Talk:Personal defense weapon

Government Defense Weapon
"Personal Defense Weapon" implies this is a weapon ordinary people can use to defend themselves. Unfortunately, illegitimate criminal governments "prohibit" ordinary people from owning firearms capable of firing "more than one round per trigger pull" or "armor-piercing" ammunition.

That being the case, until those who enact and enforce gun prohibitions are rightfully rounded up and systematically exterminated, the proper name for this should therefore be Government Defense Weapon, State Defense Weapon, or State Terrorism Facilitator. -- Kill the Gun Grabbers (128.2.141.33 03:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC))


 * Ummm... Actually the article merely defines the term, which is already is common use. The second paragraph states:


 * as defensive weapons for troops whose primary activities does not include use of small arms: vehicle and tank crew members, artillery crews etc.


 * Indicating the weapon is designed for soldiers. Megapixie 06:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I was taking issue with the term and definition itself, which is in "common use" only amongst various government thug organizations, their suppliers, and the niche media outlets which cater to them.


 * Also of note is that if an ordinary person was found to be in possession of these types of firearms, the term would immediately change to "Illegal Black Baby-killing Assault Death Weapon", or some such. -- Kill The Gun Grabbers (85.31.186.13 07:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC))

Copyvio
I removed some copyrighted text copied from here. Tronno 18:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Wrong Picture
The picture shown on the page doesn't actually belong to a H&K MP5K PDW but simply to a MP5A3K: the PDW variant of the MP5K has a folding stock and a longer (similar to the one of the normal models) barrell. Could someone please correct this? I would do it myself, but I'm not good at finding pictures (especially with all the rights-related issues).

Huge tag at header
Whats with the huge tag at the header, that's just ridiculous and unnecessary. If the article was that bad it should be deleted or whoever applied it spent their timing focusing on one of those areas listed that needed improvement. --Papajohnin (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Replaced it with refimprove as its the only tag applicable to the article, the rest were borderline vandalism.--Papajohnin (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Use of pistol carbines as APDW
I suggest that the Luger long-barrel variant mentioned is pistol-calibre, and does not fit the concept as described in the text. The Mauser C96 article also plays up the PDW idea, but the pdw concept was developed 80 years after these weapons and if pistols firning pistol ammo fitted it the authors would not have defined a new concept. The previous use of .30 Carbine and even the older Artillery Carbines (short-barreled variants of service rifles taking the same cartridge) is worth mentioning, but the C96 and Luger variants fall way outside the concept. ChrisPer (talk) 08:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, the mention of C96 in this article is wierdly ahistorical. The C96 preceded the Luger carbine, it was the first widely sold semiauto pistol and it it was never particularly an officer's pistol - especially in WWII. It was a hugely popular civilian arm especially in Africa and South America from its introduction to the 1930s, and many went to China by WWII.
 * I agree, and FWIW the C96 and Luger pistol-carbines were intended as exactly that; carbines for when greater range or accuracy was needed than offered by a conventional handgun, but still with all the functionality and advantages of a standard handgun. The stocks were removable for this very reason; to allow the user a greater degree of flexibility in the gun's deployment. They're not really PDWs, IMHO, and having said that I think the entire Personal Defence Weapon concept is ill-defined at best, FWIW. Commander Zulu (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Other SMG's
Are the TDI Vector, Chang Feng and Shipka PDW's (they include long barrels and dual grips) ? if so, include —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.154.136 (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking for references to define concept
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/smallarms/Marshall.pdf

The whole PDW concept is ill-defined, and good sources needed. This one by Walter Balsavage presented to NDIA nad held on a .mil site seems to describe the ambiguities in different suggested specifications.

http://airbornecombatengineer.typepad.com/airborne_combat_engineer/pdw/ referred me to the link. ChrisPer (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely sure that "Personal Defence Weapon" really is a separate concept worthy of its own article, to be honest. From what I can tell, anything that might be considered a PDW is also generally considered a Sub-machine gun or a Machine-pistol. Especially when you consider that "armour-piercing" rounds exist for SMG/Pistol calibre cartridges, which seems to be the only distinction the article is trying to draw. Commander Zulu (talk) 04:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. I think the idea has been hyped by media and/or manufacturers to create a new niche to sell into. However, if US .mil specifications use the term, its probably notable enough to retain the article.ChrisPer (talk) 09:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a valid point, but I'm still not entirely convinced. I mean, from the description, all PDWs are SMGs or Machine-Pistols anyway, and since all Machine-Pistols and SMGs can be loaded with armour-piercing rounds, that means that they could be considered PDWs anyway. It's circular reasoning, IMHO, and I think we need a couple of hard and reputable print cites from someone like Jane's or an official US Army Publication before I'm prepared to acknowledge the PDW concept as anything other than a fancy new word for "Sub-machine gun". Commander Zulu (talk) 10:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The big difference is that pistol-caliber SMG with AP ammunition do not have the effective range of the SCHV PDW. In addition, pistol-caliber ammunition typically has heavier recoil and weighs more than the current SCHV PDW cartridges.  For instance, a typical 9x19mm cartridge weighs nearly as much as a 5.56mm NATO cartridge.


 * As I understand it, the NATO requirements document for a PDW (D/296) specified that such weapons be effective against targets wearing body armor (ultimately defined as 20 layers of Kevlar and a 1.6mm titanium plate) out to a minimum of 30m while hand-held and 100m while shoulder-fired. However, effective ranges of 50m and 200m (respectively) would be desirable. (By 1993, effective ranges of 50m and 150m were mandated.) A loaded PDW should weigh no more than 1.0kg for a hand-held weapon (0.7kg desired) and 3kg for a shoulder-fired weapon. The PDW should also be ambidextrous and suitable for use with winter clothing, body armor, and NBC gear.


 * US specifications for the APDW (1986), PDW (1989), and OPDW (1993) differed from the NATO specs. While they were willing to accept a shorter effective range (APDW: 90% hit probability at 25m; PDW: defeat troops w/ body armor at 50m; OPDW: defeat troops w/ body armor at 50m, effective to 100m), they wanted a much lighter weapon, weighing 1.5 pounds or less.  When the OPDW became the OPW (circa 1995), the weight limit was raised to 3 pounds, but it had to "instantly" defeat troops w/ body armor at 50m, with an effective range of 200m.  In addition, recoil was to be no heavier than the 9x19mm.  From my research, it seems that the JSSAP requirements were pushing more toward a handgun than a carbine.  Muddying the waters, the US military has for years referred to the M9 pistol as a Personal Defense Weapon.  --D.E. Watters (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there some way of putting that in English for general readers? :P I still honestly don't think that PDW really is a "separate category"- they're SMGs with HVAP ammo in weird calibres you can't buy at the gunshop. Perhaps the article would be better off as a sub-section of Sub-machine gun? Commander Zulu (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In english - Submachineguns fire pistol ammo, and have short range and little armor piercing capability. PDWs fire different ammo, have intermediate range and acceptable short range armor piercing capability.  These are related to SMGs - one could loosen the SMG definition to cover PDWs, but they're designed for different targets and engagement envelopes.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. That description eliminates the ambiguity with earlier terms, and lets us ignore the anachronistic inclusion of stocked pistols in the category. Under this definition the term only has meaning post-1986 or so. Could you provide clear references for the definitions, or have I missed it? ChrisPer (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

-Removed dead or broken link at the bottom of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.164.191 (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

FB Radom PM-2020 source
Can I get some source of the FB Radom PM-2020? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:4200:EEB7:3C98:E5DA:69F6:21A (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If you think it is notable, write an article about it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

PDW as a weapons-role?
The FN scar pdw is technically an assault rifle carbine, if you read the article carbines you will notice that, one of the roles of a carbines is to defend behind-line and vehicle personnel

The MP5-K-PDW shots regular 9x19mm ammo and was intended for aircrews to defend themselves. (Other submachineguns such as the Auto c-96 mauser, stechkin, pm63 rak and skorpion where also meant for behind-line and vehicle personnel to defend themselves).

Could it be that some companies consider a PDW any weapon that fulfills the role of defending behind-line and vehicle personnel. 89.0.14.98 (talk) 09:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

M1&2 Carbines
Isn't the M1&2 carbine a PDW? I know it doesn't use the same type of bottlenecked pistol cartridge as modern PDWs but it was still designed as one. Dominic 41 (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)