Hehe. Snow_Fox *did* specifically ask 'what pistol fires that?', of course. I'm just saying that I do consider it 'a pistol round' (assuming I was given the forced choice between 'pistol' and 'rifle'), and that position isn't based on whether or not the 5-7 (I just refuse to use their stupid name) handgun exists. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I've played Battlefield 3, which includes the 'PDW-R' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magpul_PDR), but it fires 5.56 rounds; if it existed in SR4, I'd class that under AR (just a very compact one; a 'carbine'). I disprefer the alternative, where it could be an SMG with a bunch of special rules (similar to 'Use Heavy Pistol Ranges', etc.). That just seems like more trouble.

The 5.7 round is essentially a center-fire 22 magnum. And indeed, lots of people make .22 magnum pistols. The 5.7x28mm round was designed in response to NATO wanting a replacement for the 9x19mm Parabellum cartridge. The 9x19mm was originally designed for the Luger, which I think you'll agree is a pistol, not a PDW?

.22 WRM 30 grains at 2200 fps.
5.7x28mm 31 grains at 2350 fps.

But did they want to replace that cartridge mainly because of pistols, or because of SMGs? In the end, it doesn't matter, but it's interesting. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) What the 9x19 was *originally* designed for doesn't matter to anything.

9x19mm is still the "standard" NATO pistol round. Hence the M9 Beretta the US military issues. So NATO was soliciting a replacement pistol and SMG round, not a rifle round.

So just both, then. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Cool. In that case (replacing both), it stills seems convenient to refer to it as a 'PDW round' at the moment, to differentiate from the 'old' kind.

The major question is, who is aggressive against NATO or the US (Who, let's admit it, runs NATO!) that uses combat armor as a standard issue?

It's just for soft body armor, I thought? But they're always planning for wars that don't exist. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Oh, like looking for WMDs in Iraqistan? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

No. Like developing and deploying weapons that don't have targets, like you said. The usual example I hear is the F-22 (why be 50 years ahead of the enemy, when you're still 30 ahead now?). It's not necessarily a criticism; all things being equal, it *is* better to have more advanced technology *before* you need it. All things usually aren't equal, though. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

The Russians were going to do it, and that cause the US military to start issuing that green tip ammo. But then it turns out that the Russian armor sucked balls, so oh well. The green tip probably wasn't necessary. We still have green tip, which you can stock up on at a gun show, if you want. I always see it available, and I have at least one friend who has stocked up on it.

Personally I don't see the point. Look at what happened with the green tip in Mogidishu. Little .22 caliber holes in skinny Somali dudes who just kept fighting.

What proportion of people you meet who are going to try and kill you and which will require you to respond to them with deadly force are going to be wearing level 4 body armor? Far better to get the improved cavitation of a JHP or JSP, right? And ordinary FMJ should be good enough to punch through the vast majority of armor that you're likely to encounter in a hypothetical situation where some felon armors up before assaulting your home where you've got your AR ready. I mean, he'd have to be wearing a freaking military getup for the FMJ not to pierce his armor.

Don't forget, he's assaulting your home, so you have the defensive terrain advantage. The best he can do is charge in with an AR or something and spray rounds everywhere to try and suppress you or hit you through the walls or something as he charges up the stairs. But if he does anything other than that, you can be waiting for him covering down the stairs from the top, you can be in a corner behind the door, or whatever. When you open fire on him at a distance of ten feet or less, even if he is wearing armor, what's going to happen when you dump your entire 30 round mag of .223 FMJ into his chest? I think he's still getting pretty messed up.

If I were really concerned about inadequate armor or cover penetration with my AR, I'd honestly just pull out my old Mosin Nagant and go to town with that. I mean, 7.62x59R, you know? And if I'm in my home and somehow that fails to do the trick, there's always the old school spike bayonet into the eye socket.

How did this become about 'defending your home'? It's the military he asked about. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) And AFAIK it's about inadequate penetration from SMGs, not ARs, right?

Pistols are pistols and rifles are rifles. SMGs are for when assault rifles and assault carbines are too big for the situation (House-To-House Fighting, mainly.).

Except they're never too big. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Except when a couple points of Concealability matter (never).

Only extremely a few specialized and very highly trained units get issued SMGs these days. Plus European paramilitary police and some US police units. Pretty much everyone in a real military either gets a pistol, carbine or rifle, sometimes more than one, or a pistol plus a heavy weapon or an AFV to run.

In a war you can't yell "cut" and have someone drive up and swap out your SMGs for rifles or vice versa when the situation changes. It's bad enough having to shoot at people 500 meters away with an M4. Try doing it with a 9mm SMG because you cleared the house and are now looking at bad guys setting up a PKM on the other side of the lake or field who are offended by your presence.

Yeah, SMGs these days are really only issued to folks that will need them as their regular duty weapon, mostly troops or LEOs that operate in tight quarters all the time. Also, airborne troops due to gear load limitations.

Even then a lot of folks in those jobs still get issued full rifles instead of SMGs, due to the need to fight at multiple ranges.

There was a brief period where 'rear echelon' military folks were issued carbines and PDWs due to a percieved lesser need for a full combat weapon, but even that has fallen by the wayside since the 'front line' is such a flexible fluid thing in current battlefields. Even support troops are getting issued full assault rifles more and more now.

Plus, not having to supply and maintain multiple weapons platforms = good for budget.



-k

Some of the Taliban I heard do havwe body armor. But as pointed out in WAR! and Feral Cities--when life is cheap (such as it is in the drekholes in those places)--why bother? If I Mr. Tinpot dictator for life can equip 1,000 troops with an AK-97 and 4 mags of ammo for ~ 600,000 nuyen. Do I realy care to spend the 800,000 nuyen on an armor jacket or do I pocket that in to my ZO account.

Especially when they die and you can just hand that AK to another untrained, illiterate farmer your elite forces impressed into the army anyhow. Ammo is all you have to keep buying.

The elite forces you have to protect yourself and your palace, and ensure Mr. Tinpot Dictator For Life stays alive and has an army of untrained, illiterate farmers, OTOH, are going to have better equipment and body armor most likely. Mr. Tinpot Dictator For Life might have an AK himself, but it'd be gold plated.

Eh, it was just my stream of consciousness about green tip.

SMGs have serious range issues as well. Another reason they're less common nowadays.

Its also worth noting that JHP rounds are banned under the Hague Conventions and are not used by NATO forces, nor any other rounds that would be banned under said conventions....so would not be used against unarmored soldiers anyway.

In short, if you get drafted into the military of said Tinpot Dictator, if your body armor isn't lvl 4, you may better off not wearing any at all if you will be fighting NATO forces....(well, except for the whole grenedes, artillery, airstrikes and things).

More specifically, it is expanding bullets that are banned. This is pretty much Jacketed Hollow Point, although also may include unjacketed soft lead bullets - there have been jacketed .22 caliber rounds developed for military use, because it was feared that the regular unjacketed rounds do expand on hitting soft tissue and might be considered to violate the restriction.

There have also been bullets with hollow voids that are NOT designed to expand and use those hollows for other reasons - usually to do with either optimizing the aerodynamic performance of the round, or cause greater tumbling of the round after impact, which is legal even in military rounds.



-k

Just bring a Ma-Deuce with ball rounds. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Eh, just wear a Vietnam era flak vest to protect you from shrapnel. Besides, the steel plates wrapped in ballistic nylon would be a great workout.

The 5.7 round has less drop, and more power at extreme (pistol) ranges.
IMO, that's part of what differentiates a pistol round from a PDW (or, at least, not pistol) round.

That said, I'd take a Kel Tec PMR-30 any day. Because, you know, stacking 30 bullets into a pistol mag is way fun.

SMG's fire pistol rounds- like the Uzi, MP-40 and MP-5 fire 9mm. or the Thompson or M-3 fire .45.
Carbines were originally developed as light rifles for horsemen-if you've seen the movie Gettysburg, the union cavalry dug in when the battle opened had carbines-not as powerful or acucrate as rifles but better than hand guns.

In WW 2 the thought was for rear eschelon troops, truck drivers, communications men and squad leaders who should be directing men instead of picking their own targets etc who might be in a fight by accident didn't need a big ol' heavy ( and expensive) Garand and so they got the M-2 carbine Reliable but lacking the take down power of a full rifle.- The Sgt in Saving Private Ryan was carrying one on D-Day.

Fast forward to the current world. The P-90 (and by extension it's civilian sister the PS-90) was orignally supposed to be just that. a light weapon for NATO tankers to use if they have to bail out. The contract went to the nice men at FN who promply over engineered the weapon into a wonderful piece but too damn expensive for a back up weapon you'd hope to never use. Seriously in local gun shops a PS-90 littlerally costs twice as much as an M-16 or AK.

It's still closest to an SMG, a fancy and specialized one, but still. While 'carbine' has meant various things over the decades, it's pretty clear that the best current use for it (esp. in SR4) is 'shortened/compact AR'.