Actual Purpose of PS-90/MP7?

[GardoneVT]

The question came up at the range I RSO at , so I pose it here for an informed answer bereft of marketing speak or Cleetii chest pounding.

What is the actual , real world purpose for these types of weapons? Shooting Soviet troops in the Fulda Gap? Low recoil SMG ? Primary for support troops that's superior to handguns ? Bragging rights toy for Rainbow Six & Stargate cosplayers?

Ancillary: does the primary purpose of these arms have any relevance beyond "just because" for civilian use given commercially available, easily purchased ammunition?

[SLG]

There are others here that are likely better military small arms historians than I, but here you go. All PDW's were designed for a small selection of troops who can't/won't/shouldn't pack a proper rifle, but need more than a pistol would give them. Some designs have been more successful than others, but most people agree that they are not great fighting tools.

In recent years, some units have adopted the smaller caliber, high velocity PDW's for certain specific missions, usually involving nods and suppressors. Mixed reviews on that front, with some users really liking them, and others not so much.

For civilian use beyond the CDI factor? Nothing I can think of.

Maybe F2S/Sean/KevinB will weigh in.

eta: Re-reading your post, Soviet troops still had some influence on the ballistics of the smaller, high velocity rds, as helmet penetration at distance was one of the design features/testing protocols. I don't know that anyone called for that, but I do know that the manufacturers built for that, and touted it as a benefit.

[HopetonBrown]

A more proper comparison would be the P90, the PS90 is the semi auto version. They are both PDWs so you can look up that definition. Ken Hackathorn said "they make little blue holes" and require a lot of them to be effective.

[TGS]

The roots of the small caliber, high velocity PDW are in the late Cold War.

At the time it was common for support troops to carry 9mm SMGs, as opposed to frontline infantry armed with fullsize 5.56 or 7.62 rifles. The 9mms were incapable of defeating Soviet body armor unless using AP ammunition, such as the m39/b 9mm round fired from the Carl Gustav m/45 SMG. Even then, I think the m39/b was only capable out to 50m. I believe NATO did all their testing and standardization on CRISAT, which is a fabricated armor spec representing the average military equipment of the day.

So the powers that be came up with the idea of an SMG replacement which would give the troops the ability to at least penetrate body armor. I think the first NATO RFP(?) came out in 1986, first answered by the FN P90. In this role and small arms TO&E context, the SCHV PDW makes perfect sense. It doesn't really matter how much more effective a 9mm is against people, if you can't penetrate the body armor of your opponent to begin with. In contrast to AP 9mm like the m39/b, SCHV PDWs are effective against CRISAT out to hundreds of meters. 150-200 for the P90, 300 or so for the MP7 (if I recall correctly).

As the threat of Soviet invasion died, so did the efficacy of the SCHV PDW. FN marketed it for other purposes, trying to recoup R&D costs. This is how it came to be used by local PDs, the USSS, ect. To really put the icing on the cake, 5.56 carbines became much more reliable and widespread....which sort of made the SCHV PDW redundant and pointless.

[El Cid]

The roots of the small caliber, high velocity PDW are in the late Cold War.

At the time it was common for support troops to carry 9mm SMGs, as opposed to frontline infantry armed with fullsize 5.56 or 7.62 rifles. The 9mms were incapable of defeating Soviet body armor unless using AP ammunition, such as the m39/b 9mm round fired from the Carl Gustav m/45 SMG. Even then, I think the m39/b was only capable out to 50m.

So the powers that be came up with the idea of an SMG replacement which would give the troops the ability to at least penetrate body armor. I think the first NATO RFP(?) came out in 1986, first answered by the FN P90. In this role and small arms TO&E context, the SCHV PDW makes perfect sense. It doesn't really matter how much more effective a 9mm is, if you can't penetrate the widespread issued body armor of your opponent.

As the threat of Soviet invasion died, so did the efficacy of the SCHV PDW. FN marketed it for other purposes, trying to recoup R&D costs. This is how it came to be used by local PDs, the USSS, ect. To really put the icing on the cake, 5.56 carbines became much more reliable and widespread....which sort of made the SCHV PDW redundant and pointless.

I can't speak for Europe - did support troops over there have SMG's? Our support folks had pistols which was another key benefit to a PDW - third point of contact when shouldered and an optic. Especially with the infrequent training they received. Only SMG's I saw in DoD were in SOF units and protective details. If a rifle was not an option and I was being deployed with the choice of a handgun or PDW, I'd likely choose the PDW.

[TGS]

I can't speak for Europe - did support troops over there have SMG's? Our support folks had pistols which was another key benefit to a PDW - third point of contact when shouldered and an optic. Only SMG's I saw in DoD were in SOF units and protective details. If a rifle was not an option and I was being deployed with the choice of a handgun or PDW, I'd likely choose the PDW.

AFAIK, the rest of the world took to SMGs much more than we did during the late cold war, where after a certain point we pretty much kept the M3 grease gun for tankers, SOF and for the purpose of adorning ANG armories. M3 Grease Guns, m/45s, MP5s, Stens and Sterlings, and the PPS were in widespread use for support troops.

[Kevin B.]

I can't speak for Europe - did support troops over there have SMG's? Our support folks had pistols which was another key benefit to a PDW - third point of contact when shouldered and an optic. Especially with the infrequent training they received. Only SMG's I saw in DoD were in SOF units and protective details. If a rifle was not an option and I was being deployed with the choice of a handgun or PDW, I'd likely choose the PDW.

I was issued an Uzi (MP2, I believe) for part of the time I was in an exchange program with the German Army during the mid-90s.

[HCM]

The roots of the small caliber, high velocity PDW are in the late Cold War.

At the time it was common for support troops to carry 9mm SMGs, as opposed to frontline infantry armed with fullsize 5.56 or 7.62 rifles. The 9mms were incapable of defeating Soviet body armor unless using AP ammunition, such as the m39/b 9mm round fired from the Carl Gustav m/45 SMG. Even then, I think the m39/b was only capable out to 50m. I believe NATO did all their testing and standardization on CRISAT, which is a fabricated armor spec representing the average military equipment of the day.

So the powers that be came up with the idea of an SMG replacement which would give the troops the ability to at least penetrate body armor. I think the first NATO RFP(?) came out in 1986, first answered by the FN P90. In this role and small arms TO&E context, the SCHV PDW makes perfect sense. It doesn't really matter how much more effective a 9mm is against people, if you can't penetrate the body armor of your opponent to begin with. In contrast to AP 9mm like the m39/b, SCHV PDWs are effective against CRISAT out to hundreds of meters. 150-200 for the P90, 300 or so for the MP7 (if I recall correctly).

As the threat of Soviet invasion died, so did the efficacy of the SCHV PDW. FN marketed it for other purposes, trying to recoup R&D costs. This is how it came to be used by local PDs, the USSS, ect. To really put the icing on the cake, 5.56 carbines became much more reliable and widespread....which sort of made the SCHV PDW redundant and pointless.

This ^^^^^^ It was for support troops - easier to shoot effectively than handguns - able to penetrate flak jackets or soft armor which were just becoming a common "thing" when the P90 was designed.

I don't know to much about the MP-7 but another branch of my Agency previously used the P90 so I'm familiar with them.

The Over All length of the P90 was supposedly determined by the width of an "average" sized soldier and and "average" sized APC hatch so it would not snag going in and out of armored vehicle when slung on your back.

The USSS and the Federal Protective Service (FPS) had them. Not sure about USSS, but FPS dumped them for M-4's several years ago. They are easy to shoot well and fun plinkers in full auto. I don't know of any FPS shootings with the P90, however, the San Antonio, TX PD and Jacksonville, FL SO SWAT Teams both had them and dumped them for M-4's. They both reported very poor results, regularly requiring 20 rounds or more to stop bad guys even with solid center mass hits.

[frozentundra]

I recall seeing a video by Larry Vickers about PDWs vs. pistols some years back. It was an interesting format. I wish I could find a link. Perhaps it was from one of his Sportsman Channel shows?

He took a camera guy from the video crew, with pretty limited experience shooting or training(I believe he had just recently received handgun training from Vickers, but wasn't previously much of a gun guy) and they both shot timed drills, first with a pistol, then with a MP7 or whatever PDW it was.

From what I remember, the performance gap between Larry Vickers and Joe Nobody was significantly smaller with the PDW vs. the handgun, even though the guy had never shot that type of weapon before, but had received some quality training with the pistol.

I found it particularly interesting at the time because my father's health had been declining, and the only gun we had that he could store, access, manipulate, move around with and shoot was a High Standard .22 pistol. I remember thinking that one of these semi auto PDWs could have possibly been the bee's knees

Perhaps it's the ultimate old man gun?

[HCM]

Intersting idea. Some thing like an M&P 15-22 pistol with a sig brace and mini mags or better yet in 22 mag with gold dots.