Issue with "PDW" as a weapon category

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by Mazryonh

I was under the impression that the P90 and MP7 were also made to duplicate the armour-piercing abilities of (ultra)compact carbines using assault rifle or battle rifle ammunition, but with much less problematic muzzle flash and blast when used unsuppressed, while in some ways being more compact to allow stowage in vehicles or the like. After all, an FN SCAR-H CQC (a 10-inch barrelled firearm using 7.62mm NATO ammunition) would certainly strain hearing protection more than a FN P90 if both were used unsuppressed at different times.

You're not telling me anything that I don't know (or didn't already demonstrate that I knew in my previous posts). I am well aware that the P90 and MP7 are intended to fit assault rifles' penetration capabilities into a compact package; you didn't need to write an editorial-length post explaining the differences between PDWs and conventional submachine guns. What you still keep failing to ask yourself is why this ability makes them distinctive enough to deserve an entire category. Contrary to manufacturers' hype (which you seem to be buying into), the fact that PDWs fire such ammunition does not make them revolutionary enough to warrant an entire class of firearms unto themselves.

Also, since the G11 example obviously failed to make my case, let me try this one instead: Think about the evolution of the revolver. First, revolvers evolved from black powder designs into cartridge designs, and then from single-action to double-action. Compared to the submachine gun/PDW distinction, those are some major changes, right? Yet IMFDB still classifies them all as simply "revolvers" - we don't even have sub-categories for "black powder revolver" and "cartridge revolver", or "single-action revolver" and "double-action revolver". Or maybe you think we should do that, too?

But anyway, separating PDWs (which represent a comparatively minor trend in firearm history) from SMGs would be almost as ridiculous as insisting that we come up with three new categories for revolvers. If you wish to argue for that, too, then be my guest.

Originally Posted by Mazryonh

No, I just thought people would see the rules and follow them, knowing that they might have their membership privileges revoked if they make repeated frivolous or incorrect edits.

Um, making incorrect edits is hardly grounds for banning by itself.

Originally Posted by Mazryonh

My experiences on other internet wikis has led me to be fairly positive on how things like categories and their entries are self-correcting, when the rules are clearly posted in a form most users cannot change. If this optimism has proven to be unwarranted on this wiki, I'd like to know how.

Right, but you are trying to add more rules and make things more complicated than they need to be (for the purposes of our site).

Originally Posted by Mazryonh

In any case, it's still the mods' wiki and they can do what they believe is justified.

Which is what we're going to do, though I don't think it's an illegitimate debate to consider the value of a PDW category.

Originally Posted by Mazryonh

And why the pessimism of there being "so few PDWs" presently? The jury's still out on whether or not the concept will take off, and if it does, we can expect to see more of them using the criteria I developed.

As Tim pointed out, PDWs have been around for a while now; the P90's name comes from the year of its introduction - 1990 - which means that it's been around longer than most IMFDB users have been alive. Since that time, it has been compact 5.56mm carbines - not PDWs - that replaced 9mm SMGs in most tactical teams' inventories. Based on this hindsight, I think we can say with certainty in 2011 that the PDW represents a minor trend in firearms that is unworthy of its own special and distinct category.

Originally Posted by Evil Tim

It's funny you should mention that, actually: I tried to look up the references they cite, the "Smalls Arms Strategy 2000" document from 1986, "which defines the APDW (Advanced Personal Defense Weapon)." What I found was the only occurrances of this document on the internet are...Sites mirroring Wikipedia's PDW page. Nobody seems to know what it defines the "APDW" as, and it seems the arms industry doesn't really know either. Weird, given you can usually find any publication that isn't massive on scribd (ie anything other than giant helicopter tech manuals that cost $70 a throw) and globalsecurity tends to host things like that if you can hit the stop button before it redirects you. Globalsecurity even has that wonderful US Army urban combat manual where they built the example images in Simcity 3000.

That's hilarious. I think it also goes to show why you can't always take the industry's own classification seriously. Indeed, I think Mazryonh himself demonstrated this when he pointed out that Colt described their Model 607 as a "submachine gun" (which is also how Daewoo describes the K1/K1A). In the case of PDWs, manufacturers have every reason to try and promote their weapons as some special and revolutionary new class of firearms, even though they're hardly worthy of such hype.

Originally Posted by Evil Tim

Oh come on, the concept's been lurking around since the eighties and we've had, according to your definition, about six of them. This puts them into roughly the same bracket of success as semi-automatic revolvers and sustained pressure pumps.

I think this by itself is a good rule of thumb when we're deciding whether or not to create a new firearms category: If there are THAT few, it probably doesn't constitute a whole new class of small arms requiring their own category.

[MT2008]

In all fairness to Mazryonh, PDW doesn't seem as absurd a category to include as some of the others we seem to have. I had no idea, for instance, that someone made a category for "Multiple Barrel Firearm" and another for "Machine Revolver". Those should go, IMO. A lot of these unnecessary categories can be blamed on Cutaway (someone else who seems to have an obsession with making IMFDB into a firearms Wiki rather than a movie guns Wiki).

[Evil Tim]

I'm going to yank "machine revolver" right now, I've encountered it elsewhere and it doesn't make any sense as a category: you'd never describe a Mateba or Webley-Fosberry as a "machine" anything, because they're semi-autos.

Could you nuke the category, MT? Also, can you nuke "Welrod Pistol?" Ben41 accidentally moved "Welrod pistol" to "Welrod Istol" and created a redirect on "Welrod Pistol" that prevents the article being moved there.

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by Evil Tim

I'm going to yank "machine revolver" right now, I've encountered it elsewhere and it doesn't make any sense as a category: you'd never describe a Mateba or Webley-Fosberry as a "machine" anything, because they're semi-autos.

Could you nuke the category, MT? Also, can you nuke "Welrod Pistol?" Ben41 accidentally moved "Welrod pistol" to "Welrod Istol" and created a redirect on "Welrod Pistol" that prevents the article being moved there.

Sure thing. First I gotta also remove it from the pages it's on, though.

[Evil Tim]

I don't so much mind having a cat for multiple barrel firearms of a certain type (rotary guns) since it makes it quicker to check through them all and it's a logical group, but I'd agree that the previous name was too broad; nobody really needs to look at all types of multi-barrel weapon to see if this minigun-looking thing they saw might actually be a double-barrel shotgun.

[MT2008]

Took a look at the rest of the firearms categories. Most of them seem fine to me. There are a couple I'm curious about though, and since we're on it, let's discuss them:

*UBGL (Under Barrel Grenade Launcher): Not sure if we really need this when we already have "Grenade Launcher".
*Underwater Firearm: Right now, it's just the H&K P11.

Should I ditch these, too?

[Evil Tim]

Underwater firearm seems pretty useless since there's only a handful in total, mostly either obscure prototypes or equally obscure Russian special-issue weapons; Wikipedia lists eight including the cancelled Lancejet and AAI's underwater revolver than never got past prototype. They don't tend to appear in anything since Hollywood has a strong preference for spearguns, and I really can't see the use of a category with only one gun in it.

UGBL is potentially useful. The way I use categories for guns, if I see a weapon I don't recognise I'll click around the entries in the cat looking at the page images before searching offsite. Obviously, if I'm looking at an underbarrel launcher I'm not likely to want to search through a list full of standalones.

Also, this still needs killing:

http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Welrod_Pistol

[Mazryonh]

If I may, one way to solve a potential category problem between Machine Pistols that could qualify as Compact Submachine Guns (and therefore inclusion into the "Submachine Gun" category) is to post a quick rule that could clarify this problem. The classic MAC-10 and Skorpion, for instance, have been called both a submachine gun and a machine pistol at different times. A solution to this fuzzy area would be to posit that a true submachine gun has both a buttstock and a dedicated space to put your offhand out of the box--without both these features, the MAC-10, the MP5K, the TEC-9, etc. are machine pistols.

Of course, if you decided to buy an elongated upper receiver that includes a vertical foregrip mounting point for your MAC-10, then you could call it a full-fledged submachine gun. I'm driven to wonder if the finished product could compete with its more modern cousin the HK UMP45.

(Does anyone else feel that this discussion about categories in general be split into a new thread?)

Originally Posted by Evil Tim

You wouldn't think to look for rules in Category:Assault Rifle before adding an M16 to a page, now would you?

No, but I did happen to read the definition of Assault Rifles and Battle Rifles on wikipedia before versions of those defining features were posted on this wiki. In any case, when someone drafts up a comprehensive "how to edit or create new pages" guide on this site, there should definitely be a reference to how "when you look to add a firearm to the various categories, please consult the defining features of that category before adding it."

Originally Posted by MT2008

But anyway, separating PDWs (which represent a comparatively minor trend in firearm history) from SMGs would be almost as ridiculous as insisting that we come up with three new categories for revolvers. If you wish to argue for that, too, then be my guest.

No, I don't believe that revolvers should be split into old forms and new forms (though I think there could be a supercategory for "Black Powder Firearms" that could be useful for someone who quickly wanted to find firearms that were made and used before the smokeless powder revolution). However, revolvers have not changed their role since they were introduced, that being very short-range defense, and in a pinch, offense at that range. Submachine guns have changed from being very mobile support weapons for slower-firing battle rifles in WWII, to being relegated to police or special forces work in modern times due to the rise of body armour and assault rifles amongst modern militaries. The PDW in this sense is supposed to update the submachine concept by virtue of its new rounds, and would fulfill that CQB role now more effectively against targets wearing body armour proof against pistol rounds.

I don't see what you meant when you said that I "bought into the hype." I would think that purely on the basis of their shorter cases and lighter bullets, PDW rounds give less muzzle flash/blast and less recoil than most 5.56mm carbines would. Isn't that simply a function of the physics behind the firearms in question? I didn't say anything like "second-line personnel in First-World armies should ditch their 5.56mm ultracompact carbines for FN P90s" or the like. The costs for PDW guns and ammunition could easily come down if more competition was introduced as well.

Originally Posted by MT2008

Um, making incorrect edits is hardly grounds for banning by itself.

I was under the impression that we might introduce "privilege levels" for users on the wiki. For example, the forum currently distinguishes between "Senior," "Junior," and other levels of members right now, but doesn't award differing levels of posting privileges. A site like GameFAQs does, however--users gain "Karma" points by posting or contributing within the rules, and gain a bigger post limit the more karma points they accrue. A similar system governing the number of edits or picture contributions could help to cut the unwanted "noise" by unscrupulous users, such as limiting the amount of edits to pages they can make, followed by (temporary) revocation of such privileges if they prove undeserving.

In any case, I'd like a verdict soon on this. I'm glad we've had a civil discussion about this so far, but I'd like to know if we're going to live and let live for this category, or euthanize it.

[Evil Tim]

Originally Posted by Mazryonh

A solution to this fuzzy area would be to posit that a true submachine gun has both a buttstock and a dedicated space to put your offhand out of the box--without both these features, the MAC-10, the MP5K, the TEC-9, etc. are machine pistols.

Um, I've never heard the MP5K called a machine pistol before. Machine pistol is another one with no fixed definition since every standard definition has something that doesn't qualify when it should or should when it doesn't. Really it's only a useful term to describe fullauto versions of existing pistol designs, as soon as you start using it to describe things like MACs and TECs you enter a world of headachery.

Originally Posted by Mazryonh

A similar system governing the number of edits or picture contributions could help to cut the unwanted "noise" by unscrupulous users, such as limiting the amount of edits to pages they can make, followed by (temporary) revocation of such privileges if they prove undeserving.

Realistically speaking such a system solves a problem we don't really have. We're a pretty close-knit group, we all know who everyone is without needing a little icon to tell us, and newbies shouldn't take that long to learn the ropes if they keep their eyes and ears open. People who want to cause trouble will cause trouble under any system, and we have a good group of people who watch the recent changes for that kind of thing as it is.

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by Mazryonh

However, revolvers have not changed their role since they were introduced, that being very short-range defense, and in a pinch, offense at that range. Submachine guns have changed from being very mobile support weapons for slower-firing battle rifles in WWII, to being relegated to police or special forces work in modern times due to the rise of body armour and assault rifles amongst modern militaries. The PDW in this sense is supposed to update the submachine concept by virtue of its new rounds, and would fulfill that CQB role now more effectively against targets wearing body armour proof against pistol rounds.

The key word here is update the submachine gun concept. "Updating" does not mean some fundamental re-definition of the role. The P90 and its ilk were meant to fulfill the exact same role as 9mm submachine guns (close-quarters battle), except with an improvement in capabilities. This is, as I have argued repeatedly, not an ability that is worthy of constituting an entire new class of firearms. Especially since PDWs haven't caught on with either law enforcement or military. And that's why I don't want them to have a new category unto themselves.

Also, a discussion of how SMGs' role has changed since WWII is completely irrelevant to the SMG/PDW distinction. I have no idea what the hell you're on about.

Originally Posted by Mazryonh

I don't see what you meant when you said that I "bought into the hype."

It's simple: Manufacturers have promoted the PDW as some revolutionary new class of firearms that are so innovative that they don't deserve to be called mere "submachine guns". You seem to agree.

And please do not give me another response where you quote all sorts of ballistic info and stuff. I'm getting a little tired of hearing it. It's not relevant.

Originally Posted by Mazryonh

I was under the impression that we might introduce "privilege levels" for users on the wiki. For example, the forum currently distinguishes between "Senior," "Junior," and other levels of members right now, but doesn't award differing levels of posting privileges. A site like GameFAQs does, however--users gain "Karma" points by posting or contributing within the rules, and gain a bigger post limit the more karma points they accrue. A similar system governing the number of edits or picture contributions could help to cut the unwanted "noise" by unscrupulous users, such as limiting the amount of edits to pages they can make, followed by (temporary) revocation of such privileges if they prove undeserving.

Wow, you do love to make life complicated, don't you? Bro, we're not GameFAQs; we're a Wiki (and they're not, last I checked).

Originally Posted by Mazryonh

In any case, I'd like a verdict soon on this.

It's simple: The PDW category is going. End of discussion.