I havent shot mine for 7-8 months now, ammo price made the gun a closet queen.

PAEBR332,

I have been kind enough to continue with you this far, but I have already told you repeatedly that I do not intend to respond to your immature bashing. You can make your posts as big and red as you want (and litter them with "BS" smiley flags) but as with the "source name" and "shootings list", you have taken enough of my time.

You have not warranted any more of my time and you have not only been rude but have also made quite a fool of yourself. You also left my question unanswered as to how you justify your dislike of these weapons; you would like to pretend your trolling is saving lives, but I have pointed out repeatedly that it is not.

-DmL

Quoted: Quoted: This thread is stupid. <----unimpressed by the 5.7. <----mesmerized by the fact that there are people nuts enough to CCW one. +1.  I don't see all the fuss.  5.7=rich man's plinker.   I'm not gonna carry anything that I haven't put at least 500 rounds through.   Is it controversial?  Yep.   Is it proven?  That's the "controversial" part.   Last time I checked there was no controversy over a 230 Hyda-shock. Slug-0, Man did you open up a can o' shiz  If it floats yer boat (and you can afford/find the ammo), then have at it. Rich

I prefer Speer's (now discontinued) 200gr. Gold Dot myself.....

.....but otherwise,   +1

By the way......once apon a time, I too, studied bullet velosities, ft lbs of energy, etc......  But after years (and I do mean many years) of looking at the subject, I finally realised that the only two ways to incapacitate (kill) an attacker is either to damage/destroy the central nervous system or to bleed 'em out.  And quite frankly, a large diameter, heavy, deep penetrating projectile is gonna' have the best chance of either penetrating to the CNS and/or cutting/crushing/tearing it's way through the assailent, destroying as much tissue as possable.  "Temporary wound channels", while impressive in gelletain, don't typically damage much tissue.  Aside from a few exceptions (like the liver), most tissue is quite elastic, and will happily "snap back" into place as the "pressure wave" from the high velosity bullet passes.

But hey....carry whatever you have confidence in!    For me, it's a Colt Govt. Model in .45ACP.

Quoted: PAEBR332, I have been kind enough to continue with you this far, but I have already told you repeatedly that I do not intend to respond to your immature bashing. You can make your posts as big and red as you want (and litter them with "BS" smiley flags) but as with the "source name" and "shootings list", you have taken enough of my time. You have not warranted any more of my time and you have not only been rude but have also made quite a fool of yourself. You also left my question unanswered as to how you justify your dislike of these weapons; you would like to pretend your trolling is saving lives, but I have pointed out repeatedly that it is not. -DmL

I do not dislike the weapon. I dislike the exagerated claims about the instant lethality of the weapon. Anecdotal evidence gleaned from the internet is not nearly sufficient to prove the round is capable of very much. Scientific testing has shown it to be a marginal round for use against people. A handful of shootings are not enough to overcome the weigh of this evidence. The output of interest in your "study" is binomial. Your sample size is far too small and biased to allow us to draw any valid conclusion. If you understood statistics, you would just stop now.

My job involves teaching people how to collect  and analyze data in order to reach statistically valid conclusions. Despite what you may think, your tiny sample of shootings is meaningless. The shootings were gathered without a sampling plan. You have no idea of the actual population of shootings, and whether your sample is representative or biased. You have provided no data about what critical structures were hit, how many rounds struck the vicitm, how long to incapacitation, etc. Without access to the actual AARs, you could not possibly have enough information about any of these shootings.

The reason I am so hard on all the 5.7 hype is that it can get people killed. In all but ideal circumstances this round lacks sufficient penetration and crush cavity volume to stop an attacker. The wound it makes is nearly identical to that made by the .22 magnum. The added velocity of the 5.7 does NOTHING to cause a larger wound than that of the .22 magnum. Let me type that one more time: The added velocity of the 5.7 does NOTHING to cause a larger wound than that of the .22 magnum.

The sole interesting feature of the 5.7 is its' ability to penetrate soft armor. However, in order to get this, you give up so much. The overwhelming majority of people would be far better off carrying a 9mm or larger handgun and practicing the Mozambique drill to deal with the extremely rare case of a body armor-wearing attacker. In police and military CQB, the M4 or other similar short 5.56 weapons are so far superior in wounding capabilty it is not even comparable.

So please, stop trumpeting your tiny handful of shootings as though it means anything. I am sorry, but it does not.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So all those agencies have only managed to shoot about 10 people in over four years? Wow, it really does repel evil-doers through its mere presence in the area. You dodged my question. Are all of those agencies nuts? -DmL Not nuts, but possibly misinformed. Perhaps you could post a list of all the agencies worldwide that use the 9mm in some capacity? We could then compare the lists. It would prove nothing more about the 9mm than your silly list does about the 5.7. You also provided no data on how many weapons each agency acquired. If they bought one to test, and decided it was not what they needed, they could still be listed as "using" the weapons. So, yet again I will ask for your SOURCE of your information. Where did the list come from? Without a credible source, it is just so much internet . Are you noticing a trend? You post "information." I ask for your source, so that the information can be verified. You have yet to confirm a single source. And round and round it goes...

Yeah the US secret service is misinformed.  Everybody knows that

Are there any "torture" tests on the FN 5.7?  I would like to see how it holds up to 10,000+ rounds.  Of course, the price of ammo is outrageous.  I seriously considered getting one, due to the light recoil, extended range for a handgun, and ammo capacity.  Once I started pricing ammo, I realized that I wouldn't be able to practice with this weapon like I want to.

For the amount I was going to spend on the FN 5.7, I could get a Springfield XD 40cal, gear for the gun, and butt loads of ammo for it to practice headshots with.  This is the route I'm gonna take I think and give up on the FN 5.7.

Quoted: I do not dislike the weapon. I dislike the exagerated claims about the instant lethality of the weapon.

"Neat gun, but all but useless" -PAEBR, Page 1. Yes you do indeed dislike the weapon very much. "Disliking the exaggerated claims" is just a result of disliking the weapon itself and its ammunition.

Anecdotal evidence gleaned from the internet is not nearly sufficient to prove the round is capable of very much.

Actually, your evidence against the round was also gleaned from the internet. Remember your article on page 1? Sure, you hinted at articles elsewhere, but your actually evidence came from the internet. My evidence is not anecdotal and if you would like to raise your "BS" flags on FN as well as those police departments, feel free.

Scientific testing has shown it to be a marginal round for use against people.

In the opinions of ballisticians, the round has been shown to be marginal against gelatin. Very big difference from what you said. Gelatin testing can only go so far and you need to realize that Dr Roberts is just another man despite whatever credentials, and he is not infallible. He also never explained why 12.25 inches penetration isn't a sufficient penetration average. This is the P-90's penetration as seen here.

A handful of shootings are not enough to overcome the weigh of this evidence.

There have been over a dozen shootings and that is not a handful, nor is it too little to overcome the weight of lab testing.

You have no idea of the actual population of shootings, and whether your sample is representative or biased. You have provided no data about what critical structures were hit, how many rounds struck the vicitm, how long to incapacitation, etc.

You're making guesses. I do know the actual population of shootings. And I do have the above info on some of them.

The reason I am so hard on all the 5.7 hype is that it can get people killed.

I already addressed this, don't bring it up again.

In all but ideal circumstances this round lacks sufficient penetration and crush cavity volume to stop an attacker.

Prove it to me by digging up acounts where this was seen. Prove to me that 12+ inches penetration is insufficient.

The wound it makes is nearly identical to that made by the .22 magnum.

Penetration may be similar, (or may not be, I'm not looking it up) but you have yet to tell me why the 12+ inches of the 5.7 is insufficient. Regardless, the 5.7 gets this penetration WITH tumbling. If the 5.7 didn't tumble, penetration would be extremely high and it would simply poke through like the .22 WMR. The 5.7 projectile .85 inches in length and the wound is also this tall/high when the round is tumbling. No it is not a .22 WMR.

However, in order to get this, you give up so much.

What have the agencies given up? Will it take another 5-10 years of everyday use before they realize that their weapon is marketing hype?

The overwhelming majority of people would be far better off carrying a 9mm or larger handgun and practicing the Mozambique drill to deal with the extremely rare case of a body armor-wearing attacker.

The Mozambique drill didn't work very well in the LA bank shootout nor did it work in the Texas shootout. People generally want something that works when their life is at stake. Sure armored opponents are rare for civilians, but so are the "less-than-optimal" target angles that you use against the 5.7 with its 12+ inches pntrn.

In police and military CQB, the M4 or other similar short 5.56 weapons are so far superior in wounding capabilty it is not even comparable.

And as you said on page 1, this is due to the higher bullet weight/velocity. And do not try to work your way out of it, because that is exactly what you said.

Thank you for a real post, though.

-DmL

PAEBR,

As you can see, this discussion isn't going to end any time soon. We've both decided to hold to our views. I will let you have the last word, because that seems to be the only way this will ever end. Your next post won't receive a reply, but don't take it as meaning I do not have one. I didn't intend to get into another one of these from the beginning. Maybe someone will be helped by our discussion.

-DmL

Quoted: PAEBR, As you can see, this discussion isn't going to end any time soon. We've both decided to hold to our views. I will let you have the last word, because that seems to be the only way this will ever end. Your next post won't receive a reply, but don't take it as meaning I do not have one. I didn't intend to get into another one of these from the beginning. Maybe someone will be helped by our discussion. -DmL

This is the third time you have promised to not reply.

With every post you disply your lack of understanding of how bullets work in human tissue and tissue simulants.

The 5.56 round performs much better not because it shoots a heavier bullet faster, but because with the proper ammunition it will both penetrate deeper, and fragment, creating a vastly larger crush cavity than that of any 5.7 round. The heavier mass (with its' higher sectional density) aids in deeper penetration, while the higher velocity causes the round to fragement. Fragmentation is the main wounding mechanism of the 5.56 round.

With poor ammo or insufficient velocity, the 5.56 round will leave a wound just a bit larger that that of the 5.7. Complaints of failures to stop using M855 from short barreled M4s are an example. An M855 round which fails to fragment will leave a wound in an enemy similar, though slighty larger over the area of bullet yaw, and deeper, than that made by 5.7 rounds. So why are there complaints about M855 failing to stop tangos? How would the smaller wound profile from the 5.7 have been so much better (remember, it is always and in every case 100% fatal with any COM hit according to you) than that of unfragmented M855? The military's solution to this problem, after extensive testing, is to go to even heavier bullets in 5.56, or heavier still in 6.8 SPC. According to your "study" they should be using the lighter, non-fragmenting, bullet from the 5.7 round and downloading it to 5.7 velocities. This will give them 100% guaranteed dead tangos with every shot, if your information is valid.

Fortunately for the user of 5.56 weapons, excellent ammo that fragments consistently and penetrates deeply is available. The same cannot be said of the 5.7. That is not even factoring in the huge difference in price, which will limit the amount of training users of the 5.7 can afford to do. Nf9648 has found this out, as you can see from his post.

The article by Sandy Wall in which he claims to have gotten sufficient penetration is lacking from a scientific perspective. His picture has the wound track so heavily dyed that you cannot even see the size of  the permanent crush cavity, but only the temporary stretch cavity. Wall does not state how the gel was prepared and stored, at what temperature it was when shot, and the penetration depth of the calibration BB. Without that information, his test results are meaningless. His penetration figures for M855 of 17-22 inches are WAY higher than that seen in properly calibrated 10% gelatin. The average for M855 is about 13.5 with 50% fragmentation. If we correct for the poor calibration of the gelatin, the 5.7 rounds in Wall's study would only penetrate about 9.7 inches in properly calibrated gelatin. Interestingly this is right around what tests done in properly calibrated gelatin get.

"Over a dozen," which I have to assume means less than two dozen since you won't just give us a simple number, is still an extremely small sample size for a binomial output study. Claiming otherwise just demonstrates your lack of understanding of statistics. And you have not even BEGUN to address the issue of sample bias that I raised earlier.  

Finally, the Mozambique drill was NOT used in either the North Hollywod robbery or the Tyler courthouse shooting.

The Mozambique drill didn't work very well in the LA bank shootout nor did it work in the Texas shootout.

It probably would have worked well, had it been done.

"Neat gun, but all but useless" -PAEBR, Page 1. Yes you do indeed dislike the weapon very much.

 

Just because something is thought of as useless, doesn't mean one doesn't like it.  Deeming whether something is functional or not has nothing to do with whether it is "liked" or not.  


R

This is the third time you have promised to not reply.

It isn't my fault; you keep drawing me back in. I will try to make this reply very brief so we can get the discussion over with. It won't help if you make yours extra long either..

The 5.56 round performs much better not because it shoots a heavier bullet faster

Exactly, and you said the opposite. In your first post you made a point about the 5.56 being heavier and faster than the 5.7. When I mentioned higher bullet weights/velocities later, you said that bullet weights/velocities are "MEANINGLESS". It's a case of switching views to favor your argument.

An M855 round which fails to fragment will leave a wound in an enemy similar, though slighty larger over the area of bullet yaw, and deeper, than that made by 5.7 rounds.

No it will not. The 5.7 has a longer projectile length than the 5.56, resulting in more tissue crushed in the permanent cavity. As for deeper penetration, the 5.56 will not penetrate any deeper in a 9.4-inch human torso than the 5.7 will with its 12+ inches penetration.

That is not even factoring in the huge difference in price, which will limit the amount of training users of the 5.7 can afford to do.

Read the topic creator's first post. It is a very easy weapon to shoot accurately without practice.

If we correct for the poor calibration of the gelatin, the 5.7 rounds in Wall's study would only penetrate about 9.7 inches in properly calibrated gelatin. Interestingly this is right around what tests done in properly calibrated gelatin get.

Completely false. The SS192 (28 grains @ 2100 fps) gets 8 to 10 inches penetration in bare gelatin according to David Difabio of AmmoLab. Do you really think the 31 grain SS190 @ 2350 fps (P90) will get this same penetration average? As you can see, S. Wall's penetration numbers for the P90 were not off. Especially when we realize that similar penetration numbers were published in an article by Charles E. Petty. I will post it if you like. Here is a quote from it:

The first round fired into bare gelatin from the P-90 penetrated the entire 12" block, bounced off a piece of plywood behind the gelatin and was recovered on the ground a few feet in front of the target.

So you still have to explain why 12.25 inches average penetration is insufficient according to Dr Roberts.

Finally, the Mozambique drill was NOT used in either the North Hollywod robbery or the Tyler courthouse shooting.

My point exactly. Those maneuvers seem to be adequate, but you never hear of them actually working when the time comes. The Tyler subject was hit twice by the CCW holder in the chest. He turned and shot him. The LA subjects were hit many, many times with 9mm rounds. If those had been 5.7 rounds the shootout wouldn't have lasted 44 minutes.

The best way to sum up the 5.7 argument is not to present one view or the other, but to say that it is a very controversial subject and leave it at that.

-DmL

No ballistic gellatin, no velocity charts, just observed a fellow shooter firing at a knockdown que target calibrated for 9mm. Five shots later, target still there with the 5.7, I drew and put it down for him with a .40 sw.

Quoted: No ballistic gellatin, no velocity charts, just observed a fellow shooter firing at a knockdown que target calibrated for 9mm. Five shots later, target still there with the 5.7, I drew and put it down for him with a .40 sw.

I've heard of this happening to a PD before. It's because the 5.7 simply passes through. Regardless, the "knockdown power" of bullets doesn't wound.

-DmL

Quoted: This is the third time you have promised to not reply. It isn't my fault; you keep drawing me back in. I will try to make this reply very brief so we can get the discussion over with. It won't help if you make yours extra long either.. The 5.56 round performs much better not because it shoots a heavier bullet faster Exactly, and you said the opposite. In your first post you made a point about the 5.56 being heavier and faster than the 5.7. When I mentioned higher bullet weights/velocities later, you said that bullet weights/velocities are "MEANINGLESS". It's a case of switching views to favor your argument. When did I switch arguments? I was commenting about the stupid argument that a light projectile traveling fast is the answer. If light and fast is good, then heavier and even faster should be better. Of course, people who have studied the topic know it is neither the weight nor the velocity. It is the BULLET PERFORMANCE!!! 5.7 does not penetrate as deeply, or fragment. It leaves a far SMALLER wound. An M855 round which fails to fragment will leave a wound in an enemy similar, though slighty larger over the area of bullet yaw, and deeper, than that made by 5.7 rounds. No it will not. The 5.7 has a longer projectile length than the 5.56, resulting in more tissue crushed in the permanent cavity. As for deeper penetration, the 5.56 will not penetrate any deeper in a 9.4-inch human torso than the 5.7 will with its 12+ inches penetration. While the AVERAGE male torso is only about 9" thick, some are a good bit thicker. And sometimes you have to shoot though an arm, etc. in order to reach the torso. Then there are those bladed shots... That is not even factoring in the huge difference in price, which will limit the amount of training users of the 5.7 can afford to do. Read the topic creator's first post. It is a very easy weapon to shoot accurately without practice. I hope you are not recommending that people carry this since they can practice LESS and still be prepared if they need to use it. Maybe the military should just switch to .22 long rifle guns and cut out all that needles practice. If we correct for the poor calibration of the gelatin, the 5.7 rounds in Wall's study would only penetrate about 9.7 inches in properly calibrated gelatin. Interestingly this is right around what tests done in properly calibrated gelatin get. Completely false. The SS192 (28 grains @ 2100 fps) gets 8 to 10 inches penetration in bare gelatin according to David Difabio of AmmoLab. Do you really think the 31 grain SS190 @ 2350 fps (P90) will get this same penetration average? The only way to know for sure is to TEST IT. One cannot predict penetration from velocity and weight figures. Only testing can give this information. As you can see, S. Wall's penetration numbers for the P90 were not off. Especially when we realize that similar penetration numbers were published in an article by Charles E. Petty. I will post it if you like. Here is a quote from it: The first round fired into bare gelatin from the P-90 penetrated the entire 12" block, bounced off a piece of plywood behind the gelatin and was recovered on the ground a few feet in front of the target. Once again: How was the gel prepared, stored, and what was the BB calibration depth? Without that info, Petty's numbers are, like Wall's worthless. So you still have to explain why 12.25 inches average penetration is insufficient according to Dr Roberts. Finally, the Mozambique drill was NOT used in either the North Hollywod robbery or the Tyler courthouse shooting. My point exactly. Those maneuvers seem to be adequate, but you never hear of them actually working when the time comes. The Tyler subject was hit twice by the CCW holder in the chest. He turned and shot him. The LA subjects were hit many, many times with 9mm rounds. If those had been 5.7 rounds the shootout wouldn't have lasted 44 minutes. The North Hollywood guys were wearing a bit more than Level IIIa armor. In Tyler, there is likewise nothing to prove that the attacker would not have turned and killed his attacker. Even someone whose heart is destroyed can function for several seconds. Since two 5.7 rounds to the chest probably would not have INSTANTLY stopped the shooter in Tyler, our theoretical 5.7 shooter would still have had to go to the Mozambique drill to assure an instant stop. But you have already told us how there would be no need for our 5.7-armed hero to practice much, since it's so easy to shoot and all... The best way to sum up the 5.7 argument is not to present one view or the other, but to say that it is a very controversial subject and leave it at that. -DmL

Yet again your lack of understanding of wound ballistics is manifest. Not to mention ignoring all my statistical issues with your 'study'.

I await your next reply. In case you did not notice, I enjoy this immensely.

When did I switch arguments?

Read my post. You said the heaver, faster ballistics of the 5.56 gave it an advantage over the 5.7 and then later said that bullet weights/velocities are meaningless.

I hope you are not recommending that people carry this since they can practice LESS and still be prepared if they need to use it.

I'm not recommending anything. I'm just saying that from any account I have ever heard, the weapon is very easy to accurately fire with little practice. That should make up, at least in part, for the ammo cost. Regardless, I already posted that Fiocchi will be taking up production in the US for FN.

The only way to know for sure is to TEST IT. One cannot predict penetration from velocity and weight figures. Only testing can give this information.

The SS190 and SS192 are identical in projectile design. Sure the SS192 has a hollow tip, but both of them tumble exactly the same, neither expand. The only difference is the bullet weight and velocity with the latter. Are you saying that reducing bullet weight and velocity will increase penetration? In that case an optimal projectile would weigh 1 grain and travel at 1 fps. Admit it, you were wrong about the penetration depth and you were therefore wrong about the necessity of all the little gelatin rules that Sandy Wall of HPD and Charles Petty of AH aren't aware of. So that leaves my question unanswered: "Why is a 12.25 inches average insufficient?"

In case you did not notice, I enjoy this immensely.

Oh indeed. That is why you find it necessary to riddle your posts with CAPS letters, strings of exclamation marks, and smiley icons. You are obviously very frustrated and to say that you "enjoy this" is a shameless lie. But no, I did not notice, thanks for pointing that out.

-DmL

5.7 round = armor penetrating, 20 rounds for follow-up and light recoil.
.40, .45 = big slow (pistol) round at short range. Half the ammo. Big recoil (mostly).

There's your differences. In a sitaution where I'd need to shoot someone, it's as many rounds out as the gun holds. I don't think anyone is going to survive either ammo.

Now, we go onto which is more fun for plinking. Rifle class velocities and light recoil = "teh winnar!" for the Five-seveN.

The 5.7 round was designed as an armor penetrating, light recoil, SMG round to replace the 9mm that's been used forever. It succeeded.

It may or may not be a super round. But for P90s, with 50 rounds of ammo that you can keep on target, they win. That's where the 5.7 owns all other rounds (typically). Not to mention that it takes your average SMG and extends the range out close to 100m for lethality.

As a pistol round, not for me. I imagine the only time I'd need my CCW would be to shoot some deranged armed ass charging me. Note, unarmored. I'd probably only get 3-4 shots off (or less) before he/she closed to arms length. In that case, I want maximum stopping power. And, since I can't shoot pistols for crap, especially .45s loaded hot, I chose the .40 S&W.

Have fun. Enjoy the argument.

I will type this VERY slowly so you are sure to understand. We will call it Wound Ballistics 101.

There are three critical factors that determine how well a bullet will do at stopping an attack.

Bullets stop attackers by doing sufficient damage to critical body structures so that the attack cannot continue. This is done by either hitting the CNS, or destroying enough vital organs so that the attacker suffers rapid hypoxia. The shot is irrelevant unless vital structure is struck and destoyed. This is true for EVERY caliber. That is the first critical factor.

Now, in order to ensure that vital tissue is destroyed, the bullet needs to penetrate deeply enough to reach the vitals in less-than-ideal circumstances. This is where the 12" minimum penetration comes from. This is the second critical factor.

However, penetration by itself is not the only goal. If it were, everyone would shoot FMJs in every caliber. The final critical factor is that the bullet disrupts (permanently destroys) the maximum possible volume of tissue. To do this, the bullet must either deform in such a way as to increase its frontal area, or fragment. Most hollow points deform to increase frontal area (mushrooming). The better 5.56 rounds fragment and create large permanent tissue crush cavities. The 5.7 rounds neither mushroom nor fragment, so they leave a very small permanent crush cavity were tissue is destoyed.

The .224 diameter projectile of the 5.7 will leave a hole about .155" in diameter. This is because tissue is elastic and a pointed projectile leaves a wound about 69% of its diameter. So a 12" deep wound from the non fragmenting 5.7 round will crush less than 1/4 cubic inch (.226 cubic inches to  be more precise) of tissue volume. It will actually be a bit more, since the cavity will grow to nearly the length of the round during the yaw of the bullet. For purposes of this discussion, this added yaw cavity is not terribly important.

A good 9mm JHP will expands to over .5 inches. For argument, we will go with the low .5 inch figure Since it too will only destoy tissue to about 70% of its diameter, it will make a wound track some .35" in diameter. Penetrating to the same 12 inch depth, the 9mm round will crush about 1.15 cubic inches of tissue, which is over 5 times more tissue destroyed than from the 5.7 round. I know, the JHP will take a bit to reach its full diameter, and the 5.7 round will create a bit more volume during the bullet yaw. So, lets call it 4 times the damage from the 9mm round. Larger handgun rounds create even larger crush volumes. And fragmenting 5.56 rounds destroy an even greater volume of tissue.

The fundamental problem with the 5.7 is that it fails to meet criteria number two in many circumstances, and number 3 in all circumstances. There are far better rounds available if your goal is to stop an attack. This is not to say that the 5.7 round will never work. It certainly will. More people are killed each year by .22lr than by any other round. What it does demonstrate is that under less than ideal circumstances, the 5.7 is much more likely to fail. This will be due to either failing to penetrate deeply enough to reach the vitals, or because the small volume wound it created caused slow incapacitation rather than rapid incapacitation. Remember the goal is to stop the attack as quickly as possible. Having the attacker die hours later in the ER does not help you if he was able to complete his attack on you.

In order to better understand what happens when bullets stike tissue or tissue stimulants, I recommend everyone read Duncan MacPherson's book Bullet Penetration: Modeling the Dynamics and the Incapacitation Resulting from Wound Trauma. Unfortunately the book is out of print so you will probably have to get a copy through interlibrary loan.

There is always going to be one's that "hate" the 5.7 Ammo, and those who will appreciate it.   I would be the one who would like to have access to every type of ammo and choose to carry and shoot whichever I prefer, and when a situation arises, I need to protect myself, I hope I will be the one that gets one off from the muzzle first, and hopes all the time I got or put into training put's me at advantage.

I purely love the 5.7 due to it's high capacity, low recoil and fast followups.  Hopefully I only need to shoot one or two to finish the job.  If I shoot several and not complete the job, I should be running away .. or begging for painless end.

I don't know about incapacitating people, but the 5-7 handgun is a lot of fun to shoot.  That's all that matters to me.  I feel confident that it has enough stopping power to CCW, but I don't carry mine because I would hate to waste a $1 bullet on a criminal who probably doesn't have body armor.  It's a shame that the ammo situation is so bad.

Hang in there lu380 the ammo situation will improve.  The cost of SS196 is now about what the SS192 used to be (in my area anyway) about $17.00 per box.  As soon as the other US Ammo manufacturers (two scheduled to start production soon) are in production full swing you should be able to keep your hungry 5.7 fed on a regular basis without breaking the bank.

MadDog

Quoted: I will type this VERY slowly so you are sure to understand. We will call it Wound Ballistics 101. There are three critical factors that determine how well a bullet will do at stopping an attack. Bullets stop attackers by doing sufficient damage to critical body structures so that the attack cannot continue. This is done by either hitting the CNS, or destroying enough vital organs so that the attacker suffers rapid hypoxia. The shot is irrelevant unless vital structure is struck and destoyed. This is true for EVERY caliber. That is the first critical factor. Now, in order to ensure that vital tissue is destroyed, the bullet needs to penetrate deeply enough to reach the vitals in less-than-ideal circumstances. This is where the 12" minimum penetration comes from. This is the second critical factor. However, penetration by itself is not the only goal. If it were, everyone would shoot FMJs in every caliber. The final critical factor is that the bullet disrupts (permanently destroys) the maximum possible volume of tissue. To do this, the bullet must either deform in such a way as to increase its frontal area, or fragment. Most hollow points deform to increase frontal area (mushrooming). The better 5.56 rounds fragment and create large permanent tissue crush cavities. The 5.7 rounds neither  nor fragment, so they leave a very small permanent crush cavity were tissue is destoyed. The .224 diameter projectile of the 5.7 will leave a hole about .155" in diameter. This is because tissue is elastic and a pointed projectile leaves a wound about 69% of its diameter. So a 12" deep wound from the non fragmenting 5.7 round will crush less than 1 square inch (.905 square inches to  be more precise) of tissue volume. It will actually be a bit more, since the cavity will grow to nearly the length of the round during the yaw of the bullet. For purposes of this discussion, this added yaw cavity is not terribly important. A good 9mm JHP will expands to over .5 inches. For argument, we will go with the low .5 inch figure Since it too will only destoy tissue to about 70% of its diameter, it will make a wound track some .35" in diameter. Penetrating to the same 12 inch depth, the 9mm round will crush about 4.62 square inches of tissue, which is over 5 times more tissue destroyed than from the 5.7 round. I know, the JHP will take a bit to reach its full diameter, and the 5.7 round will create a bit more volume during the bullet yaw. So, lets call it 4 times the damage from the 9mm round. Larger handgun rounds create even larger crush volumes. And fragmenting 5.56 rounds destroy an even greater volume of tissue. The fundamental problem with the 5.7 is that it fails to meet criteria number two in many circumstances, and number 3 in all circumstances. There are far better rounds available if your goal is to stop an attack. This is not to say that the 5.7 round will never work. It certainly will. More people are killed each year by .22lr than by any other round. What it does demonstrate is that under less than ideal circumstances, the 5.7 is much more likely to fail. This will be due to either failing to penetrate deeply enough to reach the vitals, or because the small volume wound it created caused slow incapacitation rather than rapid incapacitation. Remember the goal is to stop the attack as quickly as possible. Having the attacker die hours later in the ER does not help you if he was able to complete his attack on you. In order to better understand what happens when bullets stike tissue or tissue stimulants, I recommend everyone read Duncan MacPherson's book Bullet Penetration: ing the Dynamics and the Incapacitation Resulting from Wound Trauma. Unfortunately the book is out of print so you will probably have to get a copy through interlibrary loan.

I'm not even going to address your homemade wound ballistics comparison, so I guess this is where our debate ends.

-DmL

Quoted: I'm not even going to address your homemade wound ballistics comparison, so I guess this is where our debate ends. -DmL

Translation: Your mathematics hurt my brain.

Quoted: Quoted: I'm not even going to address your homemade wound ballistics comparison, so I guess this is where our debate ends. -DmL Translation: Your mathematics hurt my brain.

The mathematics weren't what hurt my brain.

-DmL

.22's and pellet guns are capable of being lethal, too.  Given that, I wouldn't think the 5.7 to be any more/less inherently lethal than anything else.  It was designed as a small-caliber pistol round with the ability to defeat armor.  That's what it's made for and it does just that.  Being perfectly honest, can anybody actually name any round that has had "100% one-shot stops" (without quoting M&S) ?  I doubt it because such a round does not exist (aside from artillery, assuming it hits the target and isn't a dud).  It should be common knowledge by now that 9mm, .40 and .45 perform the same in gelatin.  Given the ballistics, I would assume that 5.7 would perform much like .22 Hornet with a non-expanding bullet.  Feel free to correct me if you feel I am in error with anything I have said.  

Quoted: It was designed as a small-caliber pistol round with the ability to defeat armor.  That's what it's made for and it does just that.

That isn't what it was made for. The 5.7 (like similar projects) was intended to be capable of penetrating soft armor and delivering a lethal wound. No firearm was designed to simply penetrate soft armor. What would be the benefit?

-DmL

Quoted: Quoted: It was designed as a small-caliber pistol round with the ability to defeat armor.  That's what it's made for and it does just that. That isn't what it was made for. The 5.7 (like similar projects) was intended to be capable of penetrating soft armor and delivering a lethal wound. No firearm was designed to simply penetrate soft armor. What would be the benefit? -DmL

I understand your point, but I am operating on the reasoning that all handgun calibers are really inadequate to the task to begin with, most will not penetrate soft armor. 5.7x28 will.  But who's to say it's necessarily going to be any more lethal than any other caliber ?  Esp given that if an AP round is used, there will be no expansion and I have to wonder about what kind of tissue penetration and secondary effects the round will have after going through armor.  I think there's some more research that needs to be done on this round to determine the actual capabilities.  

Not to get in the middle of this pissing contest... but I bought my FiveseveN because some leftwing, liberal extremist pole smoker was trying to ban them.  Funny, I bought quite a few of my guns for that reason.  Anyhow, I've only shot 50 rounds out of it because of the ammo cost.  I did really like the way it shot.  Hardly any more recoil than a .22.  I wish that I could shoot it more but until someone starts making some affordable ammo, it's going to stay in its case.  I would never use it as a CCW because of its size, but then again, I've never carried my 1911 for the same reason and I know half of the guys on this forum sleep with their 1911a.  Just my 2 cents and yes, only my 5th post.

DmL5, you are clearly a fan of the pistol and the cartridge. Sure won't pick on you for being dedicated to something you find useful.

I have been a rabid Makarov fan for years. Never understood how folks could think it was underpowered or "crude"; own four of them and a bushelful of 9x18. So I'm as nutty for mine as you are yours. Enjoy your addiction!

I'm a skeptic about the 5.7 cartridge, too, but DmL has some things straight: Many agencies have bought into the P90/FiveseveN system. It's been bloodied, and it has done OK in every published case. They are undeniably easy weapons to shoot. With low recoil and lots of capacity, you can see why they seem attractive for the "PDW" role (whatever that is).

This little bitty bullet thing has plenty of steam. The Russians made the little 5.56x18 easy to shoot and capable of poking thru early soft body armor. The Chinese have made their new pistol in both 9x19 and 5.8x21, which looks a whole lot like the FN.

I do have some trouble with the idea that nothing but yaw (no frag) makes a useful small-caliber cartridge. None of the 5.56 NATO rounds is very reliable when it doesn't fragment. I read a Fackler paper that said the Russian 5.45 steel-core rounds were also not so good with non-fragmenting bullets.

Not saying the system doesn't work in highly trained hands. The guys who use these pieces for AT stuff and the like are cool, well-trained types. Their skills are of such a level that they place rounds very well under pressure. The circumstances of their shootings will tend to be with the bad guys facing head-on. All those things help to account for a good performance record, though they don't guarantee it.

Another view: think of the guys in Afghanistan using the SPR and the Mk262 round. They're getting kills WAY past the 200-odd yards that this round reliably fragments. IMHO, it's not because the 77 gr bullet is super-deadly with a little yaw out at a quarter mile. It's because these guys are really good shots, and they're firing the round out of a very accurate 10lb rifle with essentially no recoil. They just get excellent hits. Same for the 5.7 up to now, I think.

As for supressed use, really you'd think a 9mm would be better just because you could shoot 147gr Gold Dot and still be subsonic, vs the much lighter 5.7 pill. Can't see the comparison holding up at all.

In the meantime, except for the Houston pathologist story that's hard to corroborate either way by any of us, DmL5 has rolled out a lot of information that is true. Have to say I'm not with him on the ballistics part. The McPherson book pointed out earlier is a good primer for any of us interested in this gruesome topic, if you can find it . It's out of print now, I think.

Anyhow, shoot 'em if ya got 'em. And if anyone's up for a ripping flaming thread on the virtues of the Mak, I'm game!

Quoted: Not saying the system doesn't work in highly trained hands. The guys who use these pieces for AT stuff and the like are cool, well-trained types. Their skills are of such a level that they place rounds very well under pressure. The circumstances of their shootings will tend to be with the bad guys facing head-on. All those things help to account for a good performance record, though they don't guarantee it.

The original statement by Dr Roberts was that "use of the 5.7 x 28 mm is a good way to ensure mission failure." This statement is clearly aimed at SF/CT "missions", and he makes it regardless of the shot placement you mention.

You are right that I am quite a fan of the weapon. I don't believe the lethality of it to be anything out of this world. It is the ammo/weapon combo that I find amazing.

-DmL

First off I'm sorry I wasted my time reading this crap!  And second, I appologize to everyone for DML5 everyone in Missouri is not like that

I have also shot the 5.7 and it was quick and light, but i'll still take my .45 or .40 when it comes to ccw

tag

Quoted: First off I'm sorry I wasted my time reading this crap!  And second, I appologize to everyone for DML5 everyone in Missouri is not like that I have also shot the 5.7 and it was quick and light, but i'll still take my .45 or .40 when it comes to ccw

If you dont agree with what the DmL5 posts thats one thing but the call him a is uncalled for.
No one forced you to read his posts.
I would like see some of the credentials of all the "ballistic experts" we have on board. Probably think having a book on the back of the shitter qualifies them. It's real easy to call BS on the Secret Service from behind a keyboard.

I have only had the opportunity to shoot through a mag worth of ammo with a 5.7.....and I had a big shit eatin' grin for every shot

Excellent weapon...very east to shoot....damn accurate round.

Holy shit.  I can't believe I tagged this thinking it would be a good read.  What a waste of time.

Hmmm, 4 pages; only a dozen real posts, and a bunch of bickering between the ladies.

I'm going to have to rent one and shoot it, if for no other reason than to shoot it

Felt recoil is less then a 9mm? How much less do you think? Are we talking like .38spl, .32mag, .22mag...etc

Quoted: Holy shit.  I can't believe I tagged this thinking it would be a good read.  What a waste of time.

Haha, you shouldve read our first 5.7 thread , it went over 10 pages and was nothing but a pissing contest that got one LEO member banned from ARFCOM.

Dudes,

whats the big deal about this gun?

I own one, its fun as hell to shoot, and I certainly would not want to be shot by one.

It is an anti-personnel weapon, made to maim or kill people, that is what it was designed for.

Quoted: Felt recoil is less then a 9mm? How much less do you think? Are we talking like .38spl, .32mag, .22mag...etc

Perhaps a tad less than .22 mag.

I'm suprised no one has mentioned this. But I have one and love shooting steel plates at 200 yards with it. it has a very flat flight out of that little pistol. and very easy to shoot standing out to 200 yards. wish they made a scope mount, would like to try it out to 300+

boy what a mess...

I have one, it's a load of fun, i bought plenty of ammo before it  jumped up, gonna sell some to finance the civi P90 when it becomes available.  i bought it because it is fun to shoot and a bit different.  will it replace my carry 1911 or home defense shotgun or ar---not yet, but that was never its purpose

have fun

It's funny how people talk about the 5.7 as if they have to give up all their other handguns and it will never excell at every purpose (read: CCW, target use, competition use, varmint hunting, etc).  I have a 5.7 and love shooting it, but it is just another addition to my collection.  It certainly doesn't cover all the bases, but then again neither does any of my four 1911's, two .357's, one 9mm, two single actions, one snubby 38 special, one 44 special, and two 44 mags.

MadDog

Hmmm... interesting read (I kinda enjoy contraversy)
I have a Five-seveN, and consider it a great system.
Have over 500 rnds (ss192 & 196) through it, and over 500 rnds (ss192) stocked. (got a great price on the ammo considering it's nearing $100/50 online.)
Would I bet my life on this system?  Yes.
Will this be the only system that I bet my life on?  probably not.
The light weight and ergonomics of carrying/shooting this weapon make it a fine fit to me.