Is the PDW (Personal Defensive Weapon) Still Relevant?

I was issued a rifle and a pistol. The rifle is the preferred weapon if you are out of the FOB, but inside the FOB, it can be bulky to carry around. The pistol can be more easily carried into the mess hall, latrines, both hands are available for use and you don't run the risk of walking off somewhere and leaving your rifle behind.
Unfortunately, as many found out, inside the FOB could be as deadly as outside and the need for a weapon still exists.

The author dances around several points, some valid, some dubious, all worth more consideration than offered in the article.

PDW is a relatively recent term but the concept goes back much further than the term.

One reason for the classic PDW is described in the article -- soldiers whose main job is not directly fighting the enemy. For these troops, the PDW has always been an administrative compromise. A weapon more effective than a pistol, but not as inconvenient as a real rifle. Why not just issue a real rifle? Because we knew (even if we don't want to admit) that these non-combat soldiers (and their immediate commanders) don't want to be bothered with a real rifle. This became less of a problem with the M16 (which started life as a replacement for the M1 carbine) and even less so with the M4.

Another reason for issuing rear echelon soldiers a PDW (again one we don't want to admit) is that the pistol had long been considered a status symbol, which would somehow be diminished by being widely issued to those second-class REMFs.

The common "modern" PDW (outside the US Army) generally has been a select-fire submachine gun - largely in recognition of the lack of marksmanship training among the soldiers who would be expected to use one.

The author suggests that the modern threat (especially in a rear area) is Islamic jihadis rather than Soviet paratroopers -- perhaps so, although I think we have to consider the Chinese PLA more than the Russians across the near future.

IF we expect or want soldiers in a combat zone to be armed at all times, then the logical weapon is something that fits in a wearable holster -- basically a pistol although some small select-fire PDWs could fit. Regardless of the weapon chosen, the ONE MAJOR CHANGE NEEDED to make this happen is T-R-A-I-N-I-N-G.

I won't turn this into a tirade about woke training mostly because the problem goes back much further than that, but I will flat state that the US Army has all but dropped small arms training for the CS and CSS troops who make up the majority of our soldiers.

If we consider armed personal defense an essential (or even desirable) soldier skill, then we need to find both time and money to support vastly more small arms training as well as a significant shift in thinking at all levels.

Hardware is the least of our problems for a PDW. The M17 & M18 are adequate (not ideal, but certainly adequate at least in the short term). While the author of the article disparages the terminal performance of the 5.7x28mm NATO round, his comments suggest that he is comparing it to modern police & civilian pistol ammo (9mm +P JHP rounds) rather than to military "ball" (FMJ) ammunition. Personally I think we need to relook both the 5.7x28mm NATO round as a potential military pistol round and the P90 as a potential squad PDW for CS & CSS units (and perhaps even Armor and Artillery).

Not chambering is like putting on your seatbelt at that moment to realize that a collision is going to happen. TOO LATE.
As for the military, yes, there are areas where not only are they not supposed to be chambered, but no magazine inserted. Even in Nam, the first of two times that I got to the DaNang PX, an MP stopped me because I had magazines in my M-16 and he wrote me up because my .45 was also cocked & locked and both chambered. The next time, I kept my .45 concealed.