You must log in or register to comment.
I believe this, especially the bottom model, was always intended to be a “tool room gun”. As in it was never intended to be the final design, but a testbed for proof of concept of things like the feed mechanism.
Firearms designers, especially at places like FN, tend not to be completely stupid so if a prototype model looks immediately stupid to us, I think we can safely assume the designers were aware of the faults.
I know what I said might be obvious, but the “hurt durr dumb design” comments that inevitably follow pictures like this around tend to get a little old. The pictured design evolved into the P90, so obviously there had to be experiments when spinning up a design with so many unique features.
The original design was meant to be a sidearm, wasn’t it? Something a tank crew might fall back on IIRC. I could see this being a real vision for a final product. That doesn’t make the designers dumb. Sometimes you have to try stuff that looks dumb because it might not actually be.
The vision of the PDW was a primary weapon for troops not normally expected to be on the frontlines. Essentially a submachinegun form factor and weight with a cartridge capable of penetrating soft body armor.
Importantly the big magazine and full auto were with the PDW concept from the beginning, so that rear line troops faced with a defense situation could hose down bad guys until help showed up.
There are a lot of obvious deficiencies in the bottom gun such as a lack of any kind of sights aside from a tube, which is even simpler than the wartime M3 Greasegun sights. The idea of a gun designed for full auto but held out and away from the body like a pistol strikes me as the kind of thing not intended for final production.
The top picture looks closer to some kind of concept for a finished design. It looks like an iteration of the bottom design, keeping the below-the-grip bore and big magazine but in a gun beginning to resemble something practical. If you look back and forth between the designs, the top design is an extension of the first that has features that would have been dead obvious to add from the beginning.
I will research and see if I can find links because I am almost certain that read that the bottom design had the “sight” literally drilled with a power drill, but I’d like to source that before declaring it.
PDWs are not intended for “rear line troops”. You find them on the front as well. Everyone who can will be using a standard assault/battle rifle, just for standardization and supply reasons. That includes “rear live” troops such as medical, logistics and MP.
Instead, PDWs are given to everyone working in an environment where a regular assault weapon would be too bulky or heavy to use. Clambering in, out and around small hatches in armored vehicles with large rifles is annoying at best and deadly at worst, when things get stuck.
This means vehicle crews such as APCs, IFVs, tanks, but also air assets such as helicopters and sometimes planes ( most ejection seats have a compartment with either PDW so a pilot can defend himself even after having to bail) are prime candidates for PDW. The requirement of a PDW can be filled by various weapons, so it could be an SMG, a carbine version of an existing assault rifle (facilitates maintenance and supplies, because it’s mostly the same parts as everyone else uses) and even pistols. Another quality of PDWs is that they are not expected to be used in regular combat, but only in extraordinary circumstances. Hence accuracy at long range is not a priority, but ease of use and reliability even in messy circumstances ( dirt, heat, getting knocked around) is what matters in an emergency. This is where dedicated PDWs such as the p90 have the advantage over carbine derivatives. Carbines are as complex and sensitive as regular rifles, unlike the much more rugged and simplified closed specialized PDWs.
ASA counter example, units fighting in urban/indoor operations most often opt for carbines and only bring PDWs as an exception. Sometimes PDWs also are used by soldiers that have to carry very bulky equipment in support of an operation, where again they are not expected to be in the main firefight.
Even truck crews (logistics) usually use regular infantry assault rifles, because a truck has a big enough cabin.
I think we understand the intended role the same. When I wrote rear line it was too hasty but meant to include troops like AFV crew. PDW are for people who aren’t meant to be using their personal weapons as part of their main role.
Another quality of PDWs is that they are not expected to be used in regular combat, but only in extraordinary circumstances. Hence accuracy at long range is not a priority, but ease of use and reliability even in messy circumstances ( dirt, heat, getting knocked around) is what matters in an emergency.
Yes to all of this. I believe I said the same thing regarding them being a used defensively.
The requirement of a PDW can be filled by various weapons, so it could be an SMG, a carbine version of an existing assault rifle
Other weapons can be used in the role, but when the category of “PDW” as weapons were being explicitly conceptualized in the 1980s at the request of NATOas a new kind of category, they were being given more armor penetrating but pistol sized rounds like 5.7mm or 4.6mm, making them submachinegun-like but more armor penetrating.
Obviously a rifle carbine can be used defensively, and that’s what ended up happening for a lot of militaries, which is part of why the dedicated PDW designs using PDW calibers, as conceived of for PDWs originally in the 80s, never took off in the way they were intended. You don’t really see any military issuing PDW of this description to all of its non-offensive or rear troops as standard practice.
Here is a NATO testing report on PDW calibers, as support that the term “PDW” was conceived to mean something specific and unique from either assault rifles or SMGs.
Here’s a link that’s got HK literature calling their MP7 a PDW. as an example of weapons of this type being explicitly called such by the manufacturer.
Stargate might still have used it.
O’Neil wouldn’t have liked them.
It’s “O’Neill” with two Ls. There is an O’Neil with one L but he has no sense of humour
Its a reverse engineered goauld weapon, the Fa’abriquena’tiona’al
O’neill would call them Fab’s for short.
Accidentally grab your fn p90 prototype instead of the hand vacuum…
Well one cleans up all the dust in a room and the other cleans up all the people in a room.
deleted by creator
Is this a firearm or a stapler?
Long-distance hole-punch
None of you seen a reciprocating saw before?!?
Just wait till Swingline releases their competing model.
Does it come in red though?
It is a stapler for your enemies.
Anything is a stapler if you are brave enough.
I think we had something like that hanging on the kitchen wall in the 90’s. Or maybe that was a vacuum idk
I joke that my Hi-Point PCC looks like a rifle designed by smart engineers that had never seen and actual rifle. This put me in my place.
SA80
The SA-80 is proof that the Brits can’t be trusted with designing auto-loading guns. Sniper rifles? Maybe even Sniper rifles dressed in a garage? Sure, go wild. Thing that’s going to be issued to general infantry? No, leave that to one of the myriad other countries that have never designed and ordered in large quantities an abomination like the SA-80.
British can design guns just fun. The SA80 was designed by a group of engineers with zero firearms experience. Its like asking a carpenter to build a car. They know the shape and function but not actually why it made the way it is
Costco Jack Bauer looks like he likes it.
grabs pillow
Covers prototype with pillow
Pushes hard
Sssssssshhhhhhh, it’s okay.
NGL, I kinda want wood furniture on a P90 now.
Like a dining chair?
When people talk about furniture on guns they mean the stock, handguard, or grip.
Here’s a G3 with wood furniture:
Here’s one with polymer furniture:
My mental image was better
Lookin’ like an FN P00.
I like the curved barrel
It’s to account for the curvature of the Earth.
I’m glad they redesigned it.
This would have made SG1 way less cool.
I see they made some changes. As a fan of 5.7, I still approve.
I’m fr curious what was the reason for this design
Compact, non-snaggy, durable design for personnel who would otherwise snag, break, or not be able to carry a full sized battle rifle. E.g.: tank crew, pilots.
Confined spaces. Think about trying to hop out of a transport vehicle with a full length rifle.
Dang that looks dumb.
