#11
|
|||
|
|||
Eliminate the PWD category. It's just a bunch of short assault rifles and super-compact SMGs firing tiny rounds.
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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). |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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. |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
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.
__________________
Cry "Havoc," and let slip the hogs of war. Last edited by MT2008; 07-10-2011 at 04:15 PM. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
And it's not the first time I've had to clear this up, but I'm not American (or British, for that matter). Quote:
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. 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. |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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. |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
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.
__________________
Cry "Havoc," and let slip the hogs of war. Last edited by MT2008; 07-15-2011 at 08:40 PM. |
#18
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
If "type of firearm" categories all-sported definitions which were sufficiently accurate and specific, most disputes over which weapon(s) belong to which categories should be easy to resolve. More knowledgeable users could then correct any erroneous additions to these categories made by the less knowledgeable ones, allowing for a (mostly) self-correcting system. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In any case, it's still the mods' wiki and they can do what they believe is justified. I wanted to make a case for a new category for PDWs, but if they want to remove it, it's their call and I can let this one go, so as long as they apply the new policies evenly across the board, such as removing "Personal Defense Weapon" from the descriptions of compact carbines using battle rifle or assault rifle ammunition, or reclassifying the FN P90, HK MP7, KAC PDW, et. al as "armour-piercing SMGs). 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. |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
This is in no way the same as a class of weapons the industry has no clear definition for and where you are proposing a meaning where I believe roughly than 80% of weapons called PDWs will not actually be such. As MT2008 commented, it isn't worth all the potential confusion just to keep a category around which will currently only have about half a dozen guns in it anyway. That's the heart of the problem: there is no single, clear definition of what a PDW is within the arms industry, other than "a marketing gimmick name for various smallarms." Us making one up won't solve that issue, it'll just mean there's yet another definition of it floating around confusing people. I know there are some other contentious sub-classes out there (do battle rifles have to be select-fire, when does a machine pistol become a subgun, etc), but none where you'd actually say most weapons said to be in the class are not. 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. Last edited by Evil Tim; 07-16-2011 at 04:32 AM. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Additionally the qualifications for submachineguns as they were dictated during their inception were, more or less, the gun being a handheld portable automatic weapon, the pistol caliber being partially necessary criteria for definition and partially a necessity due to the build of the early open bolt subguns like the Thompson. However certain concepts have been around for long enough to where there are a few broad definitions which I think the vast majority of people agree on: Battle rifle: Any rifle firing a full powered cartridge (7.62x51mm for example). Assault Rifle: Any rifle firing an intermediate cartridge (5.56mm for example). Submachinegun: Any handheld automatic weapon firing a pistol caliber catridge (9mm for example). The PDW hasn't been around as long and with the broadness of the accepted definition of submachineguns, it's hard to separate PDW from SMG. I personally thought that PDWs by definition had to fire a proprietary cartridge capable of better penetration (basically just the P90 and MP7) to be considered a PDW, and that anything else is NOT a PDW, just simply an SMG which may be falsely marketed as a PDW, as you all have said. As for what Matt said with the role of the round not distinguishing its class, I don't believe that either, because that's about what the difference is between a Battle Rifle, Assault Rifle and SMG are, and so I'd say: 1: If you are going to keep the PDW classification, make the criteria fit with weapons like SMGs that fire a proprietary, non-intermediate round that is more fit for armor penetration and better range, basically just the P90 and MP7 which are as far as I know the only guns that fall into that. Everything else in typical calibers are SMGs, even if marketed as PDWs, plain and simple. 1: Get rid of it altogether and just call the P90 and MP7 SMGs, because they still fall under that criteria as well if you consider 5.7 and 4.6 "pistol" rounds, as they technically are chambered in pistols and aren't powerful enough to be intermediate rounds. |
|
|