AK105, AKM, AKMS, AKS74u, RPK74, RPK... And so on. Those share enough parts interchangeability, I would never say that the SVD is part of the same "Platform" as AK. Everyone classifies weapons different for "family" or even "series". There are many different books written about how every author thinks firearms should be categorized together into families and series. So many different reasons. - There is DEFINITELY no consensus, even by the manufacturers. Some people think caliber is enough to create a new family, others think operating system is more important, others think combat role is what determines it's family, others think simply by how it looks - There is absolutely no way to grade similar firearms into defined families that we all can agree upon.
17:22 - I wonder if this dry lubricated case is the reason why Chris at Small Arms Solutions could not get the P90 to work with American Eagle 5.7x28 while it works perfectly in 5.7 pistols.
The issue with AE TMJ is it's short bullet and Fiocchi (Fiocchi loads all SS197SR, Speer Gold Dot, and AE TMJ until at least 2023) does not crimp case necks. They use a glue. That glue and short bullet means not a lot of surface for the glue to attach to, and set back occurs. You can increase the reliability of AE TMJ 5.7 by mechanically crimping the case neck. All Factory 5.7 brass is made by FN and has the coating.
I think the fact that NATO rear echelon troops do not get a different weapon than the infantry is the larger failure hear and not the lack of a standardized cartridge .Basically the entire idea of PDWs in NATO didnt happen .
As far as 5.7 vs 4.6 goes; the MP7 looks like the more practical PDW being that it's more compact but the P90 is one of the coolest looking guns ever. So they were right to standardized both.
The ppk-20 is a modernize version the pp-19 both are chambered in 9x19. the gun doesn't matter 7n31 is in 9x19 any 9mm weapon can use it in comparison 5.7 and 4.6x30 are not universal at all. The point of the trials was to get a universal cartridge to replace 9mm both failed in doing so.
You are right on the mark. Problem description will make or brake you solutions. Your problem description should take into account the current and projected threats.
Thanks for the work on this info, very enjoyable. I've always been interested in the 7n21 and 7n31 cartridges. But never knew it was the answer to the 5.7
I think that, in light of the fact that neither the P-90 nor MP7 can penetrate even decades-old infantry armor, it actually makes sense for NATO to not invest in standardizing and supporting any particular PDW cartridge, because the demand for that type of PDW just isn't there at this time. That might change in the future, but as it currently stands, the MP7 sees a lot of use with special forces (like the raid that killed Osama bin Laden) where its ease of mounting a slew of optics, night-fighting attachments, and ability to collapse the stock to make it a very short and compact weapon makes it ideal for elite troops in night raids where combat is expected to be at fairly short ranges. The P-90, by contrast, is a much simpler system that can more easily be slung onto one's back or to one's side without snagging on anything, and the 50-round magazine means that you might not even need to carry a spare magazine if all you really need is a weapon for a matter of seconds as you flee or defend yourself against one or two guys at close range AS you flee. But when it comes to defeating modern body armor, the US military seems to be going with adopting a HIGHER power and larger sized rifle to outright defeat even the most modern body armor with precision, velocity, and range, using cutting edge optics. Perhaps leadership in NATO feels that it's better to wait and see what kind of threats should be expected and if something substantially better comes along. Something the M1 Carbine never had to deal with was body armor; so long as the enemy was within range, then the weaker cartridge could still be very lethal and effective, even if it wasn't the overwhelming power of a full-sized rifle cartridge. In modern times, trying to design a round that is both small and powerful enough to penetrate body armor is a huge challenge, especially when increasing the power makes it harder to control or design a weapon capable of handling it with such small size and light weight.
Thanks guys for creating RU-vid's best golf channel! BTW, what do you think of the Cleveland Frontline Elevado? Is it worth it's bargain basement price? Or if you don't like those questions... How well do you think the .950 JDJ would do on the Practical Accuracy course?
From memory it was obvious that the levels of protection implied were the older soviet style body armour in use at the time which was not close to level 4. The 1990-2010 era soviet/Russian older style body armour was in common use. You can look back to the soviet operations in Afghanistan where armour started showing up in use and how it changed up to the 2010 era. This is what the 9mm has having trouble with.
Thank you, very informative video. With regard to PDW classification, what class would you consider the Stribog (SP9A1 & A3)? I’m thinking it would be classed a Class 3, but looking for your opinion based on your extensive knowledge on the subject matter. TIA Cheers🍻, Mach
.280 was never adopted as STANAG it was adopted by the British with the EM-2 and then quickly unadopted. Frankly whether .280 or. 308 the end result would have been the same because .280 British was still technically a full power rifle round it was just similar in performance to 6.5 Carcano and 6.5 Arisaka.
@@nemisous83 you missed his point. He, and I, want to see what would have happened if NATO adopted the .280 British, possibly including the EM2 as the NATO standard rifle. Then, instead of the overweight FN MAG, you have something closer to the Minimi for your squad MG. Or maybe even a lighter belt-fed MG.
@@ScottKenny1978 well the EM-2 isn't a light machine gun its a bullpup battle rifle also even if. 280 British was adopted in a belt fed format it wouldn't have changed the overall size of weapons like the FN MAG or M60 because. 280 British is still a full length full power rifle round its just more similar to 6.5 Arisaka and 6.5 carcano ballistically.
@@nemisous83 right. The FN MAG wouldn't have to be so overbuilt as to survive 150gr at 2800fps. It could have been built to about the Maximi (7.62 Minimi). The .280 British or 6.5 Arisaka is much closer to intermediate than full power rifle, but still usable to 600m.
@@ScottKenny1978 well the FN MAG and FAL aren't overbuilt and heavy because of .308 they are overbuilt and heavy because FN made them that way even the FAL prototype in 8mm kurz weighed about the same as the one chambered in .308. Also .308 is nearly as powerful as you are making it out to be the G3 for instance operates it off effectively delayed blowback and a sheet metal reciever.
Wonder how 6.5×25 mm CBJ would get on? Quote "The primary loading of the standard ball round fires a saboted 2 g (31 gr), 4 mm diameter tungsten kinetic penetrator, weighing a total of 2.5 g (39 gr) with the sabot. It has a muzzle velocity of 730 m/s (2,400 ft/s) from a 120 mm (4.7 in) barrel with a muzzle energy of 533 J (393 ft⋅lb). From a 300 mm (12 in) barrel, it has a muzzle velocity of 900 m/s (3,000 ft/s) with a muzzle energy of 810 J (600 ft⋅lb), and has good armor penetration out to 400 m (440 yd). "
This video is rather interesting in its own right, but it again raises the question of whether the switch from 7.62 to 5.56 was really a good idea. Yes, you can carry more, but this comes at the cost of range, penetration of potential cover, impact shift due to wind and more. I would also argue that the smaller magazine size forced soldiers to become better marksmen, as they had to make their shots count. Bonus: interchangeability of ammunition between service rifles and light mgs (those not named saw).
I kept hearing about the 5.7 and 4.6 to replace the 9mm but I saw it never replaced we still use the 9mm and I use to wonder why? Now this video answered it.
4:05 the BOZ would have been like the handgun equivalent of the blackout - a hot round you could enjoy with a barrel swap. in the end the 22TCM9r took that place, with a less aerodynamic projectile
I would like to learn more bout the 7.92 vbr. Think it would be a cool round to convert a AR9 to. The 39 to 40 rounds that would fit in a 32 rd 9mm mags is also a bonus
PDW round? All you need is a 1911 in .45. It may not punch through Ivan's armor, but it will hurl him back with such force he is Guaranteed to be incapacitated. I saw it in a movie once.
Regarding the U.S. having more influence on NATO standards than other governments there are some reasons for it. First is money. The U.S. spends dramatically more on defense than the rest of NATO combined. Getting the U.S. alone to adopt your product is a bigger win than if all other NATO members did except the U.S.. Also it's about in person use influence. The U.S. has bases (plural) inside almost every NATO member. None of them have bases in the U.S. and few of them have as many flags still planted on foreign soil. If a NATO member military is going to practice and cross train with another NATO member one of those two always has a high chance of being the U.S. because they are already where the other is. Also, being familiar with what the U.S. is using is to your benefit because if there is a big ground war in Europe your military aid will be whatever the U.S. sends you unless you're fighting against them.
I believe the French needed American logistical support just for the bombing in Libya, at some point they ran out or just about ran out of bombs. In a serious conflict, I imagine problems would show up much quicker.
In the norwegian army the truck drivers and guards got the mp7, we in signals were lucky and got hk416s, and there wasnt much cool factor in carrying a pdw. The term "jente7" was in common parlance meaning "girl 7" because its pronounced similarly to mp7 and because it was light and underpowered. I heard mp7 carriers proud over having shot out to 100m when we shot 200, 300 even 400m
The downside is how big the Five-seveN is. Quite a bulky thing. I overall like the ergonomics, like where the safety is (ambidextrous index finger), and it's relatively narrow. But the reach to the trigger is very long.
I imagine the MOD are getting a little annoyed with twice now suggesting an ammunition type, only to be told no at the time but only later have the wisdom recognised.
If the whole thing was started by Belgium and France because FN was already working on the P90 and wanted to sell it, this sounds like it was all a ploy to get new contracts for FN. They might have sold the idea to NATO as a whole in terms of wanting to replace the 9x19 (and why?), but you really can't separate the 5.7 cartridge from the P90, right? Without that straight-walled case, the P90 magazine doesn't work, so there's no way it could ever have used another cartridge, and the construction of the 5.7 really only makes sense if you are using a P90. The 4.6 round would never have worked in the P90, and the MP7 doesn't need most of the features of the 5.7 construction.
Did anyone in NATO think about/consider a sabot 9mm or 5.56 if the 5.56 provides extra oomph or a better space for the sabot ? Am guessing the 9mm is a more restricted space for the sabot to occupy ? Would you rather have more ammo or a smaller amount of more effective ammo (possibly as a PDW a "less accurate" shooter would prefer more ammo ?) ?
With that helmet, not much you can do. You can shoulder and point shoot to a degree, but you're not getting a cheek weld of any kind. There are special stocks for some of the SMGs that allow use with a riot helmet.
Such a shame that the 4.6 was never mainstreamed. I plan on buying the CMMG Banshee in 4.6 purely because I love the intent of the cartridge. Wish there was an sp7 (civilian mp7). 5.7 has an array of firearms now, but for some reason the 4.6 calls to me. Great review thank you!
When you said "We will have more on this down the road" did you mean 9-Hole reviews or you and Forgotten Weapons because you had just mentioned him so I'm a little confused.
Its frustrating, but NATO doing tests and finding a good advantage and then ignoring their results as Russia takes advantage is pretty common. The example I typically point to is ACEVAL and AIMVAL in the air combat environment, done by America exclusively. One of the conclusions (there were a great many) was that a very agile missile with a helmet mounted "look and shoot" HMS would be very beneficial in a dogfight. Soviets then did exactly that less than a decade later in the 80s. NATO took until the 2010s to do their own rendition, even after knowing how utterly dominant it was since the fall of the Soviet Union. The military baffles me sometimes, its hard to not conclude a combination of incompetence and an extreme inertia towards any form of change (eg 7.62 NATO). Other times they can be extremely forwards thinking and predict future trends (and even then sometimes cancel it after a solution is found, eg. F-22, M1 carbine).
A Personal Defense Weapon is for people who aren't ordinarily expected to engage in infantry combat...vehicle crews, medics, maintenance personnel are examples of people who would carry a PDW.. I have a question: do the Russians issue this kind of body armor to ordinary(non-paratrooper) infantry...who they are more likely to encounter.
@@skepticalbadger Thank god - then I am spared by that B$ of yours and him. I have trained ppl all my life in the use of the MP7 - now I see this nonsense here…waste of my time
I know nothing about fire arms but I do know I,ve always thought the p90 is so very cool . I think it was stargate tv show when I first fell in love with this thing . God how I,d love to shoot one
Basically exercise in futility when most commonly used 9mm threw out AP round that can and does penetrate any armor exists. In fact it is on youtube to behold a basic pistol punch through armor like nothing, they claim it is illegal but I doubt in case of war anyone will prosecute you for use of armor piercing rounds, let alone if you win.
Uhh, no. 5.7 has significantly better wounding affects on meat bags. Theres more tissue damage, and more chance to kill the enemy, even if the chance of incapacitation isnt much higher.
So instead of NATO developing a PDW round to replace 9mm and defeat Russian armor, in the end Russians made a new 9mm round that would do just that instead.
Call elite ammunition up. They'll give provide 5.7 rounds that will punch harder than ss190 by 100%. Ss190 won't penetrate 1/4 inch steel, but ea's devastators will.
Red Tape as always! We want this but when it starts to work? It also has to do this And that! It's not my design so? It's not correct! My ammo does this but it is the firearm design that doesn't! Thank You for sharing this information!
"Ivan, NATO members are testing cartridges for a PDW. They want it to penetrate armour better than 9mm." "That sounds good comrade. Let's try it out." "Where do we start?" "Is simple comrade, make 9mm armor-piercing." "You are promoted tovarisch."
@@Rendo86 ehh, it was "wasted" on the pen, not the ink specifically. And pencils chip bits of graphite all the time which in zero gravity can fly into cracks all around the ship. It's one of those things people repeat that isn't that simple
We all know that the 5.7 and the P90 were developed specifically with penetration of Goa’uld armor in mind rather than anything Soviet or Russian and we know for a fact that it was a resounding success
Exactly. Which also explains why the US had “no involvement,” so the Air Force could keep it a secret. (Although good luck hiding the fact that they bought most of the ammo in existence)
NATO had plenty of cartridges that could penetrate standard Russian armor, though armor piercing rounds were not the standard round. The exact same is true for the Russians as well though so kind of a moot point lol.
The 357 SIG is dead, but being a Czechophile I'm still mesmerized by the 7.5FK. We don't know what the flight ballistics of the 7N21/7N31 are, but I wonder what potential the 7.5FK can have for PDW roles.
I came here to say this. I have a PSD and it's pretty precisely what they were after in the original PDW trials. I would trade my right leg and half a ball for a PDW chambered in 7.5FK.
Federal Air Marshals and Secret Service haven't gotten the memo yet, they still use .357 SIG. I guess when it's taxpayer money it's not an issue paying for more expensive boutique ammo like .357 SIG...
7.5 FK might be the baddest pistol round at the moment but I expect SIG will surpass them soon with their hybrid case tech. Whatever the 7.5 FK can do...just imagine it with 20-25 % higher chamber pressure. A sig pistol round using Sig's hybrid tech hasn't been announced yet, but they have to be working on it.
Fantastic presentation. Too bad things like this become one big military / governmental circle jerk instead of actually solving problems from the battlefield.
14:05 Boy, the video of the British officer presenting the FAL really cements how long it's been. Rare pictures, documents, and footage like that is why I really appreciate the research and effort you guys put into your videos
@Brupcat the final iteration of the .280 However, was not that much different recoil wise than 7.62x51. It would've been equally uncontrollable in full auto.
@@mikec8086 I agree. I believe the 280 probably would have been a worse choice over the 308 back then anyway, think about the machine gun barrel life. That would be a logistical nightmare.
Grendel deserves more respect. That and 6mm arc imo are the perfect intermediate rounds and defeat 5.56 and 7.62x39 in every meaningful metric besides supply and STANAG
@sadaway4301, ……….besides supply and STANAG. Obviously you forgot weapon function in your statement 🙄. Because feeding is💩 with those calibers, especially if full auto is required…….which it is.
As a PS90 owner and someone lucky enough to have shot an MP7 full auto, this is AWESOME. Please do a PS90 setup video like you did for the MP5K modernization bit
Form 1 SBR on a trust (not sure what current best option is for barrel), HDD combo muzzle device, Design Machine optics mount, Man Kave hammer, Elite T6B ammo.
As an idiot (my father constantly reminded me growing up) would it be possible to slap a long arse barrel for extra velocity on that bad boy, idk the PS90 barrel length as I assume its not bullpup 🤷♂️ genuinely curious though, love those guns never touched one, literally if I ever travelled to USA it would be to shoot every gun, probably shouldn't write that on the customs declaration though 💁♂️
Nice you brought up the BOZ. It was that round, as a 10mm fan that got me interested in the the PDW rounds. It's lack of a dedicated platform, it's ability to destroy any platform that was modified to fire it, lead me to the 5.7x28mm. Also the BOZ was based on 10mm necked down, not 9mm. The 2 test platforms used for it where the G20, it cracked and comprised the rear of the frame, and a Colt Delta Elite with a aggressively lightened slide. This had cycling issues and wold destroy the breach face to the point they had to modify the slide to accept replace breech faces. As a side note years ago I figured out how to make the BOZ function in the Delta Elite without damaging it or destroying the breach face.
I think the 10mm case is where we should be going. The 7.5fk is pretty close, very close to 300blk case capacity but shorter.Take a 9x25 Dillon neck it to 8mm and run 123gr privi fmj's..... Willing to bet it'd outperform a blackout from sub7" barrels.
So this may be ignorant, but where does something like .357 sig place when compared to the BOZ? If you squint hard enough, it starts looking similar in profile to a halfway point between Tokarev and the BOZ round.
@@geekmansegraves VERY close, in fact I have toyed with a .357 SIG load using a caliber appropriate T6B projectile. Not enough time or resources have halted this. The powders that work best for the 5.7x28mm also work very well with the .357 SIG and I have a .357 SIG barrel for my Delta Elite.
@@jamesbridges7750 would love to see that.... Though 9x25 is not a thing. 8mm at 123gr? Kurz? Even 8mm Mauser seems to be going away. I want to see 8mm return since I have a Mauser, but reality though?
The reason the 5.7 needs lubrication is because it is straight walled which makes it harder to extract. Weapons can have flutes to help extraction (like the g3) or you lubricate the ammo. Never the less, it is only straight walled because the P90 has a straight magazine and you dont want it to be courved by a tempered cartridge. Its kinda weird that you addop a cartridge that could be used in a lot of different platforms that has a workaround for a problem most of those platforms wouldn't have in the first place.
Which is why other 5,7 x 28mm guns have stoppages etc when using non-FN ammo. I doubt they have figured out the FN lubricant formula accurately enough. Most FN owners seem to have very few problems when using FN ammo. Remember the PS90/Five seveN were ALWAYS going to be niche firearms/calibres anyway. Realistically, FN was never really going to replace the very well-entrenched 9mm parabellum anyway - the logistics implications clearly prevented that from the get go. "Rear echelon troops" is a limited "market" by definition! However, the P90 was quickly adopted by numerous Special Forces and Law Enforcement Agencies worldwide, contrary to all expectations. Some detractors seem to have missed this. Replacing an entrenched weapons system/calibre is extremely difficult and expensive, as demonstrated by the whole NGSW programme, which is still only partially adopted, with 5,56mm still firmly entrenched for the most part.
You know, my time spent working with TACOM, both in and out of the military, and videos like this have led me to the conclusion that Russia's small arms program has always been much healthier than anything in the west, at least the US. They mass adopted the assault rifle concept before us, the polymer magazine before us, they successfully reached a conclusion to this project, they made a somewhat functioning multiple hit burst weapon (the AN94), while we just straight up stopped at duplex ammo, and all of their weapons are developed holistically with the average soldier and real world use in mind. Even details as little as the small hole at the bottom of AK mags to let you know when you have a full magazine. Know what that's for? Yeah you can use it to check if you have a full mag, but it becomes extremely useful if you have to perform an administrative task like ammo accountability, you don't have to unload everyone's mags and risk losing rounds like my dumbass unit did. You only need unload the mags that aren't completely full.
I have very similar sentiments, and honestly I've been trying to research to publish videos like this so we stop doing this stuff... or at the very least try not to. I'm sure that's too much to ask, but I hope it helps a little bit, even a smidge if possible.
@@9HoleReviews I sincerely hope that it has some effect. We've been stuck in this mentality of not thinking things through for far too long. When I got out of the Marines they had finished adopting the PMAGs, and it was apparent that nowhere in the testing did they consider how they fit in the current issue magazine pouches. According to my old boot who became the armory chief, the new magazines were apparently too thick to fit two of in the at-the-time currently issued double-mag pouches, so you ran into situations like SNCOs telling Marines to soak said pouches in hot water then stretch the hell out of them so they would fit. Apparently they set to work on a new magazine pouch system, to which I'm not aware of the details of, but I know for sure it wasn't until after the first magazines were sent to armories to be issued.
Awesome content as always guys. I love the whole PDW-off and all the interesting things it spawned. The P90 may not be the most effective weapon for every situation, but it's a symphony in abandoning convention and embracing innovation in terms of materials, format etc.
Yep and it did allow for low recoil, high fire rate PDW weapon for non frontline soldiers. Yeah it may not penetrate the armour, but it gives you a better fighting chance than a 9mm barreta lol..
It probably suffers from similar problems as the Dragon scale armor. The segmented plates meant it was good at stopping straight on shots but not ones from oblique angels.
Exceptional well video, thank you very much! I always questioned the Wikipedia articles, stating (while clearly written by FN 5.7 lovers) that 5.7 is equal or superior all the time (like same penetration to armor, barrel erosion with the 4.6 - nothing bad to 5.7) and is the only one who got it into STANAG. ("[...] though it was ultimately the 5.7×28mm cartridge that would eventually be designated as a NATO caliber with the NATO STANAG 4509 in late February 2021.") Its crazy how much misinformation is out there about PDWs, P90 and MP7.
To be fair, the penetration differences are essentially linked to projectile design and not the overall cartridge design. If FN decided to make a goofy solid chunk of steel projectile with a copper jacket, it'd outperform current 5.7x28 in penetration too.
@@markus2578 The articles are written by humans and are not supervised. "Wikipedia" does a good job overall, but its far from perfect. Just for the one thing you mentioned (while ignoring all my other statements), I quote the NATO report from the video "The 4.6mm cartrige has superior penetration[...]". And it should have, because it makes perfectly sense. (Same energy, smaller calibre. It HAS to penetrate better, and 5.7 mm HAS to do do a better job on wound channels on equal circumstances.) However the Wiki article states otherwise and shifts almost everything a bit to the 5.7 cartridge. I'm not a fan of something also, but for me its very clearly biased and this particular is very neutral.
@@markus2578 There are 2 main differences of the cartridges, stated in the NATO report: 5.7 is "superior" for wound channels, 4.6 is superior for penetration. Therefore stating that 5.7 has "superior" wound channels and the same penetration is horrendously wrong. Statement 1 says none is superior overall (which is why both are standardized, at least its stated in this video and some STANAGs which look like it is, because the wiki says otherwise(!!!)), statement 2 says 5.7 is better overall. However, its not just that, there are many other statements which are wrong or are written like 5.7 is more superior than it should be. And you dont need to ask others who dont know anything about cartridges or dont know the statements made in this video. You can just accept what is written there and it looks fine. But it isnt when you look deeper.
@@markus2578 I cant really answer that question, because it depends. Probably a short 11-14" 5.56 assault rifle as a weapon for everyting. (300 BLK is a sexy cartridge too, but not that well spread.) Im impressed by the current WWSD for example, so probably one of these. (AR-15 or -18 with a modern setup like red dot & 4x or 6x scope.) HK416 is cool because of its users and history, but Im no soldier so I probably dont need all the features and reliability as a sort of every day carry. But I would use it if they are zombies around. I use it in games often, but wouldnt buy one. Just say MP7 or P90 for our discussion. In a car, as a real PDW, P90, which stays there, for sure. Very sleek and a 50 round mag? Thats crazy. But for "normal" use, like self defending on the go / in buildings and carrying around as a small main weapon with mag changes etc. probably the MP7. (You can even holster it!) Tank would be easier. The Leopard 2A6 and newer are sexy beasts, I buy 10 of them :P (But then its not versatile enough. Wouldnt a Puma be better? I could haul my buddies with it. Argh! OK, 5 Leos and 5 Pumas!) Whats yours?
Awesome video guys... you put some effort into this one. Oxide has done some really good ones on his channel... especially all his russian armor trials... people don't realize how much effort goes into just locating some of these items
Basically, the object of the PDW trial seemed to be to do the same thing that had happened to rifle cartridges 30 years prior. Smaller bullets, at a higher velocity, leading to rifle-like performance out of a smaller package, and with better performance against armor as a side benefit.
I disagree. I think concerns over bulletproof vests were at the forefront of people's minds, especially with the concerns over policing. Having a 20-round handgun that can penetrate IIIA is exactly what SWAT and CT personnel need when dealing with high-profile incidents. Works in Counter-Strike, lol. The generally improved performance is perhaps actually more important, though. I mean, having more power and capacity than 9 mil, with less recoil, seems like a great deal, and armour is not statistically all that relevant. But they seemed to have been more focused on the vest thing, and I can't blame them. I really don't like the idea of my rounds getting stopped by a few layers of fabric.
@@jonathandoe1367 NATO is strictly a military alliance with no consideration for law enforcement needs or wants. In the 90s/early 2000s, vests (IIIA or otherwise) weren't exactly at at the forefront of concerns. Iraqi, Somali, Serbian, and Taliban opponents almost never wore them. However, the future was very uncertain at the time and NATO seemed to want to err on the safe side, so some -vaguely-defined- *arbitrarily-defined armor-piercing capability was desired to anticipate future threats.
The objective, as 9-Hole alluded to, was primarily to replace the outdated 9mm NATO/Luger/Parabellum with pretty much *anything* better - hence, the arbitrary CRISAT requirement to specifically beat the 9mm. 9mm ball/FMJ's garbage performance record was known well before the trials (look up Mike Durant's horror story with his MP5K in Somalia in "In the Company of Heroes" - a great read by the way), so it was a very fair decision to want to phase it out.
@@eddietat95 You bring up very good points, and I don't disagree with any of them. However, as a counter-point, consider this: European countries typically rely on their military forces for policing and counter-terror work, whereas the US is Constitution-bound to leave its military out of law enforcement. In battlefield situations, handguns are almost never used, and pistol-calibre carbines have been mostly superseded by short-barreled intermediate-calibre rifles, like the M4 and such. In their actual usage, the P90 and MP7 are mostly used by police and counter-terror units, and few handgun-calibre weapons see much use on the battlefield at all. The countries that relied upon the military for policing were the same countries that pushed for a round that could defeat common civilian body armour, and that round is mostly serviced for police and CT use even today. Does that really sound like a coincidence? Don't get me wrong, the 5.7x28 would make a better service sidearm than 9mm, but sidearms are rarely used at all. As for PDWs for vehicle crews and such, typically intermediate-calibres are still used for that. Hilariously, the US issues its tank crews with shotguns and LMGs for its tanks, and an M4 for every tanker, so I don't think they're very interested in PCCs or SMGs for battlefield use, but maybe they have more traction in Europe. Sorry for not getting back to you earlier. My internet has been a mess recently. Look forward to hearing from you again. :)
@@jonathandoe1367 You're absolutely correct to point out that pistol/PDW-caliber rounds are rarely used in actual combat, however, they are still issued en masse - including in the US military. In the US Army alone, M9s are issued in the tens of thousands to NCOs, vehicle drivers/pilots, inside-the-wire types, and the standard rifle platoon issues 4 M9s for 2 M240 gunners and 2 officers. I also saw loads of folk with M9s while at the Pentagon. In the early years of GWOT, M9s were used extensively when the M16/M249/M500 was considered too unwieldy when clearing particularly tight rooms and tunnels. SMGs, however, have almost entirely been replaced by the short-barreled carbine, though they remain in stockpiles for SF use. Special forces/CT units aren't really relevant in this discussion since their choices are generally funded/sourced elsewhere, in smaller numbers, and with more freedom of selection. The reason why NATO committed to this push away from 9mm, performance aside (and as 9-Hole also mentioned), was that - at the time (the 90s/early 00s) - many countries were finding that their 9mm SMGs/pistols were reaching the end of their scheduled service life. These had largely been purchased in the early-Cold War era when NATO started standardization efforts (think Hi-Powers, Uzis, early MP5s, etc.) and it was nearing time to replace them. Out of convenience, it was agreed to maintain NATO standardization, but to switch en masse to a new caliber entirely that would at least have *some* general improvement over the almost century-old 9mm FMJ without breaking Geneva Convention protocol. New caliber means new guns and convenient timing for aging inventory. Hence, the PDW projects came to pass. Interestingly enough, the idea of the PDW replacing the pistol in most conventional roles (like the M1 carbine's raison d'être) came up at this time and that influenced FN and H&K's mindset towards the PDW - the pistol was to be an afterthought and the longarm was to be the primary focus. Germany was one of the few countries to successfully implement this mindset with the MP7 being fielded for medics/cooks/etc. over a pistol. Funnily enough, these auxiliary troops eventually traded for G36s whenever possible while in A-stan. Well, NATO standardization never came through and every member state went a different path with pistol/PDW selection military-wise. All in all, short-barreled carbines all but replaced the 9mm SMG in all but the most niche roles (VIP protection - see the US Army's new APC9K, military police, very limited SF use). Pistols remained in 9mm, albeit somewhat modernized. You're right, it's true that European LEOs still use the SMG/PDW extensively, but it isn't because of any cooperation with NATO. All LEOs basically benefit from military R&D because they don't have to pay for it. Post-trials, the new products just showed up in the FN and H&K catalogues sent to acquisition departments and some LEOs gained interest and bought them. Hence, the P90 and MP7 in LEO units. Why European LEOs went with SMGs/PDWs over intermediate-caliber carbines is beyond me, but my best guess is that they tend to produce a lower profile than assault rifles and are therefore less threatening. In Europe, the image/optics of the LE officer is a big deal and a sensitive topic given the history of "secret police" and paramilitaries in the continent. Mind you, assault rifles do exist in Euro-LEO inventory, but they're just hidden out of sight until SHTF (see the police response in the 2015 Paris attacks). And, yes, you are also correct to point out that European militaries are more involved in domestic policing work than the US (Germany is a big exception). However, any similar use of weapons between military and police is purely coincidental. Their weapons are not funded, issued, or utilized in the same way. Mind you, military police (MPs) never do the job of civilian police - they strictly exist to protect military assets like bases. Military units deploying domestically are typically reservists adding additional security to an area temporarily, and in extra-ordinary circumstances. Domestic SWAT, CT teams, and area-security teams, though they may have arrangements for limited training with the military, are primarily trained *not* to kill unless necessary, which greatly differs from military doctrine. If a military wants to deploy troops domestically, it will do so with it's own funding, logistics, and training separate from the police. This goes for all NATO militaries. The distinct separation of military and police, as well as purely civilian legitimate control of said military and police, is actually one of the very many requirements for any new nation wanting to join/stay in NATO (well, you at least have to promise it within a certain timeframe, but that's another topic). An appendage about military vs LEO training for PDWs: I found that many LEOs are ordered to shoot them in single-shot at first contact and to go full-auto in emergencies. In fact, many P90s (well, PS90s at that point) and MP7s in LEO hands are semi-auto only. Contrast that with military training: the Bundeswehr trains to shoot MP7s in FA bursts to the chest/head area. DEVGRU SEALs, according to Mark Owen, go further and train to dump the entire 40rd mag into one, single guy on FA. For SF use, the MP7 is deployed suppressed for taking out a single sentry, guard dogs, lights, tires of getaway vehicles, and, according to Owen, mowing down bad guys in one room without waking up the others in the next room. If the cops do that to fellow citizens, there will be hell to pay (we're talking criminal charges). So that's the LONG story of PDW usage in military/NATO vs Euro-LEOs. As a personal note, I see the utility in the PDW, but I have serious doubts over whether it has a future as it stands today (with 5.7mm and 4.6mm), especially with hard armor (steel/ceramic/etc. at Level IV or better) becoming more prevalent in the commercial market and from hostile countries. I would recommend everyone check out the NATO trial report 9-Hole posted in the description for more details.
Go with Stargate SG1 - D90, 5.7 cartridge! Provided in hundreds of firefight in many different world environments and in 2 different galaxies over time!
Logistics is the cornerstone of everything. Russians did the straight and easy way to find a solution, bravo. NATO did not... not bravo. Anyway, I think the real looser was the Magpul who made a great weapon, the PDR (on paper at least) but never went into serious trials. It was compact, lightweight and ergonomic and used standard NATO 5.56 cartridge and STANAG magazine. What was the problem than? It could be a great firearm for vehicle drivers (any kind of, aerial, water or ground), heavy weapon operators (artillery for example) or non combatant military persons (medics, etc). I really would love hear your opinion in a discussion video like this one about the Magpul PDR. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magpul_PDR
In a pistol length barrel the 5.56mm cartridge expends a lot of its energy making flash and noise meaning it will blind its shooter at night and tend to make them disorientated and deafened after firing just a few rounds. This weapon then puts all that blast 6-8" from the shooter's face so every round fired will make you feel like you got punched in the face. I suspect it failed because shooting it is an awful experience that makes the shooter brown out pretty fast. *Edited for spelling and grammar.
@@SurmaSampo Yes, I think you must be right. But there is no option to make it more convenient to shoot? Maybe using sound suppressor or something like that?
@@muninrob But at that point, you are back to having logistical issues with specialized ammo. The whole point of the MDR exercise was to have a PDW in P90-ish form factor that fires standard 5.56 mm NATO rounds. Hell, apparently in "Iraqistan", most people who got issued pistol never got 9 mm NATO ammo for it. So chances are, the rear line troop in the alternative timeline who got issued MDR would have to shoot M855 just like everybody else, and they have the extra privilege of getting punched in the face by the propellant gas every time they shoot.
@@BicyclesMayUseFullLane If you rule out changing the ammo, you'll need a longer barrel. That would probably mean a bullpup design if you still want to fit the form factor. Myself I'd prefer faster burning powder pushing a heavier bullet, but I lack the engineering / math skills to figure out what it would do to the chamber of currently used 5.56 weapons. (probably make that M16A2 you were unlucky enough to draw blow up in your face, or throw the bolt through your head) In my experience (US Army H-60 crew), ammo for the M9 grew on trees, it was the 5.56, 7.62, .50 BMG, and 40MM that we had a hard time requisitioning enough of to even keep everyone qualified. (Thanks USMC 3rd ID - your "leftovers" got us qualified, our requisition arrived 2 months after y'all left)
Yeah 5.8 is like half the weight of 7.62 but the same speed??? Keep the original case and weight, pop one of those steel nipples on the end of it, your welcome NATO. ...I'll take those millions in R&D of your hands
![NATO PDW Trials: The Forbidden Saga of "MP7 vs P90" [ Collab with Oxide ]](/img/logo.svg){kind=logo}
