Which is more lethal...5.7 FN or .30 carbine? - Page 2

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Which is more lethal...5.7 FN or .30 carbine? (Page 2 of 3)

Posted: 11/2/2005 7:12:12 AM EDT

[#1]

Things moving that fast tent to fragment when they tumble. The reason it penetrates armor is just like the reason ss109 penetrates armor. There is a steel penetrator in the tip that causes the rest of the bullet to go through. However, when the bullet hits tissue it becomes unstable and tumbles. The tumbleing can cause fragmenting.

Posted: 11/2/2005 11:15:18 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

As for the .22 Mag. statements, they are false. The 5.7 is more effective, due to its longer length and tumbling.

Except that in scientific testing in properly calibrated ordinance gelatin, the 5.7 and .22 mag make nearly identical wounds.

Posted: 11/2/2005 12:42:16 PM EDT

[#3]

A .22 WMR will give a virtually straight-through wound channel. The 5.7x28 however is this .850"-long projectile:

Very consistently exhibiting this sort of behavior:

Despite this NOT being a straight through wound channel, penetration still remains perfectly sufficient, being an average of 12.25 inches in bare gelatin. (penetration in the above picture is roughly 10 inches due to it being a 20% gelatin mix) The 5.7x28 is not a .22 Magnum, just get that comparison out of your head.

-DmL

Posted: 11/2/2005 7:31:30 PM EDT

[#4]

DmL5,

If you understood wound ballistics, you would laugh at the picture you posted. The gel block contains no calibration bb. You cannot extrapolate from 20% gelatin to 10% gelatin.

SS190 produces virtually identical crush cavity volume and penetration as does a .22 magnum round. But you don't have to take my word for it. The world's top two terminal ballistics experts, Dr. Fackler and Dr. Roberts, have done numerous tests that show this. I know that you are aware of this, as you got slapped down hard over on Tactical Forums when you tried to argue this point.

Up next from DmL5: His "everyone ever shot with the 5.7 has died."

Posted: 11/2/2005 8:29:50 PM EDT

[#5]

Yes yes that's all very interesting, but how does it compare to the .30 cal carbine round when it comes to terminal efects?

Posted: 11/2/2005 9:34:44 PM EDT

[#6]

You know it's what you really want . . .

Posted: 11/3/2005 4:34:04 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Yes yes that's all very interesting, but how does it compare to the .30 cal carbine round when it comes to terminal efects?

Dr. Gary K. Roberts on the .30 Carbine:

The best ammunition choice for the M1 Carbine is the Remington 110 gr JSP (R30CAR)—at an average velocity of 1864 f/s, it expands to .54” to .58” and penetrates 13” to 16” whether in bare gelatin, through automobile windshields, or Level IIIa body armor. This is as good as the best .223’s.

And what he says about the 5.7:

The current 31 gr SS-190 FMJ bullet has nearly adequate penetration, but the wound resulting from this projectile has a relatively small permanent crush cavity, as well as an insignificant temporary stretch cavity. Although the 5.7 x 28 mm penetrates soft body armor, wounding potential is at best like a .22 LR or .22 Magnum.

Both penetrate soft armor, but the .30 carbine (with proper ammo) offers far better terminal ballistics.

Posted: 11/3/2005 7:38:48 AM EDT

[#8]

PAEBR -

Funny how you state that that gel picture was uncalibrated, because when this discussion came up awhile ago you claimed the opposite. Make up your mind please.

As for the penetration, Sandy Wall of Houston PD is the one that I got the avg. penetration depth from. Please provide an actual figure from Dr Roberts or anyone, that proves otherwise.

You aren't being very articulate. You claim that the round is a .22 magnum, I claim it is not. However, I'm the only one to show any evidence proving my point. Did you look at the picture of the bullet length? You're claiming that a .22 WMR out of a 10" barrel will get an average of 12.25 inches penetration despite creating that sort of wound channel. Please give me actual proof. Doc Roberts never gives any figures to show the penetration depth or wound channel to be lacking, let alone a picture of the round in gelatin. He's basically asking us to take his word that the penetration is insufficient. Something we cannot do when we know from other sources that the actual figure is 12.25 inches. In fact, you yourself even acknowledged that that was the correct depth last time this came up.

And it's not very significant that I was "slapped down" at Tactical Forums because that is the home of Dr Roberts and they are out to protect their own reputation. Don't you think they would "slap me down" if my comments went against their reputation? That thread contained many false claims and you are perfectly aware of it. They claimed things such as "Sandy Wall of HPD works for FN" and "the US Secret Service only use the P90 for specific missions". Awhile later and even you acknowledge those claims are false. But it's too late, the discussion on that site is over and locked for good. Maybe that's why I was "slapped down".

As you continue to bring up my "being slapped down" at TF, I begin to wonder if maybe you are one of the TF members that participated in that thread. BDUser maybe? Tell me honestly.

-DmL

Posted: 11/3/2005 8:17:30 AM EDT

[#9]

DmL5

I never participated in that thread. I have only posted a handful of times on TF.

Please explain for everyone your qualifications in the field of terminal ballisitics. We can then post Dr. Fackler's and Dr. Roberts' and see how they stack up.

And BTW, Dr. Fackler has no association with TF, and he also got the same results for the 5.7 as Dr. Roberts. Perhaps it's because they use scientifically replicable experimental methods?

Now that I answered your question honestly, you should honestly tell us if you are even old enough to buy a gun.

Posted: 11/3/2005 8:24:51 AM EDT

[#10]

While bullets that work well in gelitan may work ok in a human.....to say that a gel block simulates anything other than a gel block is stretching it a bit(it is ment to be an approx of mussle tissue). Humans lack any calibration, they have a multitude of consistancies,voids,fluid pockets, and bones all of which will cause a bullet to act completely different than hitting a dense consistant block of gel.....add to that physical condition,state of agitation,determination, drugs on board ect. all factors that also determine how fast a fight is stopped....cannot be simulated in a gel block, and could not be consistantly replicated even if you placed 300 peeved humans in a test fixture and shot them. While the gel blocks can be made consistant...the real human or animal target of a self defense bullet are never going to be.

But on a side note..as gelitan is ment to simulate mussle tissue, without all the other stuff a human is made of, a 12in block of gel at that rate could only somewhat simulate having the dumbest assistant in the world stand sideways while clenching his butt mussles while you sent a round through both the cheeks of his butt......

while gelitan,soap blocks,"ballistic clay"and mathimatics are all a help......they fall way short of the do all end all answer.

Posted: 11/3/2005 8:30:57 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
DmL5

I never participated in that thread. I have only posted a handful of times on TF.

Please explain for everyone your qualifications in the field of terminal ballisitics. We can then post Dr. Fackler's and Dr. Roberts' and see how they stack up.

And BTW, Dr. Fackler has no association with TF, and he also got the same results for the 5.7 as Dr. Roberts. Perhaps it's because they use scientifically replicable experimental methods?

Now that I answered your question honestly, you should honestly tell us if you are even old enough to buy a gun.

DmL5 just pimps the 5.7 round.

Posted: 11/3/2005 9:01:15 AM EDT

[#12]

I see it's back to the ad hominem behavior PAEBR.

I post, you post, I post, you post, I finally corner you in some way or another (you dodged pretty much my entire post), and since you eventually cannot hold your ground in the argument, it always turns to this. YOUR level of maturity is in question. I guess I'm done with you unless you have something new to contribute.

-DmL

Posted: 11/3/2005 9:16:26 AM EDT

[#13]

DmL5

Dr. Roberts found a bit over 12 inches of penetration from the 5.7 round. You will note the .30 caliber got significiantly deeper penetration, and it also expanded to create a crush cavity of over twice the volume of the 5.7.

.22 magnum also provides a bit over 12 inches of average penetration in testing. Interestingly, Shawn Dodson got an average of 12 inches of penetration from 32 gr. CCI Stinger .22 lr fired from a Beretta M21A handgun with a 2-1/2 inch barrel. All three .22 caliber rounds: .22lr, .22 magnum, and 5.7 have very similar permanent crush cavity volumes.

The wound channel that counts is the permanent crush cavity. The much larger temporary stretch cavity has very little wounding ability. You seem to be hung up on it. Terminal Ballistics experts are not.

My asking for your credentials on the topic is not an ad hominem attack. You are making claims which are in conflict with the top experts in the field. You need to post your qualifications so that others can decide who's conclusions might be more valid. Dr. Roberts' and Fackler's results have been replicated numerous times by other experts such as Shawn Dodson, David DiFabio, and FBI, etc.

Sorry I cannot link to more in-depth studies of the 5.7, but the best ones are in the IWBA Journal, or from the FBI, neither of which is available online. You could go to a research library and read some yourself, but apparently only "facts" readily available on the errornet count for some.

Posted: 11/3/2005 10:30:14 AM EDT

[#14]

Thank you!

Dr. Roberts found a bit over 12 inches of penetration from the 5.7 round. You will note the .30 caliber got significiantly deeper penetration, and it also expanded to create a crush cavity of over twice the volume of the 5.7.

The comparison is between the 5.7x28 and the .22 WMR, not the .30 caliber. I never made any comment on what I believed about the two when compared.

.22 magnum also provides a bit over 12 inches of average penetration in testing.

Out of what barrel length, and what type of bullet is this and if it is a hollow point, how much expansion did it get? Regardless, once the bullet is getting at least 12 inches penetration, an increase in penetration really isn't very significant.

Interestingly, Shawn Dodson got an average of 12 inches of penetration from 32 gr. CCI Stinger .22 lr fired from a Beretta M21A handgun with a 2-1/2 inch barrel.

With zero expansion, correct?

The wound channel that counts is the permanent crush cavity. The much larger temporary stretch cavity has very little wounding ability. You seem to be hung up on it. Terminal Ballistics experts are not.

Please tell me why I seem to be hung up on the TC because I have never mentioned it in this thread or any that I can think of off the top of my head.

My asking for your credentials on the topic is not an ad hominem attack. You are making claims which are in conflict with the top experts in the field. You need to post your qualifications so that others can decide who's conclusions might be more valid.

Not at all. I'm arguing with you, not Dr Roberts or Dr Fackler, so I need no qualifications in the study of terminal ballistics if you have none yourself. You are also arguing against the opinions of dozens of agencies that thoroughly tested the weapon before adoption and are trusting their lives to it on a daily basis. But unless you are arguing with them personally, your credentials don't need to be "stacked up" to each other.

Thanks again for giving me something real to work with.

-DmL

Posted: 11/3/2005 10:46:50 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Not at all. I'm arguing with you, not Dr Roberts or Dr Fackler, so I need no qualifications in the study of terminal ballistics if you have none yourself. You are also arguing against the opinions of dozens of agencies that thoroughly tested the weapon before adoption and are trusting their lives to it on a daily basis. But unless you are arguing with them personally, your credentials don't need to be "stacked up" to each other.

Thanks again for giving me something real to work with.

-DmL

But your ARE arguing with them. You have stated that the 5.7 offers much better terminal ballistics than a .22 magnum. Both of these experts in the field have tested both rounds, and found similar terminal performance, i.e. similar penetration depth and permanent crush cavity volume. I have not made those statements, they have. For example, you stated:

The 5.7x28 is not a .22 Magnum, just get that comparison out of your head.

Dr. Roberts states:

Although the 5.7 x 28 mm penetrates soft body armor, wounding potential is at best like a .22 LR or .22 Magnum.

Your contention is in direct opposition to his contention. Since Dr. Roberts is an expert in the field, and you have presented no information on your credentials. I will go with what he said.

As for the dozens of agencies that adopted the 5.7: They may have reason beyond terminal effects. Neither you nor I know the answer to that, and you certainly won't find it on the errornet.

Posted: 11/3/2005 11:35:28 AM EDT

[#16]

But your ARE arguing with them.

I'm arguing with you personally. It's true that I'm arguing with them as well, but distantly. Their credentials don't count as yours, even if you hold the same views.

Both of these experts in the field have tested both rounds, and found similar terminal performance, i.e. similar penetration depth and permanent crush cavity volume.

Out of equal barrel lengths, as in 10 inches?

I have not made those statements, they have.

But YOU are the one relaying them to me. Therefore you are only able to boast to me about someone else's credentials. That doesn't give you nearly as much power to argue with, especially when I can cite the credentials of others that although possibly are not as experienced in the area of terminal ballistics, have had much more experience with the weapon.

..wounding potential is at best like a .22 LR or .22 Magnum.

That quote is shaky at best because your .22 LR example was certainly invalid. The .22 LR only gets similar penetration to the 5.7x28 with a straight-through wound. If the 5.7x28 was to make the same straight through wound channel as the .22 LR bullet that you cited, penetration would far exceed 12 inches. The 5.7 bullet dragging severely during yaw is what limits it to 12 inches.

As for the dozens of agencies that adopted the 5.7: They may have reason beyond terminal effects.

If the terminal effects weren't significant to the use they intended for the weapon, they wouldn't have done gelatin testing beforehand as they did. And Dr Roberts made the claim that "adoption of this weapon system is a way to ensure mission failure". He didn't merely claim that the weapon produced inadequate terminal effects, he claimed that the weapon would "ensure mission failure". So tell me, out of the dozens of agencies using the weapon over the past decade, why have accounts only surfaced of the weapon performing, and none of the weapon "ensuring mission failure"? And why do all these agencies continue to use it on a daily basis?

-DmL

Posted: 11/3/2005 12:06:12 PM EDT

[#17]

DmL5:

Crush cavity volume is crush cavity volume. If you do not understand that, there is no use in discussing the issue further. If you have an issue with Dr. Roberts' conclusions, feel free to refute them with ballistic tests that found significantly higher crush cavity volume for 5.7 wounds over .22 magnum wounds.

As for this thread, I have already posted the terminal ballistics test information in which Dr. Roberts found the .30 Carbine (with proper ammo) to have much better terminal ballistics than the 5.7. I believe it answered AyeGuy's question.

Posted: 11/3/2005 12:25:28 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes yes that's all very interesting, but how does it compare to the .30 cal carbine round when it comes to terminal efects?

Dr. Gary K. Roberts on the .30 Carbine:

The best ammunition choice for the M1 Carbine is the Remington 110 gr JSP (R30CAR)—at an average velocity of 1864 f/s, it expands to .54” to .58” and penetrates 13” to 16” whether in bare gelatin, through automobile windshields, or Level IIIa body armor. This is as good as the best .223’s.

And what he says about the 5.7:

The current 31 gr SS-190 FMJ bullet has nearly adequate penetration, but the wound resulting from this projectile has a relatively small permanent crush cavity, as well as an insignificant temporary stretch cavity. Although the 5.7 x 28 mm penetrates soft body armor, wounding potential is at best like a .22 LR or .22 Magnum.

Both penetrate soft armor, but the .30 carbine (with proper ammo) offers far better terminal ballistics.

Quit posting facts PAEBR!

Posted: 11/3/2005 1:13:55 PM EDT

[#19]

Crush cavity volume is crush cavity volume. If you do not understand that, there is no use in discussing the issue further.

Correct, I never said otherwise. A yawing projectile having a length of .850-inches and traveling at significantly higher velocity is going to penetrate deeper than the .22 magnum despite the drag resulting from bullet yaw. As you stated, the .22 WMR will get 12 inches, but the barrel length was never specified nor how much the bullet expanded.

If you have an issue with Dr. Roberts' conclusions, feel free to refute them with ballistic tests that found significantly higher crush cavity volume for 5.7 wounds over .22 magnum wounds.

You seem to have acknowledged that his statement about "at best a .22 LR" is false, so what is to keep us from coming to the same conclusion on the .22 WMR statement? He never presented any data or figures to validate either claim, nor did he even specify the barrel length of this ".22 magnum". Basically, he seems to have just said it off the top of his head (without any comparitive research on the differences between the two) as a way to say the 5.7x28 is an inadequate cartridge.

-DmL

Posted: 11/3/2005 1:55:12 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Crush cavity volume is crush cavity volume. If you do not understand that, there is no use in discussing the issue further.

Correct, I never said otherwise. A yawing projectile having a length of .850-inches and traveling at significantly higher velocity is going to penetrate deeper than the .22 magnum despite the drag resulting from bullet yaw. As you stated, the .22 WMR will get 12 inches, but the barrel length was never specified nor how much the bullet expanded.

If you have an issue with Dr. Roberts' conclusions, feel free to refute them with ballistic tests that found significantly higher crush cavity volume for 5.7 wounds over .22 magnum wounds.

You seem to have acknowledged that his statement about "at best a .22 LR" is false, so what is to keep us from coming to the same conclusion on the .22 WMR statement? He never presented any data or figures to validate either claim, nor did he even specify the barrel length of this ".22 magnum". Basically, he seems to have just said it off the top of his head (without any comparitive research on the differences between the two) as a way to say the 5.7x28 is an inadequate cartridge.

-DmL

Did your even read the results I posted from Shawn Dodson's test? The one that got 12 inches of penetration and equal crush cavity as the 5.7 from a .22 lr from a 2.5 inch barrel? Dr. Roberts' statement was not false in that regard either.

I love how you are accusing Dr. Roberts of making false statements without actually having ANY evidence to support your contention.

Once again: Please let us know of your credentials so that others can make an informed judegement about whether to believe you or Dr. Roberts.

Posted: 11/3/2005 2:24:19 PM EDT

[#21]

View table 3 in this LINK. It states 12 inches penetration but does not claim any fragmentation OR expansion.

-DmL

Posted: 11/3/2005 2:28:48 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
View table 3 in this LINK. It states 12 inches penetration but does not claim any fragmentation OR expansion.

-DmL

Which proves WHAT? The 5.7 round neither fragments not expands either.

Similar crush cavity volume + Similar penetration = similar wounding potential.

Get it. All your link proves is that the .22 long rifle gives similar terminal performance as the 5.7. Thanks you for proving my point.

Posted: 11/3/2005 2:36:20 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Crush cavity volume is crush cavity volume. If you do not understand that, there is no use in discussing the issue further.

Correct, I never said otherwise. A yawing projectile having a length of .850-inches and traveling at significantly higher velocity is going to penetrate deeper than the .22 magnum despite the drag resulting from bullet yaw. As you stated, the .22 WMR will get 12 inches, but the barrel length was never specified nor how much the bullet expanded.

If you have an issue with Dr. Roberts' conclusions, feel free to refute them with ballistic tests that found significantly higher crush cavity volume for 5.7 wounds over .22 magnum wounds.

You seem to have acknowledged that his statement about "at best a .22 LR" is false, so what is to keep us from coming to the same conclusion on the .22 WMR statement? He never presented any data or figures to validate either claim, nor did he even specify the barrel length of this ".22 magnum". Basically, he seems to have just said it off the top of his head (without any comparitive research on the differences between the two) as a way to say the 5.7x28 is an inadequate cartridge.

-DmL

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHAAAAAHAAAAA!

Posted: 11/3/2005 3:55:00 PM EDT

[#24]

All your link proves is that the .22 long rifle gives similar terminal performance as the 5.7.

Once again, the penetration depth is similar, nothing else. The 5.7x28 projectile going into yaw will not make the straight through wound of the cited .22 LR. Like I said, if the 5.7x28 was to make the same straight through wound channel as the .22 LR bullet that you cited, penetration would far exceed 12 inches.

-DmL

Posted: 11/3/2005 4:26:48 PM EDT

[#25]

It's the tumble... that makes all the difference.

.22 Mag don't got the tumble, so it don't rumble, and your arguments crumble. Come now, don't grumble -- be humble. Accept your fumble and don't bumble.

Posted: 11/3/2005 6:22:02 PM EDT

[#26]

Just put the damn bullet where it needs to be and all of them will work just fine.

Personally I really like the .30 carbine and the .223 rounds. I would feel completely comfortable with either in any sort of CQB situation, I would prefer the .223 in longer range scenarios but this is just my opinion and I have nothing to back it up except how I feel about each round.

Posted: 1/7/2006 9:33:19 PM EDT

[#27]

I put 100 rnds of 30 Carbine into a paper target yesterday, but it remained standing.

I am a big fan of heavier bullets. The 30 Carbine fits my bill.

I am working on a ~~graph~~ theorem to show why heavier is better (in terms of dynamics, having never seen such a graph), may be some time.

Posted: 1/7/2006 9:54:06 PM EDT

[#28]

Well, with the PS-90 now coming onto the market, we can expect to see more reports on how the 5.7 performs.

Posted: 1/8/2006 11:08:02 AM EDT

[#29]

I would have to say if you try to use the 5.7 against the new model of cylon toasters,youre fracked!

In all seriousness,the episode of battlestar galactica were the cylons had boarded,and apollo shot the toaster about 6 times at close range with his 5.7 pistol and couldnt stop it,pretty much puts to rest the debate about the stopping power of the 5.7

Posted: 1/8/2006 12:30:09 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
I would have to say if you try to use the 5.7 against the new model of cylon toasters,youre fracked!

In all seriousness,the episode of battlestar galactica were the cylons had boarded,and apollo shot the toaster about 6 times at close range with his 5.7 pistol and couldnt stop it,pretty much puts to rest the debate about the stopping power of the 5.7

+1

shoulda used .30 Carbine

Posted: 1/8/2006 2:17:02 PM EDT

[#31]

I wouldnt want to be shot with either. Both will do the job. I think there is so many other things that will effect stopping power other than the differences between these two bullets. It has proven they both kill now but them where they count.

Posted: 1/8/2006 5:22:39 PM EDT

[#32]

Doesn't this argument come up every couple months, and doesn't DmL always lose??

Ballistic gelatin offers only theoretical terminal performance. The true results can only be recognized through documented shootings. As of this point, there are very few documented shootings that involve only the 5.7 round. Many of the shootings involve multiple hits from multiple rounds, and are inconclusive. Basically, the verdict is still out on the 5.7 round as a manstopper. Anyone arguing otherwise is arguing opinion, not fact.

Oh, and in all of the P90 5.7 shootings (total of about 10-12), none of the individuals were hit with the ammo currently available to US civilians. So, we have no idea how the current civvie ammo will perform out of any 5.7 gun (specifically the FiveSeven handgun, which averages actual chrono'd speeds just over 2000fps).

Posted: 1/8/2006 6:13:37 PM EDT

[#33]

Doesn't this argument come up every couple months, and doesn't DmL always lose??

This thread you're posting in did come up several months ago, someone just now bumped it. You're beating a horse we already beat.

Many of the shootings involve multiple hits from multiple rounds, and are inconclusive.

The Houston shooting is the only one I know of with other rounds (5.56) involved. What are these many others?

Oh, and in all of the P90 5.7 shootings (total of about 10-12), none of the individuals were hit with the ammo currently available to US civilians.

Both rounds (SS190 and SS192 or SS195) perform virtually the same in gelatin according to DDifabio's testing. Both penetrate to virtually the same depth, both yaw, neither expand.

-DmL

Posted: 1/8/2006 6:34:06 PM EDT

[#34]

There was an embisy shooting as well from what I read but cant find a link to the shooting. Death was apparently caused by one or two shots through body armor by the 5.7 round.

Also the death in the tx shooting was supposidly revealed by the medical examiner as cause by the 5.7 not the 223.

Posted: 1/8/2006 6:44:33 PM EDT

[#35]

Jason280 and PAEBR332 are both aware of those shootings and the others. It's a daed horse. Neither side has anything new (positive or negative) to bring to the argument for now.

-DmL

Posted: 1/8/2006 6:51:25 PM EDT

[#36]

Another thread where there is 2 or 3 people that cant get past their big heavy 100 year old tools and understand there is better stuff out there. Dont think anyone would just pull a nuetered round out of their pants and market it to military and law enforcement with the current tempurature of effective and noneffective rounds.

Posted: 1/8/2006 7:01:33 PM EDT

[#37]

holy thread resurection!

Posted: 1/8/2006 7:04:54 PM EDT

[#38]

but cant find a link to the shooting

---and---

was supposidly

---and---

was apparently

You will see this a lot from the 5.7 proponents. No concrete facts, just a lot of speculation.

Both rounds (SS190 and SS192 or SS195) perform virtually the same in gelatin according to DDifabio's testing. Both penetrate to virtually the same depth, both yaw, neither expand

But can you provide any actual shootings to support the effectiveness of the rounds currently available for civilians? Remember, gelatin is not conclusive proof, no matter how bad you want it to be.

Another thread where there is 2 or 3 people that cant get past their big heavy 100 year old tools and understand there is better stuff out there

This is hardly the case. Unlike you, we simply don't jump on the bandwagon of the "latest/greatest" craze. We base our decisions on facts, hard data, and conclusive results. Let us know when you have some.

Posted: 1/8/2006 7:52:50 PM EDT

[#39]

You will see this a lot from the 5.7 proponents. No concrete facts, just a lot of speculation.

You did the same thing when you stated that many of the shootings involved multiple calibers.

But can you provide any actual shootings to support the effectiveness of the rounds currently available for civilians? Remember, gelatin is not conclusive proof, no matter how bad you want it to be.

So they both have similar bullet weights (28 vs 31) and go at similar (read: identical) velocities. After entering gelatin they yaw, and they both end up penetrating to the same depth, and yet one will be significantly more lethal than the other? If you're going to argue that this is the case, you'll have to explain how it is.

-DmL

Posted: 1/9/2006 8:51:02 AM EDT

[#40]

No I thought the same thing when I first read the stuff "wholy 22magnum" then I looked at the whole picture. The velocities and bullets are different. The people that are arguing the point that the thing doesnt work probably never have had or ever will need to use it so that point is null too.

I would love to see the test data that the USSS has on their p90s as well as many other spec ops units that are using it. However, a lot of the information is not public domain and it has nothing to due with scientific fact but actual use of the caliber. After the 10mm fiasco that the FBI went through after the original 9mm non-stopping horror stories it is very unlikely that any well funded govt agency would select a caliber without all the facts.

Just because you dont rank high enough to see the balistics that you will never need to know doesnt make something worthless. Like I said before this caliber has been out for 10 years and the majority of the people here have not mearly jumped on the band wagon with something.

Posted: 1/9/2006 9:48:13 AM EDT

[#41]

You did the same thing when you stated that many of the shootings involved multiple calibers.

Please explain.

So they both have similar bullet weights (28 vs 31) and go at similar (read: identical) velocities. After entering gelatin they yaw, and they both end up penetrating to the same depth, and yet one will be significantly more lethal than the other? If you're going to argue that this is the case, you'll have to explain how it is

You wasted all that time preparing a response? It would have been a lot easier to simply say "No, we cannot provide that information, as we have no evidence to back up our theoretical and unsubstantiated claims". We are looking for facts, not your speculation. I see you have a difficult time separating the two.

I would love to see the test data that the USSS has on their p90s as well as many other spec ops units that are using it. However, a lot of the information is not public domain and it has nothing to due with scientific fact but actual use of the caliber. After the 10mm fiasco that the FBI went through after the original 9mm non-stopping horror stories it is very unlikely that any well funded govt agency would select a caliber without all the facts

How do you think "scientific fact" is determined (if not by actual use)?

Just because you dont rank high enough to see the balistics that you will never need to know doesnt make something worthless. Like I said before this caliber has been out for 10 years and the majority of the people here have not mearly jumped on the band wagon with something

Majority of what people??

Besides, no one is calling the round worthless. We are simply skeptical. At this point, the round is unproven and on this board, highly overrated. Couple that with the fact the FiveSeven is the only gun currently available to civilians, not to mention the ammo specifically designed for the 5.7 isn't available to civvies, only leads to more uncertainty.

If you can get around these facts, please do so.

Posted: 1/9/2006 10:11:22 AM EDT

[#42]

Please explain.

Okay. You said the 5.7 proponents always state that they "think this", or they "think that", but can't back up what they say. However, you never backed up what you said about "many of the shootings involved multiple caliber types". (i.e. Your statement was therefore hypocritical.)

You wasted all that time preparing a response? It would have been a lot easier to simply say "No, we cannot provide that information, as we have no evidence to back up our theoretical and unsubstantiated claims". We are looking for facts, not your speculation.

What are your "facts, not speculation" as to why two identical bullets (one has an AP projectile, the other doesn't) will perform differently in soft tissue? Let alone, when gelatin testing has shown them to be no different in penetration depth or projectile behavior.

Couple that with the fact the FiveSeven is the only gun currently available to civilians.

-DmL

Posted: 1/9/2006 12:19:27 PM EDT

[#43]

"many of the shootings involved multiple caliber types". (i.e. Your statement was therefore hypocritical.)

You're only going in circles, so please try again.

two identical bullets

(one has an AP projectile, the other doesn't)

Are the identical, or are they different?

Also, has the gun you pictured began shipping to dealers yet?

Posted: 1/9/2006 12:22:38 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
I would have to say if you try to use the 5.7 against the new model of cylon toasters,youre fracked!

In all seriousness,the episode of battlestar galactica were the cylons had boarded,and apollo shot the toaster about 6 times at close range with his 5.7 pistol and couldnt stop it,pretty much puts to rest the debate about the stopping power of the 5.7

cup of saltwater and it would have shorted out

Posted: 1/9/2006 12:40:36 PM EDT

[#45]

You're only going in circles, so please try again.

No, you just can't read. You said that "the 5.7 proponents like to say things, but can't back them up". However you did the exact same thing when you stated that "many of the shootings involved multiple caliber types", and never backed up that statement when I asked. Understand?

Are the identical, or are they different?

The performance is identical unless you're shooting people through soft armor. (after which, it is only slightly worse for the non-AP rounds) Are you trying to tell me that (versus bare soft tissue) an AP projectile will do significantly more damage than the same projectile without an AP composition? After gelatin testing has shown the opposite?

Also, has the gun you pictured began shipping to dealers yet?

It's "available", several members on this board (and other boards) already have PS90's and have given range reports.

-DmL

Posted: 1/9/2006 2:23:03 PM EDT

[#46]

No, you just can't read. You said that "the 5.7 proponents like to say things, but can't back them up". However you did the exact same thing when you stated that "many of the shootings involved multiple caliber types", and never backed up that statement when I asked.

Oh, I get it, you're playing dumb now. Too bad its not going to work here, we all ready know your tactics. It was a nice try though.

Besides, you know exactly what I am talking about because the information came off the links YOU posted the last time we discussed this. Please don't tell me you can post the information, but know nothing about it...

The performance is identical unless you're shooting people through soft armor.

Isn't defeating body armor one of the primary roles of the 5.7 round? I mean, isn't that what FN was after when the round was developed?

After gelatin testing has shown the opposite

Are you suggesting gelatin testing determines unequivicolly the effectiveness a round will have on a human subject?

News flash, news flash. Gelatin only approximates human tissue, and does not duplicate the inconsistencies and variables found in the human body. You know, differences such as various tissues, bones, muscles, etc. Ever see any hollow organs in gelatin? How about a rib cage?

Your information is so flawed its unreal, and the fact that you follow it blindly defies logic.

I know you hate to admit it, but you cannot win this argument without providing conclusive and fact-based information. All you have is speculation, theory, and opinion (at least you have something).

Posted: 1/9/2006 5:13:53 PM EDT

[#47]

Oh, I get it, you're playing dumb now. Too bad its not going to work here, we all ready know your tactics. It was a nice try though.

Nice. So I try to explain something to you repeatedly, you don't have a clue what I'm saying, so you say that I am trying to play dumb. Real nice.

I'll try saying it once more: I asked you to back up your claim that "there have been many shootings with other calibers involved" and you did not. You then went on and said that the 5.7 proponents can never back up what they say. Incidentally, you didn't back up your little claim about the shootings either. That makes you a hypocrite. Please tell me you understand?

Besides, you know exactly what I am talking about because the information came off the links YOU posted the last time we discussed this. Please don't tell me you can post the information, but know nothing about it...

The Houston TX shooting is the only one where there was mention of other calibers being involved. What are these "many shootings" you know of that had other calibers involved? I would really like to see this info as it isn't anything I have ever posted on any forum. Once again, the only shooting that I know to have involved other calibers was the shooting in Houston. The others were 5.7 and only 5.7. Show us the "many others" you say you know of that included shots from other calibers.

Isn't defeating body armor one of the primary roles of the 5.7 round? I mean, isn't that what FN was after when the round was developed?

This discussion has nothing to do with the primary role of the round. You simply said that SS190 shooting results don't count for SS192 or SS195. And what you are saying is that if the SS190 hadn't had an AP composition it wouldn't have killed the people it did. I'm afraid AP compositions aren't known to have a significant impact on lethality. And guess what -- the common pistol calibers you use do not have these "ultra-lethal" AP compositions like the 5.7 does.

Your information is so flawed its unreal, and the fact that you follow it blindly defies logic.

No, you're just so mislead as to think I'm saying things I'm not. Read more carefully.

I know you hate to admit it, but you cannot win this argument without providing conclusive and fact-based information. All you have is speculation, theory, and opinion (at least you have something).

What "conclusive, fact-based information" have you given us to lead us to the conclusion that "many" of the 5.7 shootings involved hits from other calibers? And what "conclusive, fact-based information" have you given us to conclude that two identical rounds will be more damaging to soft tissue, provided one of them has a harder composition?

-DmL

Posted: 1/9/2006 5:36:40 PM EDT

[#48]

Wow, that's the biggest circle you've made yet! I have to admit, I'm a little impressed...

The info you seek is in your own links. I'm sure you have them stored, and you don't need me to tell you what you all ready know to be true.

I see you are taking the same route you did the last time this came up. You're called on your data, then you start changing the focus. Next comes the back peddling, avoiding the topic, which then leads to you going in circles. You know, quoting gelatin, supposed shootings, and so on. Except this time, you were smart enough to leave the links out. I guess you got called on them one too many times, and figured facts weren't helping your argument.

With luck, this topic will also get locked and you can start your banter again in another few months. Maybe then you will actually have hard data (but I doubt it). But, I will go ahead and tell you, no one will buy it then, either...

Posted: 1/9/2006 6:25:49 PM EDT

[#49]

Wow, that's the biggest circle you've made yet!

In all this time, haven't you ever wondered if it may be a problem on your end?

The info you seek is in your own links. I'm sure you have them stored, and you don't need me to tell you what you all ready know to be true.

So I am responsible for backing up your claims??

I see you are taking the same route you did the last time this came up. You're called on your data, then you start changing the focus. Next comes the back peddling, avoiding the topic, which then leads to you going in circles.

I'm afraid you're the one that is saying one groundless thing after another. "many of the shootings involved other calibers", "the SS190 is more damaging to soft tissue than the SS192 or SS195 because it uses a harder composition", "the Five-seveN handgun is the only 5.7 gun available to us civilians". And since you can't back them up, you're also the one that's backpeddling.

Except this time, you were smart enough to leave the links out. I guess you got called on them one too many times, and figured facts weren't helping your argument.

If you know of a way to host/attach files I will host and post our entire 9+ page argument from awhile back with all the shooting info I gave you. Would you like that? You will be very embarassed at how poorly you remember the discussion. Once again, the only shooting that I have ever posted on any forum that I know to have involved other calibers was the shooting in Houston, TX. You can take my honest word for it, or you can have me post that thread as a Word .doc and be publicly embarassed. HERE is the shooting you're actually thinking of. It involved a subject being shot with 5.7 and 5.56 rounds. This is the ONLY shooting I have ever posted that involved other calibers. You somehow got it in your head that this single shooting by HPD was a majority of the shootings. It's only one.

With luck, this topic will also get locked and you can start your banter again in another few months.

I didn't start this debate, please go back and check. It was me responding to you, not vice versa. You drew me in, not vice versa. I don't enjoy arguing with people and if you look carefully you will notice that as a rule I generally always "jump in" on these discussions. BTW, who was so cruel as to bump this thread?

Maybe then you will actually have hard data (but I doubt it).

You do have all the hard data!

Like all that hard data you gave me to lead me to the conclusion that SS190 is more destructive than SS192/SS195 in soft tissue due to its harder composition. And all that hard data you gave me to lead me to the conclusion that the PS90 isn't available to us civilians. (even though several of us civilians already have them) And finally, all that hard data you gave me to lead me to the conclusion that many of the shootings involved hits from multiple calibers! (on that one you did ask me to back up your claim though

)

-DmL

Posted: 1/9/2006 10:20:47 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
Wow, that's the biggest circle you've made yet! I have to admit, I'm a little impressed...

The info you seek is in your own links. I'm sure you have them stored, and you don't need me to tell you what you all ready know to be true.

I see you are taking the same route you did the last time this came up. You're called on your data, then you start changing the focus. Next comes the back peddling, avoiding the topic, which then leads to you going in circles. You know, quoting gelatin, supposed shootings, and so on. Except this time, you were smart enough to leave the links out. I guess you got called on them one too many times, and figured facts weren't helping your argument.

With luck, this topic will also get locked and you can start your banter again in another few months. Maybe then you will actually have hard data (but I doubt it). But, I will go ahead and tell you, no one will buy it then, either...

not picking sides, i havent come to a conclusion onthe 5.7 yet, but you are making yourself look like an idiot, you really need some comprehension skills if you dont realize this.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Which is more lethal...5.7 FN or .30 carbine? (Page 2 of 3)

Armory » General Firearm Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us