after reading this same arguement for months, i've come to the conclusion that the folks who make the .22 comparisons over and over again are unwilling/unable to think for themselves. does an inch long tumbling, violently fragmenting, projectile sound like a .22?
is it better than 5.56? sure is. if my ar is sitting behind my bedroom door when i'm in my car with a 5.7 pistol.
it's apples/oranges. 5.7 is a subgun round. it can be carried in my waistband. my ar15 can't.
i haven't shot this weapon yet, but i'm pretty sure i could dump half a dozen rounds into a zombie pretty friggin fast. i can't believe the shootings only involved 1 shot. my 4th, 5th, and 6th rounds would have been downrange before the badguy knew anything hit him. but if i can use dirtbags mashall and sanow's terminology, they were 100% 1 shot stops.
science is great. the scientific method revolves around changing 1 variable at a time. ideally ammo testing would involve lining up groups of people in various sizes and states of armor/dress to determine results of shootings with different rounds. this is not feasable at this time (damn liberals). shooting blocks of jello is the accepted substitute for live human testing. are you made of jello? some "experts", you know, the guys who shoot jello, don't like it. the earth was round long before the scientific community said it was.
just because somethings unconventional doesn't make it magic. do you primitve screwheads really think the guys who protect the president would issue their guys junk? maybe they just like the fn logo?troy knows his shit, but his educated opinion, while usually on the mark, isn't always absolute fact; sometimes the facts haven't been established yet.
am i in line to buy one? no.
will i grab 1 in a couple of years if it seems to be working on badguys? sure, if i can get a carbine and pistol that work with the same mags.
will it replace the .40s i carry every day? probably not, but i refuse to rule it out because some guy shooting my dessert doesn't like it.