Whatever, I'll get flamed but I still see serious flaws with this design, the reasons for which I went over four months ago with a person telling me I was wrong. However, the only promising pose here is number four, where you detailed a possible sling type addon to the butt of the gun. If by PDW you mean like a quick spray gun like an Uzi, then poses 1, 2, and 3 are fine. Otherwise its just not practical, or all that accurate, to fire the weapon like that.

I love how you begin an as-yet undisputed thread with the passive-aggressive statement: 'whatever, I'll get flamed'. I notice that last time around you completely ignored the rather extensive dissertation by the artist of the employment and design of forearm braced weapons such as the experimental bushmaster, and made comments to others like 'If you continue to believe this is meant to be fired as a pistol-type weapon'.

The creator has stated, and illustrated above, that this is an intended mode, and backed it with diverse examples of real-world experimental weapons which mostly got dumped due to poor timing on the market or poor prototype reliability reputations. If you're going to say you don't like something, that's dandy. Say you don't like it, but please cease the haughty 'design is flawed because it does not match MY expectations' behavior unless you can bring to the table the type of sound, specific examples that Baron has. Doing otherwise is the attitude which garnered you the (rather concisely put and non-insulting) arguments in the last thread which you seem to be referring to as 'flames'.

If you interpret 'disagreement' as 'flame', then I guess you've gotten pretty used to wearing asbestos undies, huh?

Right on, fox.

Seconded.

No, you are not getting flamed. I've been flamed and have the burn marks to prove it! We may disagree on the subject but so far no has flamed you. More importantly I don't let people get flamed on MY pages. If anyone gets truly offensive or threatens another poster I will tell them to stop. If they don't they'll get banned from my posters list and reported to the FA Staff.

I think there is something that you must understand. I am a Concept Designer and Creator along with being an Illustrator. One of things I've been hired to on many times is develop new designs for entertainment companies that are looking for new approaches to things to give their worlds a "different look".

One of the things I've discovered in my years of research is that there is usually more than one way to tackle a problem design wise. All to often other designs ideas that have had good merits of their own and have been rejected solely on the basis of " It looks different." I do not claim that this design is a superior one, or that other peoples comments are invalid. This intellectual design exercise for me to see if I could incorporate the knowledge picked up from reading, talking to people in field, actual hands-on use, and having built models and props for theater and use them to come up with different take on familiar subject.

Please don't get me wrong because I enjoy seeing all of your works. I'm a robot/gun type freak myself, I was only approaching this from a technical standpoint and sometimes my opinions come off rather harsh. Which is why I made the mention of probably getting flamed ahead of time.

Again, I don't see anything wrong with this gun, its all concept and meant to be for fun. As for the member known as Zjonni, I took the liberty to private message him due to his rude and immature comments.

I continue to look forward to all the new plane/gun/vehicle designs you do and will try to restrain myself from being misinterpreted in the future. =)

Actually Zjonni is good friend of mine for almost twenty years and while he can be blunt with his opinions they are not without merit or lacking in facts. If you disagree with my design ideas that is fine; no one has died and made me god, but understand no one has made you one either. That is all I have to say on the topic.

"I guess you've gotten pretty used to wearing asbestos undies, huh?"

I lose respect for an individual when they feel they have to resort to such petty one liners. And of course I'm no god, just a dude who likes his guns.

I strongly suggest you go back and read your own one-liners, and how much of your stance was based on fact versus how much was based on simple and arbitrary dismissal of other peoples' statements.

This passive-aggressive attitude you have put on undercuts what little validity you did bring to the table. Don't like that? Then don't base your communications in that format, and work on acquiring hard data or presenting opinion as opinion rather than operating via argument ad hominem. You are the only person on the internet who is responsible for your words. If you don't like the way your words are taken, perhaps you had better spend more time reviewing them before hitting that 'post' button. You make much of the _one_ line I entered (ill-advisedly, I admit) regarding flame proof underwear, while doing not a thing to in any way excuse the other failings that were pointed out.

I don't require your respect, and I doubt if anyone else here is worrying themselves about having it, but if _you_ require respect from anyone who reads your work, anyone at all, then I do suggest you take some time to review how your particular postings come across. Remember, the internet never forgets.

End.

Oh man, thanks for the laugh and for being such an upfront and honest mature person (and for posting this for everyone to see rather than through a private message). I think you would do well to heed some of your own advice.

Again, as submachineguns go, the Uzi is not inacurate nor is it uncontrollable. A well-kept uzi that's been properly assembled can make hits on targets well out from the range at which 9mm is effective. I myself have managed, in semiauto mode, turn in decent hundred yard groups with an Uzi.

A PDW is, at it's simplest, a weapon that is more effective then a handgun, while being small enough for someone who's main job isn't firing a small arms system to carry and yet still do their job. Experimentally, I've tried getting thru my day with, for example, a thompson submachinegun slung at patrol arms, a CAR-15 under similar circumstances, and the Uzi, and, I can tell you, that with a proper sling and a 20-round short magazine in the grip and three 32-rounders (downloaded to 30 rounds) in a belt pouch, you quickly appreciate a gun with few protroubances, a short barrel, and a magazine placed as to not catch on things.

Who gets issued PDWs? Well, as I said, people who's primary job isn't firing a rifle, but who may need something easier to make hits with than a pistol. Vehicle crews, aircrews, equipment operators, technicians, and so on. A rifle just a little too far away is worthless compared to the PDW you have attached to your gear.

Of course, there's another group that can use PDWs. Those are the specops guys, who generally also don't have fighting as their main job, but need a gun that they can produce a lot of mayhem with very fast, so they can get the hell away.

In both examples, accuracy is probably adequate; the first group of users aren't riflemen, and the second group will train with whatever they carry. Recoil is low, and the reflex sight is big, and that adds up to hits.

Hallelujah! Thank you for understanding what its role is and that like any design you end up having to compromise! You don't go to Camp Perry with. If you know you're going to be in a real firefight then bring a real rifle, carbine, submachine gun, shotgun, SAW, GPMG, grenade launcher, RPG, or pointy stick! It won't knock people across the room, but it will drill through body armor with the right ammo. Heck it is not even intended to be a VIP bodyguard weapon; although with its conceability and shorter ranges that bodyguards deal with it could be used that way.

Actually, being familiar with the PDW concept and numerous attempts to fill it in the past (Rosemary needs a SPECTRE), the only thing I see about this design that looks a little 'odd' to me is how far forward the reflex sight is...Or perhaps the one on my Carbon-15 is mounted a little far back! I've seen quite a few scope mounting rail systems which extended the scope back from the receiver slightly to give proper eye relief, and this looks like a candidate for something similar. As far forward as the reflex sight is, it seems it would have a narrower focal field of view than I'm used to.

Well I had two things I was considering with the design.

One, I was trying to locate some more weight forward to offset the problem that many bullpup-like designs have of being tail heavy. It wouldn't be much but it adds up.

Two, I wanted to make certain the slide area remained free of obstructions so that the slide could quickly swiped when doing jam clearing drills. Even if the operator was getting sloppy due to stress.

Three, The sight I was taking cues from C-More Sight, the Optima, I think Tasco made that one, and Trijicon Reflex II sight. The C-more in particular has been used in IPSC events a lot. Although I'd want to really beef it up and dumb down such a sight for use on a PDW so it was more operator-proof. No batteries, use tritium and fiber optics maybe, beef up the housing against booboos etc. If it failed then you'd have to use the backup sight on it which molded into the front part of the gun. Like the pre-molded sights on scope of the AUG or the L85 rifle.

By the way my artistic senses are telling me you might want me to see Rosemary with a SPECTRE?

My first thought when I looked at it was that it strongly resembled a cross between the Bushmaster and Shirow Masamune's design for the Seburo Compact Xploder. It's hard to get a design that isn't going to shift the center of balance much as the clip empties unless you run the feed up through the grip, which is problematic for a weapon with a severe limitation on how big you can make the grip. I think you got a reasonable tradeoff for a weapon that is intended for a "grab a weapon as you unass your now-defunct ride " situation, rather than as a primary infantry weapon.

There's no reason to mount a non-magnifying reflex sight near your eye; they have infinite eye relief and zero parallax. Actually, the farther from your eye the sight is, the more accurate most reflex sights become, because the dot covers less of the target. Just for shits and giggles, try mounting a C-more or the like on the front gas block of an AR-15 that has a flat top and no cowitnessed sights. It's counterintuitive, it's easy to damage the sight with it way out there, but it works really well. Now, this won't work as well for an old fashioned tube-type red dot, because, yeah, it will narrow your field of view down a lot.

That's one of the best things about reflex sights; if you can see the dot, and it's sighted in properly, it doesn't matter where your head is in relation to the dot, or what position you're in.

I should post some pictures of my AR-15 pistol, which has it's reflex sight (an ancient 50mm can) mounted on the front of the upper receiver, as far forward as it can get. It improves the balance, and you can look thru it with both eyes at once!

....And the first ever modern sight of this type I had was a 4x red dot, which must be where I picked up my bias towards the mounting. Thanks for enlightening me on that. That makes a whole lot of sense.

I just spent a few minutes with my 15 trying to determine if parallax changed when distance from eye changed with the weapon held off-shoulder and just eyeing the triangle. Not that can be determined in a thirty-foot hallway, no. Nifty.

Learn something new every day.

Have you ever used an Armson OEG? That's rather counterintuitive too, for most people. It's a red dot scope that you can't see through. The forward end of the tube is closed off. It works like the old trick of looking at your hand with one eye while the other hand looks thru a paper towel tube. Your eye combines the images, and you see a hole in your hand. In the case of the OEG, you see a red dot superimposed on the target.

I had something similar to that on a Striker-12 a long time ago, yes.

my current Remington 1100 riot gun has a reflex sight. Hmm. Of all my scoped guns, about half have reflex sights.

Pretty good idea. If this were mine, I'd add a buttpad that had a cheek riser over the slide so that accurate shots could be fired in semi-auto. This brings back an idea I had about a month ago of using a blowback .22lr AR upper, and a portion of a lower receiver, and using them to build a bullpup rifle.

And I like the idea of the .22WMR; nearly the same power as the 5.7, but simpler to fire, and much much cheaper.

Yeah and with some the new jacketed bullet designs coming out for the .22WMR it would help with feeding and penetration. Heck you could even put a small steel insert in to increase penetration like the SS190 round does for the FN P90.

I think this would be a superb firearm for someone who's just trying to eliminate a threat quickly so s/he could get back to damn work, and could probably be easily slung out of the way to actually get the work done, while still keeping it on their person!

Wow, I really dont like that desing now I see a reference with it in action. It looks like there is no way to get a good grip with that back banana clip looking part at all. I could see that thing jumping all over the place. Looks a bit better with the shoulder stock, but seems like a a bigger creature would like it though. Sorta like if you made a shoulder stock for an uzi, too much stock, not enough gun.

That is wouldn't like it not would like it -.- (darn no edit feature)

I think these issues were already covered in earlier comments, if I recall correctly.

Very nice concept. I wouldn't mind having one of these IRL.

Seems to me this weapon would be well-suited for an electronic fire-rate adjustment mechanism like the Bushman I.D.W. I'm assuming the A&K universe has a roughly equivalent tech base to our own. Incorporating such a system wouldn't be too difficult, and the benefits would be quite impressive.

Though my experience with real firearms is... non-existent, I imagine, without a stock, another effective way to hold a weapon with an odd design like that would be against the crook of the elbow, in a shoot-from-the-hip sort of way, for a quick spray.

I think with the bolt/slide moving around like that it would be hard to aim, because its gonna take your eye out.


But hey, The design is good but I wouldn't buy one.

No more so than a semi automatic pistol. Also I've moved the sights off the slide so the operators sight picture would not be moving back and forth during fire. That was one of things that made the Polish PM-63 hard to fire.

Hmmm, Good point, I think there should be a stock that extends from the side, It would make it easier to fire. the more points of contact with the gun the merrier.

A multiple usage weapon ^^ ?

Er, can I say 'Looks cool'?

For frame of reference, how tall is this particular wielder? Judging from the description of the firearm itself, my guess is 3' to 4'. I'd almost want to have it designed so that the slide doesn't shoot back that far, make it internal. That way, a stock could be attached if desired or the weapon itself could be nestled against the shoulder, which would be an advantage in very tight situations such as from a vehicle's backseat. I also seem to recall that the Steyr TMP is designed to use the strap as a sort of reverse stock (ie, stabilizes by pushing the gun away instead of pulling it towards the shoulder), which I believe is why the stock is shown in firing position #4.

Well it is not stock in pose 4 but it is a shoulder strap. In fact the PDW is usually intended to be used in conjunction with a shoulder strap so the weapon that it can be carried at all times and the hands left free. I left the strap off in most of the sketches since I thought it cluttered up the figure and hid the interaction between the operator and the weapon. When using the forward optional vertical grip you can really achieve that push and pull tension that helps control recoil and makes for a steadier aim. This was one preferred firing stances for using the ultra-short, no stock, HK MP5K. By the way the operator is just a bit over 4' tall.

As I've stated several times ,but most people seems to be missing it, the point of this exercise was how would one go about designing a PDW , not submachine gun, that could be fired a wide range of individuals and would not effected by issues of insufficient stock length or too much. Its only requirement was to improve the range of operator over an existing handgun. Which means ranges out 100yds. Past that get a rifle a carbine or some true offensive weapon.

Okay, I see what you're getting at. A PDW is a rather foreign concept to me, as most firearms that I'm familiar with are designed to seek out the enemy and kill them as opposed to allowing the user to repel an attacker.

I'm sure I'm still missing something there, but thanks for the clarification.

Well, if you listen to Jeff Cooper, rest his soul, a handgun is a primarily defensive firearm. If your goal is the attack, you generally procure something better. The advantage to the handgun is that you always can have it on you; the disadvantage is that a handgun is significantly harder to shoot well than a rifle, and generally is expected to be used on targets no more than 30 yards away.

From a war standpoint, relatively few people are killed by rifle fire, and next to nobody is killed by pistol fire. This was as true during the Spanish-American War, as it was in Vietnam. Infantry engages and pins the enemy, airpower and artillery do the serious damage. Among infantry during WWII, the most common casualty-producing source was medium artillery and mortars, followed by heavy and medium machinegun fire.

Ah the late Col. Cooper. I have a copy of his book "The Art of the Rifle". It is bit heavy on the philosophy and thin on technique but it still a good read. He'd probably disapprove of this "Damn sewing machine" and would tell you to get a "Thumper" or a real rifle! Also from what I understand most infantry weapons are designed for covering/ suppressive fire or to pin down/ herd a target so it can get spanked properly.

Still MOUT style combat does lend itself a bit more to the close encounter-style combat when room clearing. This weapon would not be what I would want to use for assault but I could see being used defensively by some non-com who suddenly found themselves where he or she did not intend to be.

Cooper's best 'technique' books are probably things like the Gun Digest book of the shooting Sports. The thing is, his technique material can be found for the most part in the 1940's era US army marksmanship course. After that, it's all practice, practice, practice.

I am designing one right now.

What is the approx. length of the your PDW?

Mine is currently at 50.8 CM just about 20 inches. I just want to see what else is out there, Mine does NOT fire a PDW size round. it fires a 6.8mm SPC Round. bigger than a .223. But the barrel is just 10 inches long.

Basically this fucker is designed to go through body armor. It's using a TDI Inc. "Super-V" type mechanism.
Will be done with it soon.

I'm thinking you may need a removable stock to get any sort of stability and a general kill zone, because otherwise your shots are gonna go all over.

I think these issues were already covered in earlier comments, if I recall correctly.

Do you have a macro for that? ;D

I wish I did! I just made do with copy-and-paste.

I guess you wouldn';t be able to fire that thing in the prone postion XD Nice ^^

No it could be fired prone just in the same way a Remington XP100 could be. In fact with a slight modifying to the bottom of the magazine to flatten it and maybe beef it up a bit you could use it as monopod arrangement. The Germans did that a lot in WWII and I've seen Soviet and even US. Forces do the same thing. Rest the AR15 or AKM on bottom of the magazine while holding the weapon. It is amazing in field shooting, not just sitting at a bench, how just finding any support will go toward stabilizing the weapon. Even just using sling for dynamic support will make things steadier. Remember it is a PDW and is meant for relatively short, 150m max, ranges and is not meant for the rifle ranges of Creedmoor.

To me, the design still seems somewhat bulky. Unlike the MP7 (which I adore), this weapon has a very large height (though that may be due to the demonstrators being so small).
An MP7 can be stored in a thigh holster, or even fit into a larger-size glove-box, while this would take a suitcase.

Of course, these are nitpics based on my own poor knowledge of mechanics and what I would want to see in a PDW.

Your pics, as always, are awesome.

D.O.P.R

Baron, I absolutely love that weapon. I would use one IRL if I had the choice/need. Next to a P90, this might be my favorite gun (fictional matters not)