Gabriel Suarez
02-22-2016, 08:34 AM


http://warriortalknews.typepad.com/.a/6a0133ec985af6970b01b7c818d51f970b-500wi (http://warriortalknews.typepad.com/.a/6a0133ec985af6970b01b7c818d51f970b-popup)
The rediscovery of the stocked pistol in Glock PDW form has created a dialog about this early 20th century weapon.

Why not just use a rifle?

What does this give you that a regular pistol won't?

Why not just use an SMG?

All valid questions actually, and we will seek to answer them, but first I wanted to discuss its shootability. It is a difficult thing to express, but we all know it when we see it...or feel it. A Glock is more "shootable" than a Desert Eagle for example. There are intangibles such as weight, balance, the feel of the recoil pulse, etc.

In order to have a baseline of objectivity I dragged out some old SMG Qualification Courses and used the PDW to run them.

The first one was Taylor's old SMG segment of the oddly named Combat Master Course. The course is as follows -

Two shots at each distance from 50 to 10 meters at ten meter intervals (so...50, 40, 30, etc...all the way to ten yards) with decreasing time limits. Three seconds at 5o yards all the way down to 1 second at ten yards. All time limits were met easily with the Glock PDW and I will note that the "stock" helps immensely at coming up on target quickly. I repeated the drills with a standard Glock from ready position and the PDW was a little faster each time.

The follow up second shot was also faster as the recoil pulse is almost non-existent.

Taylor was fond of the Underarm Assault position where he favored full auto use. The times reflected this with two shots at 10 meters in 1 second and 7 meters in .8 seconds (not a problem with the PDW). The last stage in this was with two shots at 3 meters in a half second. I didn't make that one, taking a full .75. But I was not using full auto on any of these and didn't really use an underarm assault.

Head shots at 7 meters and 10 meters in 1.5 and 2.0 seconds respectively was quite easy...the RMR making this a simple exercise.

All in all, the only place where a true SMG in full auto would have been beneficial would have been a 3 meters, but then only for a .25 second benefit.

And before you begin regaling me with questions about why only two shots and what kind of target and all that jazz, let me stop you and tell you that I used this because there are very few SMG Qualification Courses out there and didn't want to spend the time to write our own as it would undoubtedly be suggested the course was written so the PDW would pass. The PDW needed to perform in a drill designed for the SMG, and it did so.

Now to the usual questions -

Why not just use a rifle?

Well...it depends on the mission and the environment. I think we have killed the myth of the universal weapon. I even tried to build a universal rifle once. No...all weapons are special purpose weapons designed to operate within a given niche. An SMG is better for Urban CQB than the sniper rifle...for example.

But back to the question - the main advantages of the rifle are reach and penetration. But that comes at a price of size, weight and muzzle blast. Yes, we can add a silencer but we are now adding more weight and size. Everyone wants a weapon the size of an HK PDW that can bring down a T-Rex. Such a thing does not exist. Suffice that the SMG shines and is selected over the assault rifle are characterized by high intensity, short duration, aggressive/proactive events in urban areas (and plenty of teams still opt for the SMG over the rifle).

Moreover, insofar as the PDW, we have the same manual of arms, same magazines, same caliber and all in a very compact package that can be left in SMG/Pseudo-Carbine form, or converted into a holster pistol in a few seconds.

You can certainly seek to press any weapon into areas it was never intended to be used, but I find one will have far better success by using the right tool for the job.

What does this give you that a regular pistol won't?

Quicker on target, better recoil control, faster follow up shots and greater potential for accuracy than a pistol. That is about it.

Why not just use an SMG?

Well, as we found out a long time ago, and re-established in Taylor's SMG course, full auto is not the panacea that some suggest. In fact, the only real benefit was shown at extremely close range, at least according to the shooting test. I suspect the bad guy would not notice the quarter second difference.

So if we set aside the need for full auto - which I have, exactly just what does an UZI or a Czech EVO offer me over the Glock PDW? Wait, I know: More weight, bigger weapon, different parts and magazines, different system to learn. More performance? Not from where I am watching.

Later this year, with help from some friends, we plan to run some more drills with this weapon, other stocked pistols, and some SMGs. We will see what we see, but I think the Glock PDW concept has some very definite advantages. An old concept whose time seems to have returned.

MORE ON THE PDW (http://www.onesourcetactical.com/the-glock-pdw.aspx#.Vss4y-YYG8A)

02-22-2016, 06:16 PM
Excellent assessment boss. Once you take the Go To War out of the question and insert Go To The MALL, then the Stocked Pistol shines and the Glock PDW shines even brighter because its the same gun we carry in our holster every day.

02-22-2016, 08:16 PM
Is there a suitable PDW stock for the G20SF yet, or on the horizon?