Issue with "PDW" as a weapon category

[Spartan198]

Originally Posted by Mazryonh

I'll be the first to admit that the PDW label is overused in some cases, but it can be narrowed down for the purposes of this wiki. For the sake of argument, the HK MP7A1 and the FN P90 will be used as baselines for this.

1. A true PDW round is an SCHV (Small Caliber, High Velocity) round, usually based on a miniaturized assault rifle round, that was developed from the ground up for PDW usage. This allows for the compactness considered key to a PDW's niche, which is CQB, while retaining the ability to pierce armour rated Level IIIA or lower.
2. A true PDW, and not just a weapon that fires PDW rounds, has both a stock and a dedicated place to put your off-hand, straight out of the box. This can be a vertical foregrip or a sufficiently-long handguard. This is important since both of those features simplify aiming, an important trait when it comes to CQB or a defensive situation.
3. A true PDW must be select-fire, or otherwise capable of fully-automatic fire.

A firearm must meet all three requirements to be considered an actual PDW. With these in mind, it's much easier to determine what is an actual PDW and what isn't.

Seems like reasonable criteria to me.

[Evil Tim]

Originally Posted by Spartan198

Seems like reasonable criteria to me.

The trouble is, this basically means all "true" PDWs are SMGs firing posh bullets, so we might as well just put them in that category and spare everyone the confusion of dealing with all the other things called PDWs.

[Mazryonh]

Originally Posted by k9870

DHS officially desiganted the p229 as a PDW. And its a 40 caliber compact auto.

Well, that sounds like they succumbed entirely to the market hype right there. It's a service pistol.

Originally Posted by Evil Tim

The trouble is, this basically means all "true" PDWs are SMGs firing posh bullets, so we might as well just put them in that category and spare everyone the confusion of dealing with all the other things called PDWs.

I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by "posh." I thought such a term meant "luxurious and expensive." The various different PDW rounds have so far been proprietary and limited to just the companies developing them, yes, but that's only because we haven't got around to testing them all in a controlled fashion yet to determine which is the best of them all. And the definition I gave should be useful for the purposes of classification on this wiki; I believe that an FN P90, or a MINSAS, etc. has some characteristics separating it from, say, an MP5 or a FAMAS, and if those characteristics are properly defined, then we will end up with a category that isn't based on market hype. Adding these rules to the top of that category page then would give everyone on this wiki access to these clear rules to abide by, regardless of any manufacturer's marketing campaign(s).

[Evil Tim]

Originally Posted by Mazryonh

I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by "posh." I thought such a term meant "luxurious and expensive."

Sorry, I forgot Americans don't tend to throw that word around quite as much as we do over here. "Fancy," then. They fire a fancy pistol round.

The issue I have here is why we need to have a category on pages that only really applies to a handful of weapons but is applied to a whole slew of other weapons by the people who make those weapons. Having the term PDW on pages (Ie, having a weapon list category called "SMGs / PDWs") just means people, in good faith, are going to be adding the kind of weapons that shouldn't be in that category because the manufacturers say they belong there. I should know, I did it with the XM8 Compact (HK says it's a PDW) and the discussion made me realise the only thing having "PDW" around is good for is confusing people.

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by Evil Tim

Sorry, I forgot Americans don't tend to throw that word around quite as much as we do over here.

I used to be a study abroad student over there, so I knew what you meant.

Originally Posted by Evil Tim

I did it with the XM8 Compact (HK says it's a PDW) and the discussion made me realise the only thing having "PDW" around is good for is confusing people.

I agree. My preference is that we not have a PDW category for this reason. Mazryonh, while I appreciate the thought you put into what defines a PDW, I am still reluctant to include this category. We're over-categorizing enough as-is, and regardless of what criteria you use to define PDWs, the fact is that it's unnecessary because it applies to only a select few firearms which differ from traditional submachine guns in (essentially) minor ways. OK, so they fire ammunition that differs from a traditional SMG - arguing that they deserve an entirely new category for this reason is like saying that the G11 doesn't deserve to be labeled as an "assault rifle" because it fires caseless ammo (maybe it's an "Advanced Combat Rifle"?)

BTW, the fact that people are already using the PDW category on pages for weapons like the HK33 and L85 (which have compact variants) demonstrates their poor grasp of the PDW definition.

[Mazryonh]

Originally Posted by Evil Tim

Sorry, I forgot Americans don't tend to throw that word around quite as much as we do over here. "Fancy," then.

I see. I knew about "Port Out, Starboard Home," but aside from that the only exposure to the term I've had was Victoria Beckham's old stage name. But as I said before, it's only "fancy" because the best of the lot hasn't been determined yet. Once that has been done and standardization takes place, more manufacturers will offer them and they'll be as "ho-hum" as the venerable 9x19mm cartridge.

And it's not the first time I've had to clear this up, but I'm not American (or British, for that matter).

Originally Posted by MT2008

OK, so they fire ammunition that differs from a traditional SMG - arguing that they deserve an entirely new category for this reason is like saying that the G11 doesn't deserve to be labeled as an "assault rifle" because it fires caseless ammo (maybe it's an "Advanced Combat Rifle"?)

Actually, don't we already categorize firearms based on their relative barrel lengths and the type of role their cartridge plays? Just to take the G3 design, the basic firearm has been changed from the original battle rifle (the original G3 using 7.62mm NATO), to assault rifle (HK33 using 5.56mm NATO), to compact carbine (the HK53), to submachine gun (MP5 and its variants). Tightening up the PDW designation would allow for another manageable category.

I do not believe that the G11 would be an uncategorizable anomaly. The term "Advanced Combat Rifle" is not a meaningful term--analyzing the G11's cartridge's performance would, however, yield better results. I'm sure someone who knows more about the physics of firearms cartridges and their resulting velocity/energy retention at various ranges would be able to tell us whether the the G11's cartridge comes close enough to the 7.62mm NATO's performance levels to be considered a battle rifle, or if it is instead closer to the 5.56mm NATO's performance levels, which would make it an assault rifle. If or when caseless firearms become more commonplace, giving them an another supercategory labelled "Caseless Firearms" would be appropriate.

Originally Posted by MT2008

BTW, the fact that people are already using the PDW category on pages for weapons like the HK33 and L85 (which have compact variants) demonstrates their poor grasp of the PDW definition.

Why not just copy-and-paste a refined version of the PDW definition I offered to the top of its category telling contributors that "for inclusion to this category, prospective firearms must meet all of the following criteria"? That way, contributors have no excuse for not knowing the rules.

[Evil Tim]

Originally Posted by Mazryonh

Why not just copy-and-paste a refined version of the PDW definition I offered to the top of its category telling contributors that "for inclusion to this category, prospective firearms must meet all of the following criteria"? That way, contributors have no excuse for not knowing the rules.

The problem is, that assumes that everyone will actually visit Category:PDW rather than, say, seeing it at the bottom of one page and adding it to another it shouldn't be on thinking they're doing the right thing, or adding something incorrect to the SMG / PDW listing on a page, or suchlike. You wouldn't think to look for rules in Category:Assault Rifle before adding an M16 to a page, now would you?

It's far easier to just not use the term at all, that way people won't encounter it and so won't add it to things accidentally. You'd never put an XM8 compact or Magpul PDR into a category called "submachine gun," after all.

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by Mazryonh

Actually, don't we already categorize firearms based on their relative barrel lengths and the type of role their cartridge plays? Just to take the G3 design, the basic firearm has been changed from the original battle rifle (the original G3 using 7.62mm NATO), to assault rifle (HK33 using 5.56mm NATO), to compact carbine (the HK53), to submachine gun (MP5 and its variants). Tightening up the PDW designation would allow for another manageable category.

Yes, we categorize firearms based on barrel lengths and types of cartridges, but "the type of role their cartridge plays"? No, not really. And you are stretching the definition of "role" here a little too far. The "role" of weapons like the P90 and MP7 is just not very different from that of submachine guns - they're basically CQB weapons that were designed to have slightly better range and penetration than submachine guns. "Analyzing" their ballistic performance is not necessary; try stepping back and looking at the bigger picture.

Originally Posted by Evil Tim

The problem is, that assumes that everyone will actually visit Category:PDW rather than, say, seeing it at the bottom of one page and adding it to another it shouldn't be on thinking they're doing the right thing, or adding something incorrect to the SMG / PDW listing on a page, or suchlike. You wouldn't think to look for rules in Category:Assault Rifle before adding an M16 to a page, now would you?

It's far easier to just not use the term at all, that way people won't encounter it and so won't add it to things accidentally. You'd never put an XM8 compact or Magpul PDR into a category called "submachine gun," after all.

Exactly. When categories are vague at all, we're inviting these sorts of problems. And I'd rather not deal with them. Mazryonh is expecting people to be a little too much like him - which just does not seem reasonable.

And anyway, the bigger problem for me is that it seems a little too hard to take PDW seriously as an actual "category" of weapons that is highly distinct from "submachine guns". I know that there is now an article on Wikipedia which treats them as such, but IMFDB is not Wikipedia, and remember that while this site may strive to identify guns in the media, we are still ultimately not a firearms information Wiki per se.