Sounds like the IMI Magal, which, according to the (now pay-only, so I can't give a direct link) ISAYERET web page, is a Galil MAR chambered for .30 Carbine rounds; basically, a strange hybrid between assault rifle, WWII Carbine and an SMG. Intended for police use but still under development (it was supposed to be released in 2002, but had over-heating problems).
Carbines vs. Rifles
- Thread starter Golan2072
- Start date
I think you are missing the main design element of the P90, which is compactness. The objective design was to have a worthwhile weapon that had a minimum sized footprint for storage for vehicle crews. Initially they couldn't call it a SMG because it does not fire pistol rounds, hence the whole "Personal Defence Weapon" (PDW) designation. FN were intending on releasing a pistol that used the same round, but I don't beleve it ever made it into production.
Knowing that design breif the stubby rectangular form factor makes a lot more sense. The same design pressure would also apply in traveller, extra compact weapons for tank crew and spaceship crew.
Knowing that design breif the stubby rectangular form factor makes a lot more sense. The same design pressure would also apply in traveller, extra compact weapons for tank crew and spaceship crew.
The pistol is called the "Five-Seven", available in US gunstores for some time.
The HK MP7 does the same job and its much smaller. NATO tests show neither is better, overall, than a 9mm SMG. Which can be very compact, but the bulkier but much more effective 5.56mm compact carbines are preferred.
The HK MP7 does the same job and its much smaller. NATO tests show neither is better, overall, than a 9mm SMG. Which can be very compact, but the bulkier but much more effective 5.56mm compact carbines are preferred.
M9, IMO, just allows people to hold and shoot more rounds. At least with the 1911A1 (and the newer 1991) you knew when you hit something because of how the target reacted.
Also like the muzzle loaders of old most people learned to hit what they shot at because you only had 7 round to a mag (45 cal) instead of 12+ (9mm, depending on the mag).
I always got 40 out of 40 with the 1911, never achieve that with the M9. Of course many others got better scores because of the lighter weight of the weapon.
Now firing the FN90 was awesome and accurate. If it was not for the the major stumbling block of ammo/supply it would have possibly been adopted. Of course I am purposely ignoring the lobbying effort done by the current weapons supplyer of the US Army/Marine/Navy/AirForce.
I believe that when it comes to actual armed forces using weapons that 3 things come to bear on determining what weapon(s) are selected for use:
1) cost (includes resupply/ammo cost along with initial purchase costs)
2) How many, how long and delieverability of said weapons
3) Lobbying effort of the manufacturer to the government and armed forces
Note: what the actual service personnel that have to use the weapon(s) think does not come into play until after many years (terms) of service (weapon service that is) and if any higher ups (generals, admirals, etc) have any political power to effect the purchase.
For personal use, I believe the following apply:
What does it cost
How cool is it
Can I reliably hit something with it
What am I use to using (prior service or family background)
There are of course other factors in both but I am only listing those that I believe are the most influencal across the board.
Dave
Also like the muzzle loaders of old most people learned to hit what they shot at because you only had 7 round to a mag (45 cal) instead of 12+ (9mm, depending on the mag).
I always got 40 out of 40 with the 1911, never achieve that with the M9. Of course many others got better scores because of the lighter weight of the weapon.
Now firing the FN90 was awesome and accurate. If it was not for the the major stumbling block of ammo/supply it would have possibly been adopted. Of course I am purposely ignoring the lobbying effort done by the current weapons supplyer of the US Army/Marine/Navy/AirForce.
I believe that when it comes to actual armed forces using weapons that 3 things come to bear on determining what weapon(s) are selected for use:
1) cost (includes resupply/ammo cost along with initial purchase costs)
2) How many, how long and delieverability of said weapons
3) Lobbying effort of the manufacturer to the government and armed forces
Note: what the actual service personnel that have to use the weapon(s) think does not come into play until after many years (terms) of service (weapon service that is) and if any higher ups (generals, admirals, etc) have any political power to effect the purchase.
For personal use, I believe the following apply:
What does it cost
How cool is it
Can I reliably hit something with it
What am I use to using (prior service or family background)
There are of course other factors in both but I am only listing those that I believe are the most influencal across the board.
Dave
But the hole it leaves is so tiny you almost have to get a central nervous system hit to incapacitate, armor or not.
NATO figured you were better off with a 9mm SMG if the oppos have no armor or flak vests. With III-IV hard plate you're screwed anyway. With IIIA-CRISAT you might as well bite the bullet and carry the extra bulk of the 5.56mm "shorty" and get something .
5. How much of a bitch is it to carry around?
That's why I think the MP-7 is the preferable PDW by far. It can basically be issued in place of a standard handgun, being only marginally larger and heavier than a pistol.
IMHO, "classical" shoulder-fired SMGs will largely become extinct, and replaced by pistol-sized PDWs (such as the MP-7) on one end of the spectrum and by subcompact assault rifles (such as the G36C or the Galil MAR) on the other.
Regards,
Tobias
Hahahaha, yes there is always that, but you can get used to the weight/bulk of an item over time.
I use to hate carrying the M60 early in my career. But later on, I would prefer carrying it because of the increase fire power and that others would have to be first in instead of me on some manuevers.
Dave
Sounds familiar. My father hated the M1 Garand because his jammed on him (only once, but that was enough). Even though he was the smallest man in the squad, he volunteered to take the BAR (he qualified Expert, so they let him). Once he went to the mortar squad he cheerfully turned it in for a carbine, though.
P 90 vs. MP-7 with crews that don’t spend much time on the range does the shoulder stock present an advantage for accuracy? My first time on the range I was surprised how hard it was to hit something with a pistol. The .22 rifle we had was much easier.
Also the P 90 holds 50 rounds. Less reloading means more time for shooting?
Also the P 90 holds 50 rounds. Less reloading means more time for shooting?
Both have stocks (of a sort). The P90's stance always struck me as a little cramped. The back of the weapon is curved, and designed as a surogate stock. The MP7 has a slightly more conventional folding stock.
The P90 magazine has some minor problems. The extra shots aren't without disadvantage.
Best of both worlds are toys like the PP-90M1
or better yet a slightly saner similar design made to a higher quality.
The P90 magazine has some minor problems. The extra shots aren't without disadvantage.
Best of both worlds are toys like the PP-90M1
or better yet a slightly saner similar design made to a higher quality.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
The P90 is another solutiuon to a non-existent problem. The reality is the the PDW is mostly a creation of the defense industry. The probem is that current smallarms are very mature and there isn't much you can do to them to improve their performance (as was shown in the ACR trials).
What that meaqns to contactors like FN and HK is that most militaries aren't looking to change their small arms systems, so thsoe that have the current contracts have a lock on procuments.
The global arms market has been shrinking for some time now - basically since the fall of the Soviet Union, and a number of large military gun makers are in serious financial trouble. Consider how many times HK has been sold in the last decade alone.
In order to boost business, the weapons makes are basically trying to invent new problems so that they can sell products that solve them. The PDW is one such solution. The reality is that the HK and FN PDWs are really marginal weapons which introduce yet another cartridge into the logistical chain.
The comparsion someone made to the .22 hornet is apprapos, the 5.8x28mm is ridiculously underpowered - really only adequate for small varmints. At a time when the effectiveness of the 5.56x45mm is being called into question, the 5.8 is a laugh.
It does have a certain coolness factor, and it's amusing to consider that FN makes sure that the P90 is available to Hollywood so that it gets lots of air time. I predict that in 10 years, the P90 will be a curiosity.
At least the compact version of the XM-8, a weapon only slightly larger than the P90, fires standard military ammunition.
What that meaqns to contactors like FN and HK is that most militaries aren't looking to change their small arms systems, so thsoe that have the current contracts have a lock on procuments.
The global arms market has been shrinking for some time now - basically since the fall of the Soviet Union, and a number of large military gun makers are in serious financial trouble. Consider how many times HK has been sold in the last decade alone.
In order to boost business, the weapons makes are basically trying to invent new problems so that they can sell products that solve them. The PDW is one such solution. The reality is that the HK and FN PDWs are really marginal weapons which introduce yet another cartridge into the logistical chain.
The comparsion someone made to the .22 hornet is apprapos, the 5.8x28mm is ridiculously underpowered - really only adequate for small varmints. At a time when the effectiveness of the 5.56x45mm is being called into question, the 5.8 is a laugh.
It does have a certain coolness factor, and it's amusing to consider that FN makes sure that the P90 is available to Hollywood so that it gets lots of air time. I predict that in 10 years, the P90 will be a curiosity.
At least the compact version of the XM-8, a weapon only slightly larger than the P90, fires standard military ammunition.
P
Pickles
Guest
Always did like the calico, but I assume the 100-round (50 for 9mm, IIRC) helical magazine can't have been ideal for battlefield use. As regards carbines vs. rifles, in Traveller I just assume the former is smaller/lighter/less powerful than the latter. After all, who's ever heard of rifling a laser "barrel"? 
Uncle Bob, that's a very useful website! It'll come in extremely handy for my current projects ...
Uncle Bob, that's a very useful website! It'll come in extremely handy for my current projects ...
The original term carbine (which actually predates 'rifle') merely refeered to a shoulder arm (musket or rifle) that was shortened, primarily for use by mounted troops. Until the 20th century, rifles had been kept relatively long so that, when fitted with a bayonet, they could be used by an infantryman against cavalry.
The modern use is pretty fuzzy, as most assault rifles have barrels around 20 inches long, and overall length about half of the typical rifle of the 19th century. Just about any military rifle made nowadays would be classed as a 'carbine' by the traditional definition. The term istself is pretty useless.
As far as the use in Traveller, it's pretty clear that MM and co. were looking for some very generic ways to distinguish weapons. Most of the writers of Traveller know their weapons, but were obviously writing for people who mostly weren't so their inaccuracies can be forgiven.
If you can explain the diffeence between a magazine and a clip, you aren't a typical role player.
Russia's arms industry is suffering from th very fact that some 60 million AKs have already been manufactured and are out in circulation. Why buy new, when you can pick up a used but very functional AK for the price of a tank of gas? Same with the RPG. There are who knows ow many still laying around from the cold war.
While the 5.56 is an admirable round, there has been deep distrust of the SCHV concept in certain segments of the military since day one. The trend to shorter barrels also means that velocity of newer 5.56 rifles isn't up to where it needs to be for the 5.56 to perform optimally. This is the whole reason that the 6.8x43mm and 6.5 Grendel rounds has attracted so much interest.
The 7.62x51 continues to serve. It is the principle round for the various GPMGs as well as the round of choice for snipers and DMs.
The 5.7x28mm was an interesting concept - until the round actually became available and people tried it out. It's actual effectiveness is rather in doubt. The P90 fires the 31gn projectile at 2,300 fps. By comparison, Federals .22 WMR launches a 30gn pill at 2,200 fps. Anyone consider .22 magnum rimfire a serious cartridge for social use? With a heavier 40 grain bullet (SS196SR V-MAX) the 5.8 makes only 1650 fps. Federal's game-shok .22 magnum rimfire can push a 50 grain bullet that same 1650fps. The .22 rimfire magnum has 20% more energy than the 5.7x28mm!
The .22 hornet is not even a good comparison, because the .22 hornet is a much better round. The .22 hornet will launch a 45gn projectile at 2700 fps.
Let's look at the KE numbers:
5.7x28mm: 328J
.22 WMR: 410J
.45 ACP: 500J
9mm: 567J
.22 Hornet: 989J
5.56x45mm (M855) 1679J
5.56x45mm (M193): 1801J
7.62x39mm 2116J
7.62x51mm (M59) 3423J
and to add Traveller
Body pistol 625-900J
(depending on whether you use 500 or 600m/s)
6mm Assault rifle 2025J
7mm Rifle 4050J
The numbers pretty much speak for themselves.
The Traveller assault rifle is basically equivalent to the Russian 7.62x39m, the rifle equivalent to the US .30-06.
The 5.7x28mm P90 has less energy than the Traveller body pistol.
In the first edition of CT, the body pistol did 3D-8 damage, comapred with 3D for the rifle and 4D-8 for the carbine. The later edition changes this, but the damage values for TNE and T4 are interesting. TNE damage for the 5.7x28mm is 1D6, and 2D6 for T4.
While the 5.56 is an admirable round, there has been deep distrust of the SCHV concept in certain segments of the military since day one. The trend to shorter barrels also means that velocity of newer 5.56 rifles isn't up to where it needs to be for the 5.56 to perform optimally. This is the whole reason that the 6.8x43mm and 6.5 Grendel rounds has attracted so much interest.
The 7.62x51 continues to serve. It is the principle round for the various GPMGs as well as the round of choice for snipers and DMs.
The 5.7x28mm was an interesting concept - until the round actually became available and people tried it out. It's actual effectiveness is rather in doubt. The P90 fires the 31gn projectile at 2,300 fps. By comparison, Federals .22 WMR launches a 30gn pill at 2,200 fps. Anyone consider .22 magnum rimfire a serious cartridge for social use? With a heavier 40 grain bullet (SS196SR V-MAX) the 5.8 makes only 1650 fps. Federal's game-shok .22 magnum rimfire can push a 50 grain bullet that same 1650fps. The .22 rimfire magnum has 20% more energy than the 5.7x28mm!
The .22 hornet is not even a good comparison, because the .22 hornet is a much better round. The .22 hornet will launch a 45gn projectile at 2700 fps.
Let's look at the KE numbers:
5.7x28mm: 328J
.22 WMR: 410J
.45 ACP: 500J
9mm: 567J
.22 Hornet: 989J
5.56x45mm (M855) 1679J
5.56x45mm (M193): 1801J
7.62x39mm 2116J
7.62x51mm (M59) 3423J
and to add Traveller
Body pistol 625-900J
(depending on whether you use 500 or 600m/s)
6mm Assault rifle 2025J
7mm Rifle 4050J
The numbers pretty much speak for themselves.
The Traveller assault rifle is basically equivalent to the Russian 7.62x39m, the rifle equivalent to the US .30-06.
The 5.7x28mm P90 has less energy than the Traveller body pistol.
In the first edition of CT, the body pistol did 3D-8 damage, comapred with 3D for the rifle and 4D-8 for the carbine. The later edition changes this, but the damage values for TNE and T4 are interesting. TNE damage for the 5.7x28mm is 1D6, and 2D6 for T4.
