Gabriel Suarez
02-05-2016, 07:42 AM
Posted by Gabe Suarez

http://warriortalknews.typepad.com/.a/6a0133ec985af6970b01b7c8119fba970b-500wi (http://warriortalknews.typepad.com/.a/6a0133ec985af6970b01b7c8119fba970b-popup)

With the advent of the Glock PDW the old questions come up. I will try to address these individually. At the end of the day, this is just another tool that gives you additional options.

First a history: A personal defense weapon (PDW) was originally a class of compact magazine-fed, self-loading, often select-fire firearm - essentially a hybrid between a submachine gun and a carbine. The name describes the type's original role: as a compact but powerful defensive weapon that can be carried by troops behind the front line such as military engineers, drivers, artillery crews or other non-combat assignments. These soldiers may be at risk of encountering the enemy, but rarely enough that a longer or more powerful weapon would be an unnecessary burden during their normal duties. This is an important point analogous with the armed private citizen in the post-911 era.

Initially, this role was assigned to pistols. And while we have certainly extended the capability of a service pistol with accuracy (red dot concept), and capacity, they are nonetheless enhanced further vis-a-vis the addition of a shoulder stock. As a result, during the First World War, the Mauser C96 and artillery versions of the Luger pistol were issued with attachable shoulder stock holsters, which allowed for greater range, accuracy, and repeated hits due to enhanced recoil control.

Today, the Personal Defense Weapon (PDW) concept - developed during the late 1980s - in response to a NATO request as a replacement for 919mm submachine guns. The modern PDW was true in concept to the prior ideas, but added the goal of defeating enemy body armor. As well it was desirable that it could be used conveniently by support troops, as well as a close quarters battle weapon for counter-terrorist groups.

Application: We have established that this was never intended as a front line weapon. We have established that the main salient point of this weapon is one of convenience, and portability.

The PDW is not a reactive weapon. For sake of definition, a reactive event is one that explodes on you unannounced and without any prior indication of its unfolding. Think of the sudden attack, the ambush, the sucker punch. THAT is a reactive problem. If you have any indication that the fight is about to happen, it is emphatically not a reactive event. So in that light, you will not get the PDW out of the bag as a bad guy is pointing in on you during an armed robbery. This problem must be handled with the pistol on your person.

So as a way to illustrate -

"You FIND YOURSELF in a fight with your pistol, but you GO TO the fight with your PDW".

While one can argue that it is easy to carry a folding stocked AK or an SBR M4 around every day, but the truth is that it is not. It is quite inconvenient, and being that, you will likely not adopt that as a habit. So while a Knights SR-25 would be better in a long range gunfight...you will not be carrying this with you in everyday life. That answers the , "Why not just carry a rifle" crowd. Because carrying a rifle around is inconvenient and you will not do it. You may have one in the personal vehicle...in a bag...in the trunk, but that is a far cry from "within arm's reach".

The other aspect of this is caliber. The study of human conflict is the study of measures, and countermeasures. Armor was a countermeasure to swords, and firearms were a countermeasure to armor.

Measure: It was an easy argument to justify using only a rifle caliber in order to defeat armor...but the countermeasure to that was armor that is resistant to rifle bullets. And the more time passes between invention and usage, the more prolific that technology becomes. So today, it is quite easy to procure armor with plates that will resist rifle bullets. As well, the modern adversary may well be equipped with a "personal IED" strapped to his body where armor would be.

Countermeasure: Shoot them in the face. If you need to use the face shot as the objective due to modern considerations, then the rifle concept is not as necessary as it once was. Note that I am not suggesting we no longer use rifles, simply pointing out that placing a group of three or four face shots on board at parking lot distances in minimal time will be easier with a stocked pistol than with a rifle for most people.

Even teams who have access to anything they wish, are revisiting the submachinegun, suitably accurized and equipped with modern optics, just for the reasons I have described.
To recap the attributes of the PDW concept as expressed with the Glock PDW Concept:


1). Small, light and compact. In fact, much more so than any comparable rifle caliber weapon, or pistol caliber weapon.
2). Same manual of arms as your daily carry pistol
3). Same parts, and caliber, and magazines as your daily carry pistol
4). While I am far more an advocate of a dedicated pistol assigned to this role than an under-fire conversion, the weapon can go from pistol to PDW, or PDW to pistol, quickly.


1). Easy to carry with you in a briefcase, or laptop bag...specially so if a folding unit is added.
2). Does not replace the on body carry of a pistol, but it increases your lethality when facing unplanned, yet proactive defense in the workplace against a jihadist or active shooter.
3). Its compact size will increase the likelihood that you bring it with you (in the briefcase or laptop bag you will take with you anyway).

As a modern pro-active weapon for our times, in the urban role, that is at the same time effective, applicable to modern threats and convenient to rely on, this Glock PDW concept has alot going for it and few drawbacks.

02-05-2016, 08:12 AM
Agreed on all points. The advent of this choice has so much utility it really does take a large share of the realm other work a rounds sought to fill.

02-05-2016, 08:12 AM
As a modern pro-active weapon for our times, in the urban role, that is at the same time effective, applicable to modern threats and convenient to rely on, this Glock PDW concept has alot going for it and few drawbacks.

Thanks Gabe for doing all the heavy lifting. Another tool for the box from SI.


02-05-2016, 08:47 AM
Im STILL an advocate of true-er SMGs (semi auto) and PDWs for cases when you know youre going to bad places and when the threat level is high. That being the case the "Not Stocked Pistol" especially in the form of the Glock/ENDO/Shockwave combination seems like a fantastic space filler between "just a pistol" and a SMG type weapon for lighter threat days--which admittedly, will be most of the time for most of us

02-05-2016, 08:52 AM
....just to add the gun you have in your hand beats the shite out of the Self Propelled Artillery you have parked out front. Ive never been a fan of trunk guns unless youre living in your car, or have a driver waiting for you.

Brent Yamamoto
02-05-2016, 09:21 AM
Agreed on all points. I think most important is that this post lays out the WHY for this weapon. So much discussion in the gun world is only on the WHAT (guns and kit). The WHAT is good and starts the discussion...but the WHY must always be understood.

Same goes for training. Training covers the HOW but must also explain the WHY.