Tell me about the 5.7 rd...please


PDA






IMTHDUKE
March 3, 2011, 10:02 PM
Is the 5.7x28 rd just a glorified .22 mag or does it actually have the ballistic power needed in a self defense situation.

If you enjoyed reading about "Tell me about the 5.7 rd...please" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
kingpin008
March 3, 2011, 10:12 PM
Happy reading :)

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=138481
http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-150397.html
http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-358807.html
http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-315039.html

TexasRifleman
March 3, 2011, 10:43 PM
Tough one. It's been used so little in documented defensive situations there really isn't much real world evidence it doesn't seem.

But, it's recoil is practically nothing in a PS90 so that's what my wife prefers for home defense.

It's not my top choice but I'd rather have her comfortable with that than be unarmed.

bobbarker
March 4, 2011, 10:25 AM
I've got the FN 5.7, and I love it. As TexasRifleman says it has virtually no recoil, and for that reason, I like it as my carry gun. I'm a big guy, and I can handle recoil, but in a high stress situation, like if I had to use it in a defenseive posture, low recoil makes for greater accuracy. It's not got the most knockdown power, I'm sure, but between being able to consistantly put rounds in the center of the attacker, and having 20+1 rounds, I feel very confident in it's stopping ability.

rstull85
March 4, 2011, 11:16 AM
A friend of mine has a PS90 and a FN5.7 and he has let me try them both out a couple of times. I wasn't very impressed with either of them. Sure the weight, mag capacity and recoil was nice and the PS90 was compact. I would still prefer something with a little more stopping power for carrying or home defense. I considered the PS90 for a varmint rifle but according to some of the stuff I have read it is only accurate out to about 150 yards, thats a little shorter than I would like. Just my personal opinion.

RancidSumo
March 4, 2011, 11:42 AM
Short answer, no.

Long answer (with references to many other long answers)-

http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19913

Manco
March 4, 2011, 12:55 PM
In my opinion, for defensive purposes load selection is critical because some of the commonly available loads, such as FN SS195LF, are deficient in penetration against humans. Loads that use 40 grain projectiles, such as SS197SR (loaded by Fiocchi with a blue-tipped Hornady V-MAX bullet), seem to penetrate adequately. While I doubt that the latter is quite as effective as larger handgun calibers, it should be effective while offering lower recoil and increased capacity.

youngda9
March 4, 2011, 12:56 PM
Bigger holes leak more fluid. I wouldn't carry such a firearm for SD.

Pete D.
March 4, 2011, 01:23 PM
The array of answers about this round is normal. It is a controversial little beast.
The most documented use of the round in a combat situation occurred In Peru in 1996.
Members of a rebel group, MRTA, occupied the Japanese Embassy in Lima on Dec. 17th.
The rebels held hostages for 126 days...until a raid by Peruvian commandos on April 22, 1997. One hostage, two commandos and all the rebels were killed.
The commandos were armed with weapons that used the 5.7X28 cartridge.
There remains some controversy about how the rebels were killed since there were no wounded.
Pete

Edited to change the year from 1976 (wrong) to 1996 (correct)

Carter
March 4, 2011, 01:34 PM
The array of answers about this round is normal. It is a controversial little beast.
The most documented use of the round in a combat situation occurred In Peru in 1976.
Members of a rebel group, MRTA, occupied the Japanese Embassy in Lima on Dec. 17th.
The rebels held hostages for 126 days...until a raid by Peruvian commandos on April 22, 1977. One hostage, two commandos and all the rebels were killed.
The commandos were armed with weapons that used the 5.7X28 cartridge.
There remains some controversy about how the rebels were killed since there were no wounded.
Pete

Um, I may be mistaken, but wasn't the 5.7 round developed in the 80's and 90's?

rstull85
March 4, 2011, 01:52 PM
According to wikipedia it was first introduced in 1990 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.7x28mm
here is a link.

General Geoff
March 4, 2011, 02:42 PM
The array of answers about this round is normal. It is a controversial little beast.
The most documented use of the round in a combat situation occurred In Peru in 1976.
Members of a rebel group, MRTA, occupied the Japanese Embassy in Lima on Dec. 17th.
The rebels held hostages for 126 days...until a raid by Peruvian commandos on April 22, 1977. One hostage, two commandos and all the rebels were killed.
The commandos were armed with weapons that used the 5.7X28 cartridge.
There remains some controversy about how the rebels were killed since there were no wounded.
Pete
The rebels died of temporal psychosis which they contracted from traveling back in time with 5.7x28mm weapons and ammunition :)

dmancornell
March 4, 2011, 02:43 PM
Um, I may be mistaken, but wasn't the 5.7 round developed in the 80's and 90's?

The Peruvian hostage situation took place in 1996, not 1976:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_embassy_hostage_crisis

Chindo18Z
March 4, 2011, 03:31 PM
The other notable use of 5.7 x 28mm was the Ft. Hood mass shooting by American traitor Nidal Hassan. In that 05 NOV 09 event, the gunman killed 13 and wounded 29 before being shot himself by responding police officers. He fired at least 146 rounds inside of a military medical center (and dozens more outside when he exited the building and was ultimately engaged by the police).

Regarding terminal effect:

1. Hasan was shooting rapidly and at close range against unarmed and (initially) unwary victims. Fish in a barrel situation.

2. At least three unarmed victims separately attempted to physically charge Hasan inside of room distance and were stopped by his gunfire. One was shot in the hip and fell down. Two were mortally wounded.

3. Per Wikipedia: "Base civilian police Sergeant Kimberly Munley, who had arrived on the scene... encountered Hasan exiting the building... Hasan turned and fired at Munley, who exchanged shots with him. Munley's hand was hit by shrapnel when one of Hasan's bullets struck a nearby rain gutter, and then two bullets struck Munley: the first bullet hit her thigh, and the second hit her knee. As she began to fall from the first bullet, the second bullet struck her femur, shattering it into 120 pieces and knocking her to the ground. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting

4. Of five persons who actively counter-attacked Hasan (1 civilian Physician's Assistant, 2 Soldiers, and 2 responding police officers), 2 were killed, 2 were stopped by disabling wounds, and the last (a police officer) was missed by Hasan and stopped the fight with his own return fire.

5. Roughly 2/3 of those hit were wounded and 1/3 killed. Probably about HIGH average for surviving hits with a pistol caliber and considering the relatively quick trauma medical response delivered to the wounded. Hasan was a relatively untrained pistoleer (self taught) with only a couple of practice sessions under his belt after purchasing the weapon.

6. Hasan struck 42 victims using at least 180 and possibly over 200 rounds fired from nine x expended 20 & 30 round magazines. Hasan scored hits with somewhere between 21-23 % of total rounds (180 - 200) fired.

All anecdotal tales of this round provide me a gut feeling that, while the little 5.7 is still ballistically in the .22 WMR category, both of those rounds are at least as effective as most mid-caliber FMJ handgun rounds (i.e, .380 ACP, 9 x 18mm, 9 x 19mm) and probably most non-expanding .38 Special. This of course applies only when discussing commercially available 5.7mm ammo.

In the famous words attributed to Soviet Dictator Joseph Stalin, "Quantity has a quality all its own."

That "quantity" performance comes in a lightweight, low recoil, high capacity, and easily controllable package. The FN Five-seven is not a death ray, but pistols generally aren't.

AZ Five seveN
March 4, 2011, 05:18 PM
Short answer, no.

Long answer (with references to many other long answers)-

http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19913

The references in that post are over 10 years old. The opinions and facts within are based on underperforming ammunition developed 20+ years ago which are no longer on the market (SS90 + SS190).

The expectations placed on the 5.7x28mm round are a bit ridiculous. I feel like too many were trying to make it some "magical" round that it isn't, and the fact that it performs similar (with the right ammunition) to most average handgun calibers makes people write it off. One of the original intents of this round was to penetrate Kevlar and other body armors and barriers. With the right ammo, however, it can be an effective personal defense weapon. Another of the original intents was for personal defense... This round was very popular overseas before it was brought to the American market.

No, it isn't going to magically stop a person in one shot, but why would it? Handguns were never meant to fulfill a one shot, stop role. If that's what you're looking for, it's time to buy a .454 Casull or .500 S&W (or a 12 gauge).

http://www.hendonpub.com/resources/articlearchive/details.aspx?ID=309
Massad Ayoob - http://www.ontargetmagazine.com/content/defensive-handguns-0
http://web.archive.org/web/20060411012151/www.fnhusa.com/contents/tw_57x28mm.htm

P.S. I have heard multiple rumors that certain Secret Service agents inside the White House (keyword: inside) carry the Five-seveN pistol. I have yet to see this rumor confirmed or denied. Most retorts are along the lines of, "SS agents are issued the P229 in .357 Sig."

P.P.S. (I'm not sure on the source of the material other than it came from a thread over at militaryphotos.net...I'm still searching for it. I happened to have copied it as part of my initial research into the 5.7x28mm round, but I seem to have forgot to source it). Here it is and it's very long:

"In actuality, the wound channel is approx. 3.5 to 4 in. due to the fact that the round tumbles in soft tissue and after it exits a solid medium such as wood or drywall. This system has also had a 100% fatality rate in the U.S. What this means is that everyone who was shot in a vital region of the body has expired. One subject in Sioux Fall S.D. was shot in the hand and the arm through a solid core door. He lost two fingers off his gun hand and the bone in his arm was shattered, leaving him with little use of the arm. Houston PD shot a subject who was firing at them with an AR-15. The subject was hit in the chest and the bullet tumbled into his heart, cutting it into two pieces. The coroner remarked that he had never seen a wound like that. The bullet also did not exit his body. I doubt that if this round had a wound channel that resembled a .22 Mag, it would do that sort of damage. Also the Secret Service and the Federal Protective Service has adopted the P90 as their new PDW. They did exhaustive tests of both reliability and ballistics. The SS190 bullet is almost 1 in. long. If it were passing sideways through soft tissue, which is what it does when it tumbles, it would certainly create at least a 1" wound cavity. Now, add to that syntactical energy produced by the round traveling 2300 fps (P90) or 2100 (FsN) and you have soft tissue tearing off the axis' (ends) of the bullet creating a much larger permanent wound cavity. I have done gelatin testing with this system and every police officer that saw it was needless to say very impressed. Again, if this were such a poor performer, why would the Secret Service adopt both the P90 and the FsN? Don't you think they would want a round that creates a large wound cavity and does not over penetrate? In fact the 5.7x28mm round is very close to be approved as a NATO round. If you have any question about the effectiveness of this round, I would encourage you to call Sgt. Sandy Wall at Houston PD SWAT and ask him about the shooting they had where the suspects heart was literally cut in two halves. I would also get in touch with the US Secret Service who has done extensive ballistic testing with this system. They are so impressed that they are replacing all 9mm sub machine guns with the P90. Do you think for a second that they would adopt a system that would not even work as well as what they had? In fact when they reliability tested the P90, it had only two malfunctions in 50,000 rounds out of 5 different guns. They stated in their report form the James J. Reilly Secret Service Training Center that the P90 is the most reliable weapon ever tested by that facility. Another interesting point that comes form this testing is that Dr. Fackler told the Secret Service before the tests that this system is ineffective. The Secret Service on the other hand had this to say... "While we respect Dr. Fackler's opinion, we have found this system to be a extremely effective system and we feel confident adopting it, we find that the 5.7x28mm system supports all claims made by FN concerning the effectiveness of this system"
I would be careful of anyone who claims to know this system after only having fired one round in testing. To make the statement that Dr. Roberts does undermines his credibility and that of the people in the ballistic community. Gelatin is not human tissue. Dr. Fackler has been wrong before and I believe he wrong here as well. The proof is in the adoption of this system by the US Federal Government as well as over 25 counties across the globe. In the assault on the Japanese embassy in Lima, Peru, which is where the P90/5.7 system first went operational, all of the hostage takers were eliminated through their level 3 body armor. This includes the leader who was
hit with one round through his body armor and expired. There are dozens of state and local departments here in the US who have adopted the system. I don't know of one department who said that the system was not effective ballistically.

All the experience and real life examples speaks louder than any single round fired into a mold or a
"professional" writing up ballistics on paper.

Fact: The expert told the Secret Service the round would not be effective.
Fact: The Secret Service did their own tests
Fact: The Secret Service, though they respected his opinion, said he was wrong.

I now have a solid opinion about this subject.

About a week ago, I had absolutely no credible opinion about this round and I knew very little about it. I had shot it in the past, but I didn’t do any research on it. The only thoughts I did have about it where based on what people were telling me here. Basically, all negative. I’ve taken the initiative and I’ve done the research into the allegations and rumors circling around the FN 5.7x28. So far, I’ve found that some of the opinions presented, even some of the professional ones, have been false, misguided or lack real world examples.

The only things left are your ballistics experts you continue to refer back to.

Example of single shot kills:

- Houston PD Swat - Single shot to the chest. tumbled into the heart and cut it in half.
- Doraville, GA. Swat - Single neck shot.
- Lima, Peru. Japanese Embassy. - Single shot to the chest, through body armor.

We’ll see more after the IOM hits the streets in mass.

I’ve already quoted three examples of single shots. Interesting note about the one person who managed to survive an attack from the P90 – The round went through a solid core door and was already starting to tumble. By the time it reached his bone, the round hit it flat and didn’t just break his arm, it powdered the bone within. Also, knocking two fingers off his gun hand.

Again, I would like to hear (from anyone) who has a CREDIBLE source of information that is able to
discredit this round legitimately. So far, no one has presented me with enough evidence to suggest this round should not be used to save someone’s life. In fact, I am retracting an earlier statement I made before – I would certainly use the Five-seveN system as a concealed weapon and a protective device for my own personal defense.

It’s safe, light, easy to shoot, powerful and it has been field-tested to have a proven performance record time and time again. I wish the departments and the US government would be willing to hand over their independent ballistics test results. I want to see the data that changed the Secret Service’s mind in the face of evidence presented by the experts. Note that the Secret Service WILL give their findings over to law enforcement departments who request the information. This information is confidential. But I’m sure it’s what other LE agencies are basing their judgments on. I’m asking my question again – Who has proof this round is a failure? And if no one can answer this question then I’d like to know – Why is there such a determined and organized effort out to discredit a perfectly good round of ammunition? It does everything FN said it would do. It is a disservice to present damning opinions without researching the actual field tests and people who use it. It is a disservice to FN and the people who represent that factory. But worse, it is a disservice to the 5.7x28, a round of ammunition that has been designed to save lives while causing minimal collateral damage.

But I implore you, do not take my word for what I’ve said. Do your own research. Get out of your labs and talk to the people who trust their lives to this system every day. Talk to the agencies who stepped up and did their own independent ballistics research. If I ask you to take my findings as the truth, then my findings would be no more valuable than an individual posting opinions in the Wound Ballistic Review." (Source unknown)

Hope this helps.

Edit: The premium ammo I mentioned is made by Elite Ammunition. (www.eliteammunition.com)

AZ Five seveN
March 4, 2011, 05:23 PM
Also, why does everyone compare this round to a .22 magnum? Have you ever seen a .22 magnum travel at 2.3k fps with 390 ft-lbs of energy? Have you seen a .22 cause a 3"-4" wound cavity?

Bigger isn't always better...

mljdeckard
March 4, 2011, 05:34 PM
Because the range and capability are closer to a .22 mag than they are to a 5.56.

AZ Five seveN
March 4, 2011, 05:41 PM
Because the range and capability are closer to a .22 mag than they are to a 5.56.
I guess a better question then would be why do so many try to compare a handgun/submachine gun round to a 5.56 rifle round? Should we start arbitrarily comparing all handgun rounds to rifle rounds?

As for range, how far do you plan on firing a handgun?

As for capability, the .22 and 5.7 are not similar in any respect.

Edit: "The lightweight projectile also poses less risk of collateral damage in the event of a miss, because it loses much of its energy after traveling 400 m (1,310 ft), whereas a conventional pistol bullet such as the 9x19mm retains its energy beyond 800 m (2,625 ft)." That seems like enough range...

brnmuenchow
March 4, 2011, 06:06 PM
I do believe it is an effective round, however I do not own one simply because (as I have stated somewhere before on this forum) in the state of Texas you can't qualify with one to get your CHL license. ( .32 caliber or above.)

Toforo
March 4, 2011, 06:48 PM
I bought one because I tripped onto a deal that very simply, couldn't be passed up.

Yes, I had heard about the gun and knew WELL the devastation it inflicted by an UNTRAINED army doctor at Ft.Hood.

Without getting into the ballistics of the bullets - or which bullets are ALLOWED and NOT allowed by who, what, when, where, and why........... it IS an INCREDIBLY easy and simple weapon to OPERATE - easier than a 1911 (of which I'm very fond - but the two are NOT comparable)

Besides being a NATO weapon - AND used by "personal security" of the world's leaders, royalty, and VIP's - it ALSO has a pretty good "niche" application for home defense -

- I live in a townhouse, there is NOT room to bring a shotgun to bear - and simply, NOT time - and of course, the shotgun is the ideal home defense weapon.
There IS room to keep that FN57 as my bedside gun and when I hear that dreaded sound of someone coming upstairs in the middle of the night, I can sit there with all 20+1 rounds aimed at the door waiting for the fool to enter into basically a SLOW MOTION "blast" of 21 EXTREMELY RAPID-FIRED rounds dead center at the about to be extinquished victims chesst.
It would be devastating.

- I have two OLD uncles - one 97 and the other 85 with parkinsons.

Even at the advance age of 97 who's worked construction his entire life (his hands are so gnarled he can't use silverware, we had to put small "hammer-handles" on his flat ware so he could grip it.
Even HE can pull back the slide and operate the gun's controls - the weapons are so large and easy to use (I think it was designed so "combat gloves" can be worn - but that's an OPINION and not proven fact)

The 85yearOld with parkinsons and severe tremors.... He TOO can pull back the slide and operate the weapon's controls - even with his tremors -

- and they are both PRETTY "adept" with this weapon inside 15 yards.

So am I, lol.

I can "blow up" a squirrel at 50 yards (about as far as I can see, lol) - my neighbor, younger and perfect vision, can "blow up" a squirrel at 100 yards. I can't even see it, lol

Yes, this is an expensive NICHE gun - and deservedly so.
It's my nightstand "go to gun" on the way to the .357 or .45's and I TRUST my Uncle's lives with this weapon - and they do too!

:)

InkEd
March 4, 2011, 07:17 PM
The 5.7 is an interesting but somewhat unproven round. IMHO it fills a niche between .22mag and 5.56NATO. The big hooplah is that with certain mostly (non-civilian) loads it can penetrate soft body armor. However, so can cheap Soviet surplus Tokerev ammo and just about any rifle cartridge. One thing that really hinders the progress and wider use of the round is that so few guns are chambered for it. Only time will tell for this little round.

Birdmang
March 4, 2011, 07:26 PM
Savage just released a bolt rifle in 5.7x28. Hopefully other makers, wolf or olin, will make ammo for it and the prices will drop. But $22 per a box of 50 isn't too bad.


I love to shoot my PS90. The recoil is extremely manageable and this gun is FUN. Its nice to have 50 rounds in a magazine, and I could rapid fire at a paper plate at 50 yards and get enough rounds on target to do whatever needs to be done.

If someone busts in the house they get a 12 gauge. But the ps90 is awesome and fun.

Pete D.
March 4, 2011, 07:30 PM
The Peruvian hostage situation took place in 1996, not 1976:

Thank you for the date correction. I wasn't paying the attention that I should have when typing.

About the comparisons to the .22 magnum - similar range and capability - well.....yes and no. Mostly no. The 5.7 is a much "hotter" load.
The comparisons almost always fail to mention that the 5.7 rounds are being fired from a pistol with less than a five inch barrel and the .22 mag ballistics are as that round is fired from a rifle. Not quite the same thing. The 5.7 still comes out ahead. (my apologies if some one mentioned this already, I did not read every post closely.)
The Elite Ammo rounds, as mentioned, are a whole 'nother dimension.
Pete

rbernie
March 4, 2011, 08:48 PM
Y'all play nice. I just deleted a bunch of posts that didn't meet that standard.

InkEd
March 4, 2011, 09:14 PM
No, I saw it. Then I read further down about them going through a solid core door and still doing (seemingly a "little" far-fetched) serious damage to people, does contradict itself a bit.

You're post and more importantly the known acceptance of it's use over the 9x19mm by the Secret Service (as a submachine gun cartridge) helps make a good real world case for it. However, we also know that just because the government issues a weapon doesn't mean it is the best. The FN P90 is an interesting and well designed weapon. I agree that it serves it's role as a PDW for certain situations. However, being an ideal cartridge for use
inside a typical surburban house is another story. You want quick stopping power in a civilian defense scenario. IMHO there are other cartridges better suited for the job
of home defense. The 5.7 is probably an effective round. Like I said, time will tell it's story.

Personally, I would like to see the round chambered in something of a cheap "bullet-hose" configuration like a MAC. You could take advantage of the ammo size for sure. It could easily hold about 50rds in a magazine the size of a 30rd 9mm magazine. The reduced recoil is nice. It wouldn't be practical BUT it would be fun. Then have somebody make cheap ammo for it.

Shawn Dodson
March 4, 2011, 10:56 PM
About 30% of those shot with 5.7x28mm during the 2009 Ft. Hood shooting died from their wounds.

About 30% of those shot with 9mm FMJ during the 2011 Tucson shooting died from thier wounds.

trlhrv
March 4, 2011, 11:09 PM
Sold my FN 5.7 two years ago. Fun to shoot but the LOUDEST handgun I had with no recoil. I would be concerned about collateral damage after a round penetrated an assailant. Seems more like a novelty than a self defense pistol.

AZ Five seveN
March 5, 2011, 12:39 AM
Sold my FN 5.7 two years ago. Fun to shoot but the LOUDEST handgun I had with no recoil. I would be concerned about collateral damage after a round penetrated an assailant. Seems more like a novelty than a self defense pistol.
I hate to beat a dead horse to death (I know right?), but I feel like I have to repeat myself...again.

"The 5.7x28mm projectile is statistically safer than conventional pistol bullets, because the projectile design limits overpenetration and has a lower risk of ricochet. The lightweight projectile also poses less risk of collateral damage in the event of a miss, because it loses much of its energy after traveling 400 m (1,310 ft), whereas a conventional pistol bullet such as the 9x19mm retains its energy beyond 800 m (2,625 ft)."

Third time might be the charm, I hope.

hardluk1
March 5, 2011, 08:35 AM
There most be something to these small quicker rounds. If you look around the world there several countries that have there own version. HK has there 4.6-30 round and china has there 5.8x21.

M&PVolk
March 5, 2011, 11:42 AM
It is a very interesting round to me. If the ammo and guns that were chambered in it were less expensive, I might seriously consider getting one. It is hard to justify it as more than a "fun" gun/cartridge combo at this point, though. The cartridge is not superior to most handgun rounds, and isn't as potent as a 5.56. This kind of puts it in a bit of limbo.

For handguns, the 9mm is cheaper and the .40 is about the same price for ammo. Both have a full history of effectiveness and are readily available in a variety of loadings. In a rifle for varminting, there is the .22 LR, .22 Mag, 17 HMR, .204 Ruger, and the .223. I'm not sure there is enough advantage over any of these, either from power or just a straight ballistics head-to-head. I can see it as a home defense round in very specific situations, but the AR covers many of the same bases, and does so with more power than the PS90, while giving up only a bit of maneuverability.

Like I said, interesting but too expensive and niche for me at this time. Would love to shoot one, though.

Manco
March 5, 2011, 02:00 PM
About 30% of those shot with 5.7x28mm during the 2009 Ft. Hood shooting died from their wounds.

About 30% of those shot with 9mm FMJ during the 2011 Tucson shooting died from thier wounds.

For what it's worth, this corresponds pretty well to the similarity in the cross-sectional areas of expanded 5.7x28mm bullets and unexpanded 9x19mm bullets.

There most be something to these small quicker rounds.

Sure, just like there is something to bigger, slower rounds. :)

If you look around the world there several countries that have there own version. HK has there 4.6-30 round and china has there 5.8x21.

Smaller rounds offer greater capacity and controllability, but trade off some per-round lethality for these advantages. Where the line should be drawn on compromises depends on the purpose that a weapon is intended to serve, as well as the individual in the case of private use.

It is a very interesting round to me. If the ammo and guns that were chambered in it were less expensive, I might seriously consider getting one. It is hard to justify it as more than a "fun" gun/cartridge combo at this point, though. The cartridge is not superior to most handgun rounds, and isn't as potent as a 5.56. This kind of puts it in a bit of limbo.

For handguns, the 9mm is cheaper and the .40 is about the same price for ammo. Both have a full history of effectiveness and are readily available in a variety of loadings.

It seems that there should be a niche for an easily controllable caliber that should be more effective than .22 LR, perhaps matching .380 ACP in terminal effectiveness but with lighter recoil. The real question is whether it has the right combination of attributes to gain a substantial foothold in the market, and whether it can overcome the media-fueled stigma that surrounds it. .40 S&W succeeded because of major law enforcement support and good timing, plus it's not so different from other entrenched calibers. .22 LR continues to succeed despite its relative weaknesses because it's so inexpensive and ubiquitous. And .380 ACP has gotten back into the game big-time because of the compact size of the pistols. I think what 5.7x28mm needs is for law enforcement to give it a fair chance and see what happens, but it's not an easy sell because it's so different and extreme in certain ways. It's kind of stuck in a chicken & egg scenario of needing to establish a good reputation for effectiveness in handguns, but not being adopted by those who would test it because of the lack of reputation (sort of like the old job experience conundrum).

M&PVolk
March 5, 2011, 05:51 PM
I agree Manco. It strikes me a little like the 6.5 grendel for the AR platform. A round with a ton of potential being held back because of expense and the same types of LE adoption conundrums.

NMGonzo
March 5, 2011, 07:09 PM
Bigger holes leak more fluid. I wouldn't carry such a firearm for SD.
and any hole through and through is pretty good versus no hole

michael5446
March 5, 2011, 08:09 PM
i know i'm new here, therefore my opinion carries little weight, but i do have a few miles of experience in firearms... any .22 round has its limits(hope ya hit dead on what you are aiming at)but also has the advantage in ammo capacity... the point of "knock down power" must be addressed and should not be taken lightly in a conflict situ... we cant compare real world wartime effectiveness of any 22 or 9mm against unarmed, untrained, and unprotected civilians--pretty much anything will do in that situation...

just a thought

rstull85
March 5, 2011, 08:31 PM
I kinda look at the 5.7 as taking the 9mm vs .45 auto (or 5.56 vs 7.62) argument to the extreme. The die hard 9mm fans love the lighter recoil and higher mag capacity and argue that three or four shots from a 9mm is more effective than a .45 (I currently carry a 9mm and have carried 45's both work great as long as you practice and are comfortable). I have also heard quite a few horror stories of 9mm not stopping someone right away (especially if they are on drugs). With the 5.7 they are just adding more rounds and even less recoil but also less stopping power. Just my personal opinion.

AZ Five seveN
March 6, 2011, 12:09 AM
About 30% of those shot with 5.7x28mm during the 2009 Ft. Hood shooting died from their wounds.

About 30% of those shot with 9mm FMJ during the 2011 Tucson shooting died from thier wounds.

I see where you are going with this, but these two shootings were totally different.

We know both shooters were untrained, and the Tucson shooter used 9mm FMJ while the Ft. Hood shooter used the 5.7x28mm.

The BIG differences are the proximity and response of the victims of both shootings.

In the Tucson shooting, no shot longer than 30 feet was necessary as most of the targets were in a crowd and were civilians. Civilians tend to freeze when shots are fired. These victims would have been sitting ducks, and many were killed execution style.

In the Ft. Hood shooting, the shooter was on the move firing at random targets at varying distances. Many of the victims in the Ft. Hood shooting were trained soldiers. These soldiers were unlikely to freeze in a combat situation due to their training. They are trained to either attack the target by moving to the shots, or retreat, regroup and flank. Since none of these soldiers were armed, their likely response would be to flee, minus the three soldiers who attempted to charge the target.

Those statistics reflect very, very different scenarios, and they should be used very carefully.

Manco
March 6, 2011, 08:45 AM
In the Tucson shooting, no shot longer than 30 feet was necessary as most of the targets were in a crowd and were civilians.

What difference would that make, exactly? Would 9mm FMJ lose so much effectiveness at longer distances, or would greater bullet drop from the slower rounds affect accuracy so much? I doubt it.

Civilians tend to freeze when shots are fired. These victims would have been sitting ducks, and many were killed execution style.

You mean like the civilians who overpowered the shooter in Tucson? :scrutiny:

In the Ft. Hood shooting, the shooter was on the move firing at random targets at varying distances.

In this case, there were plenty of targets clustered together at limited range.

Those statistics reflect very, very different scenarios, and they should be used very carefully.

There are a lot of random factors involved in any real shooting incidents being compared, but the results here are still pretty much in line with what I'd expect from cases where the shooting ended relatively quickly and medical attention was relatively timely.

Now, a better case in point for what you're saying would be the Virginia Tech massacre, which was very different in a number of important ways, and should only be compared with more similar incidents. Mainly, the shooting went on for an extended period of time with no medical help available, which as expected resulted in an inordinately high mortality rate.

Shawn Dodson
March 6, 2011, 09:32 AM
Ft. Hood - According to a USAToday news report nearly 150 rounds fired by the attacker inside the building and 70 rounds outside ( http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-10-20-fort-hood-trial_N.htm ). Many victims reportedly were shot more than once.

Tucson - 30-ish rounds fired.

Statistics have shown for years that 1 in 4 people deliberately shot with a handgun dies. As Manco already pointed out - the two shootings appear to align with this statistic.

gearhead
March 6, 2011, 01:31 PM
I haven't seen specific Coroner's Reports on the Tucson wounds, but the thing that struck me about reading the reports on the wounded and killed from the Ft. Hood shooting was that the shooter was consistently aiming low. The vast majority of the wounds were at belt level and below, rather than in the vicinity of COM. Several of the survivors had grievous injury to large and small intestine, kidneys, and liver IIRC, and if those shots had been 6" higher they would have been much more likely to have been fatal. It almost seems that the Ft. Hood shooter was shooting to maim rather than to kill, although I suppose it could also have been his lack of training.

xfyrfiter
March 6, 2011, 05:45 PM
In the same platforms ie. the AR the 9x19 has more ft. lbs. of energy downrange than the 5.7 by approx 150 #ft.( this info is on another site rite now can't remember which.)

mustang_steve
March 6, 2011, 05:58 PM
If you can't stop someone with a 5-7 pistol, you should seriously recosider your tactics.

A 20-round magdump into a threat can be done with extreme swiftness and incredible accuracy, even in the hands of a relatively new shooter (a year of experience approx).

It's not a one-shot stop, it's a small caliber volume weapon. Don't try to make a dagger into a broadsword, learn to use the dagger like a dagger.

hardluk1
March 6, 2011, 07:41 PM
I do wish an afordable hangun was made for this round. If FN was able to build and sell for the same kind of price as there 9mm pistols i would own one. But not at the price there retailing for. The 5-7 might not be the do it all round but with the 20 round count and controlablity It would make a good option.

rstull85
March 6, 2011, 09:43 PM
I think that if you did a twenty round mag dump into an attacker you will wind up in prison for the use of excessive force. At a minimum you will end up with a law suit and it would be hard to beat. Like I have stated before I would prefer fewer rounds of a larger caliber.

Manco
March 7, 2011, 03:03 PM
I haven't seen specific Coroner's Reports on the Tucson wounds, but the thing that struck me about reading the reports on the wounded and killed from the Ft. Hood shooting was that the shooter was consistently aiming low.

Well, he was hitting low, in any case. The possible reasons are varied, and it would be difficult to defend any guesses we'd try to make without more information. For all we know, it might have been something simple like the shooter jerking the trigger too hard due to stress, which can result in pulling the muzzle down just before each shot, or his laser sight being slightly off.

The vast majority of the wounds were at belt level and below, rather than in the vicinity of COM. Several of the survivors had grievous injury to large and small intestine, kidneys, and liver IIRC, and if those shots had been 6" higher they would have been much more likely to have been fatal.

On the other hand, it's also possible that the multiple wounds that many of the victims suffered made them more likely to die. The shooter in Tucson spread his shots out more despite having even more rounds per magazine (he just didn't get to reload because the victims jumped him when he tried).

It almost seems that the Ft. Hood shooter was shooting to maim rather than to kill, although I suppose it could also have been his lack of training.

He seemed bent on killing to me, although I won't pretend to know what was really going on in his mind. His lack of training could have contributed to his shot placement, it could have been pure chance, or maybe he anticipated (or saw) people getting low in order to make smaller targets of themselves so he aimed lower than he normally would at the range. Whatever the reasons, he expended an impressive number of rounds and achieved multiple hits multiple times--which doesn't work to the 5.7x28mm's favor in assessing per-round effectiveness, although it may for controllability--so I seriously doubt that he was playing around in any way.

DoubleTapDrew
March 7, 2011, 03:45 PM
Does the 5.7 round fragment out of the FiveseveN? Out of the P90 (10.3")? Just curious. I think their velocities are lower than the fragmentation threshhold for 5.56 (~2700fps?) but don't know if it's lower for the 5.7 rounds.

mustang_steve
March 7, 2011, 03:49 PM
rstull, if the use of deadly force is legitimate, then how would one define the use of force as excessive? Can one be more dead than dead? In that case, would the use of a large caliber be excessive force?

The only way I could see excessive force playing out is if it was clear and obvious that the attacker was no longer a threat, in which case there was no longer a justification for legal use of deadly force.

Jenrick
March 8, 2011, 12:39 AM
http://www.brassfetcher.com/5.7x28mm%20Performance%20Summary.pdf

Very interesting reading. The trimmed down 40gr Barnes bullets would be a definite fight stopper. The rest while a little low on penetration are certainly doing damage.

-Jenrick

pink_talon
March 8, 2011, 02:05 AM
re: Ft Hood. I can almost always tell when a student shoots consistently low, he's making the pistol go off ("I'm making it go off NOW! Push down) and is anticipating recoil recovery rather that compressed surprise break.

.22mag, I've been posting this tonight on some threads is that I believe that a long straight walled .22 Mag will just not feed reliably as a bottle neck design. This bias I have learned while watching hundreds of students in a beginning class with .22lr, jam up as soon as the chamber collects enough to get sticky or the wax/lead collects on the feed ramp.

redloki
March 8, 2011, 02:29 AM
Savage is now chambering their model 25 in 5.7x28. Out of a 22" barrel it should have quite a bit more zip to it than a Fiveseven or a P90, PS90. It is a nasty little round. I really enjoyed my Fiveseven I sold it due to ammo cost and not being able to get virgin brass. Without Ap ammo the intent of this weapon is lost but don't get me wrong with available ammo offerings it will still put a world of hurt on someone. I'd never feel undergunned with it.

whitecoyote
March 8, 2011, 02:54 AM
I like my FN Five-seveN :)
http://i55.tinypic.com/20p5uoi.jpg
http://i53.tinypic.com/35bxx1y.jpg

rstull85
March 8, 2011, 01:27 PM
Mustang Steve, I totally agree with you. If you are in a situation that requires the use of deadly force then you shouldn't have to worry about trying to prove that you used an appropriate amount of force or not. And your right you cant be any more dead than dead. Unfortunately thats not the way it works. The police are going to look at the shooting and decide if what you did was justified or not. They might not agree with you on what is appropriate or not. Even if you don't have any charges filed against you or not you probably will get sued. Then you have to prove to a judge that you didn't use excessive force. Again I don't agree with the way the system works, but thats how it is.

DmL5
March 10, 2011, 09:52 PM
About 30% of those shot with 5.7x28mm during the 2009 Ft. Hood shooting died from their wounds.

About 30% of those shot with 9mm FMJ during the 2011 Tucson shooting died from thier wounds.The dead and wounded percentages are irrelevant. About 20% of the Oklahoma City bombing victims died from their wounds. The remaining 80% of the victims survived with injuries. That doesn't mean a bomb is an ineffective means of killing someone. The two shootings you mention were dramatically different from each other (shooting a little child, for one, is not similar to shooting soldiers), but the dead and wounded percentages you will see in any shooting of this sort will reflect the killer's shot placement, and virtually nothing else. Regardless of caliber, the victims shot in vital areas in these incidents generally die, while the victims shot in non-vital areas generally live.

For example, erroneous logic might lead you to believe that the large percentage of deceased victims at Virginia Tech was due to the killer's use of hollow-points. But in reality, 31 of the 33 deceased at Virginia Tech (including the killer) were shot in the head at close range. And either way, the Fort Hood shooter used FN's 5.7x28mm civilian ammunition, which is indeed somewhat similar to 9mm FMJ in ballistic gelatin testing. EA's 5.7x28mm ammunition types have been independently chronographed pushing heavier bullets at higher velocities, so your comparison of the two shootings is pointless.



You mean like the civilians who overpowered the shooter in Tucson?The Fort Hood shooter was stopped by an armed police officer after killing or disabling a number of people that had already tried to stop him, including Kimberly Munley and at least 3 other victims. On the other hand, the Tucson killer was stopped by an unarmed 74-year-old man who had already been shot in the head, so again, the details in the two incidents were not similar at all.

DmL5
March 10, 2011, 09:58 PM
I haven't seen specific Coroner's Reports on the Tucson wounds, but the thing that struck me about reading the reports on the wounded and killed from the Ft. Hood shooting was that the shooter was consistently aiming low. The vast majority of the wounds were at belt level and below, rather than in the vicinity of COM. Several of the survivors had grievous injury to large and small intestine, kidneys, and liver IIRC, and if those shots had been 6" higher they would have been much more likely to have been fatal.Correct. According to news reports, almost all of the Fort Hood shooting victims were shot either in the lower half of the body, or in extremities.

browningguy
March 10, 2011, 11:15 PM
I quite like mine, I have the 57 upper for an AR, 50 rounsd at a time in a compact package, reasonably accurate, no recoil. What's not to like? Whenever I run short of ammo I reorder 1000 rounds from either Natchez or Midway, seems like someone always has the 40 gr. loads for around $20 per 50.

And if bigger is better I have a .50 Beowulf on one of my other lowers, it's not much fun for targt shooting but I guess it will get the job done.

Palehorseman
March 11, 2011, 01:43 AM
Isn't that what the Ft. Hood terr perp used?

Manco
March 11, 2011, 12:48 PM
The two shootings you mention were dramatically different from each other (shooting a little child, for one, is not similar to shooting soldiers),

Many of the soldiers were shot multiple times as they tried to hide or crawl away (some having already been shot in the legs initially), so executions of helpless victims happened in both shootings. And with all due to respect to those who serve--putting their lives on the line to protect the freedoms that we all cherish--we're not talking about armed and armored infantry acting in an organized manner here. People keep mentioning one particular Tuscon victim, the 9-year-old child, but honestly would Jessica Lynch have fared much better?

but the dead and wounded percentages you will see in any shooting of this sort will reflect the killer's shot placement, and virtually nothing else. Regardless of caliber, the victims shot in vital areas in these incidents generally die, while the victims shot in non-vital areas generally live.

And where they get shot and how many die are statistics--collections of data points that can then be compared in a larger context as combined data points. Given the number of uncontrolled random factors involved, I wouldn't get too hung up on small differences, but it is an example showing that even when people are shot multiple times by 5.7x28mm, it's not the death ray that some people make it out to be. Nor is it necessarily less effective than 9mm FMJ, and I think that says something in 5.7x28mm favor for those who doubt its effectiveness.

For example, erroneous logic might lead you to believe that the large percentage of deceased victims at Virginia Tech was due to the killer's use of hollow-points. But in reality, 31 of the 33 deceased at Virginia Tech (including the killer) were shot in the head at close range.

And they had plenty of time to bleed out anyway, regardless of whether they were executed with head shots. Indeed, I agree that this is a very different case (in a number of ways), and see the point of your example. But if there are supposedly any such fundamental differences between the Fort Hood and Tuscon shootings, then I haven't seen any convincing arguments supporting them--at least to the point of refuting the simple statement that 5.7x28mm works pretty much like another pistol caliber (shocking! :eek:;)).

And either way, the Fort Hood shooter used FN's 5.7x28mm civilian ammunition, which is indeed somewhat similar to 9mm FMJ in ballistic gelatin testing. EA's 5.7x28mm ammunition types have been independently chronographed pushing heavier bullets at higher velocities, so your comparison of the two shootings is pointless.

The SS197 gets plenty of penetration, especially when supported by multiple shots, so what's the difference, a little bit more energy that does nothing, or is EA's ammo some kind of death ray? :scrutiny:

The Fort Hood shooter was stopped by an armed police officer after killing or disabling a number of people that had already tried to stop him, including Kimberly Munley and at least 3 other victims.

That's because he still had rounds available in those instances, and was able to reload multiple times. He was also lucky that Munley missed every shot she took at him.

On the other hand, the Tucson killer was stopped by an unarmed 74-year-old man who had already been shot in the head, so again, the details in the two incidents were not similar at all.

My point was that contrary to AZ Five seveN's description of the victims at Tuscon as lambs for the slaughter, merely because they're civilians, not all of them simply cowered and waited to be executed. Similarly, some of the victims at Fort Hood apparently did just that, while others fought back (unsuccessful as their attempts were).

No doubt, there was a difference in how and when the shooters were stopped, but it had nothing to do with the caliber he was using. :rolleyes: The Tuscon killer was stopped during the process of reloading for the first time, but significant damage had already been done. There are also differences in the number of shots fired and the number of people who were shot and killed, to be sure, but nobody said that the shootings were identical, just roughly comparable in terms of the effectiveness of the rounds fired, and only in a statistical sense.

DmL5
March 11, 2011, 05:59 PM
it is an example showing that even when people are shot multiple times by 5.7x28mm, it's not the death ray that some people make it out to be.Gunshot wounds to non-vital areas of the body are most often survived regardless of caliber. You shouldn't need another "example" to tell you that; you can look at any shooting and you will find the same pattern: the victims shot in vital areas generally die, while the victims shot in non-vital areas generally live. Shootings where a large percentage of victims died (such as the Virginia Tech massacre), simply reflect more lethal shot placement on the part of the killer.

As someone already pointed out, almost all of the Fort Hood shooting victims were shot either in the lower half of the body, or in extremities; so with the same shot placement, any common pistol caliber would have produced virtually the same exact percentages of dead and wounded. Of course, the same basically holds true for the Tucson shooting or the Virginia Tech shooting. None of the details in the Fort Hood shooting point to 5.7x28mm being a poor performer. To recap:

- From the beginning there were repeated efforts to stop the killer, and everyone that tried to stop him (either armed or unarmed) was quickly killed or disabled. That includes Kimberly Munley and at least 3 other victims.

- Medical response in the shooting was extremely swift. Victims inside the building were receiving medical attention even as the shooting continued outdoors.

- The shooter used a mix of FN's factory ammunition types, which fall short of the FBI penetration minimum and still only expand to be about the same size as 9mm FMJ.

- All of the victims were adults, and most of them were male soldiers.

- Almost all of the wounded survivors were shot in the lower two-thirds of the body, or in extremities.



People keep mentioning one particular Tuscon victim, the 9-year-old child, but honestly would Jessica Lynch have fared much better?Yes, it goes without saying that in many such cases an adult would fare better than a little 9-year-old child. But we can set that aside because shot placement is the single most critical factor in determining who survives and who does not; and the girl in question was shot in a vital area. Again, the victims shot in vital areas in these incidents generally die, while the victims shot in non-vital areas generally live.



And where they get shot and how many die are statistics--collections of data points that can then be compared in a larger context as combined data points.The dead and wounded percentages are irrelevant. Like I already pointed out, about 20% (168) of the Oklahoma City bombing victims died from their wounds. The remaining 80% of the victims survived with injuries. That doesn't mean a bomb is a less effective means of killing someone than Loughner's pistol loaded with 9mm FMJ.



No doubt, there was a difference in how and when the shooters were stopped, but it had nothing to do with the caliber he was using.Correct, but it's still true that many of the details in the two shootings were dissimilar. The timing of medical response is another factor; the victims at Fort Hood were receiving medical attention inside the building even as the shooting continued outside.



The SS197 gets plenty of penetration, especially when supported by multiple shots, so what's the difference, a little bit more energy that does nothing, or is EA's ammo some kind of death ray?The Fort Hood shooter apparently used at least some SS192, which tumbles but falls far short of the FBI penetration minimum. SS197 almost meets the FBI penetration minimum, but it still expands to roughly the same diameter as 9mm FMJ. EA's 5.7x28mm types have been independently chronographed pushing heavier bullets at higher velocities. Their loads exceed the FBI penetration minimum and still expand to a greater diameter than the SS197.

Manco
March 12, 2011, 12:59 PM
Gunshot wounds to non-vital areas of the body are most often survived regardless of caliber. You shouldn't need another "example" to tell you that; you can look at any shooting and you will find the same pattern: the victims shot in vital areas generally die, while the victims shot in non-vital areas generally live.

I don't need another example, but some people might, and these are public posts. Obviously I don't speak for Shawn Dodson, who originally (in this thread) made the observation that the mortality rates at Fort Hood and Tuscon were similar and in line with the general mortality rate of gunshot wounds involving handguns, but one point that I derived from this observation was that there are no special properties of 5.7x28mm that distinguish it from other pistol calibers. Naturally, when others imply that there are, I'll argue against that (but not against everything you are saying here).

Another point that I derived (another obvious one--nothing particularly insightful but still meaningful) is that 5.7x28mm is clearly as effective as other pistol calibers, contrary to what the doubters and haters say. There may be minor differences based on projectile size, bullet design, and other parameters, but by and large it's like any other pistol caliber.

As someone already pointed out, almost all of the Fort Hood shooting victims were shot either in the lower half of the body, or in extremities; so with the same shot placement, any common pistol caliber would have produced virtually the same exact percentages of dead and wounded. Of course, the same basically holds true for the Tucson shooting or the Virginia Tech shooting. None of the details in the Fort Hood shooting point to 5.7x28mm being a poor performer.

Wait a second, when did I say that 5.7x28mm is a poor performer? I was arguing against points made by others who implied that Fort Hood and Tuscon were not a fair comparison because the victims at Tuscon were easier to kill, giving an unfair advantage to 9mm. My argument has been that these two incidents are comparable enough to say that the calibers performed more or less equally, as I would have expected (and as their statistics show).

You're either misinterpreting my assessment of 5.7x28mm's performance as negative criticism (I think it's effective for a pistol caliber), or implying that 9mm FMJ's performance is poor and that 5.7x28mm should perform significantly better given equal circumstances (and different loads, as you also mentioned). Which is it?

To recap:

- From the beginning there were repeated efforts to stop the killer, and everyone that tried to stop him (either armed or unarmed) was quickly killed or disabled. That includes Kimberly Munley and at least 3 other victims.

So does this prove to you that 5.7x28mm is effective (given proper shot placement), which I already believe, or does it prove that it's superior to 9mm (which I do not believe)?

As for Munley specifically, while she was armed she missed every shot and then her pistol jammed. Not to take anything away from her bravery in answering the call of duty, but in the end she was ineffective and essentially just another victim (who fortunately survived). Had she managed to stop the killer, it would not have made much of a difference anyway, as he was taken down soon afterward (by lowly 9mm of all things). Either way, it has no bearing on 5.7x28mm versus any other caliber.

- Medical response in the shooting was extremely swift. Victims inside the building were receiving medical attention even as the shooting continued outdoors.

The medical response at Tuscon was swift as well (unlike those of many other mass shootings). Are you implying that the mortality rate at Fort Hood would have been higher otherwise because of 5.7x28mm's alleged superiority to other pistol calibers, or what? And would EA ammunition have caused more deaths, as you brought it up in your last post? I doubt all of this for the reasons given in my previous posts.

- The shooter used a mix of FN's factory ammunition types, which fall short of the FBI penetration minimum and still only expand to be about the same size as 9mm FMJ.

The 10-11 inches that SS197 (the most commonly available ammo, I think) and 9-10 inches that SS195 typically achieve should be sufficient against leaner-than-average (I would assume) victims who were unarmed and often shot multiple times anyway.

I realize that this may sound strange and incongruous coming from somebody who emphasizes the importance of penetration, but there is no hard threshold, and what I usually have in mind are worst-case scenarios such as plus-sized bad guys who are armored with their own blubber (I have some myself so I'm always aware of it :o), or bad guys whose arms may get in the way because they're shooting at me. I'm not saying that your point is not factually correct, because it is, but shooting unarmed people bunches of times kind of nullifies the need for penetration margin. In any case, I doubt that it would make a statistically significant difference in this incident, especially with such a rough comparison (where say 25% and 30% are close enough).

Yes, it goes without saying that in many such cases an adult would fare better than a little 9-year-old child.

The child was just one example, but she was being used to represent the victims at Tuscon, which I don't think is very accurate--no more so than Lynch is representative of the entire US Army.

But we can set that aside because shot placement is the single most critical factor in determining who survives and who does not; and the girl in question was shot in a vital area. Again, the victims shot in vital areas in these incidents generally die, while the victims shot in non-vital areas generally live.

Exactly, and my argument was against somebody else who was trying to make a broad class distinction between the victims at Fort Hood and Tuscon. I don't think it matters to the bullets whether they're ripping through civilians or soldiers.

The dead and wounded percentages are irrelevant. Like I already pointed out, about 20% (168) of the Oklahoma City bombing victims died from their wounds. The remaining 80% of the victims survived with injuries. That doesn't mean a bomb is a less effective means of killing someone than Loughner's pistol loaded with 9mm FMJ.

It is what it is. Although not comparable in direct terms, exploding a large bomb outside a building is less effective in terms of mortality rate (albeit potentially more effective in total deaths) than a deranged mass murderer shooting people with a pistol at close range while they're trying to get away from or attack him--20% versus 30%, there you go. Exploding a large bomb right next to one person is a totally different case, and nobody in their right mind would make such an extrapolation.

Correct, but it's still true that many of the details in the two shootings were dissimilar. The timing of medical response is another factor; the victims at Fort Hood were receiving medical attention inside the building even as the shooting continued outside.

But there were more victims to treat, and the shooting went on for a lot longer, and so on and so on. I don't deny that there were differences, but I think the two shootings were fundamentally similar with regard to the effectiveness of pistol calibers--at least enough to cast doubt on the beliefs that 5.7x28mm is either ineffective or has lethality that goes well above and beyond that of other pistol calibers (quite a polarized set there).

The Fort Hood shooter apparently used at least some SS192, which tumbles but falls far short of the FBI penetration minimum. SS197 almost meets the FBI penetration minimum, but it still expands to roughly the same diameter as 9mm FMJ. EA's 5.7x28mm types have been independently chronographed pushing heavier bullets at higher velocities. Their loads exceed the FBI penetration minimum and still expand to a greater diameter than the SS197.

What difference do you think that would have made in this case? Even if the mortality rate were somewhat higher, I would still expect it to be roughly in line with that of the Tuscon shooting. While a small theoretical improvement in lethality may be sufficiently advantageous to recommend one load over another in the context of that discussion, the difference is negligible (random factors, limited sample size, mumble-hand-wave) in the context of this discussion--that 5.7x28mm performs like a pistol caliber (again, shocking! :eek:;)).

DmL5
March 12, 2011, 05:18 PM
Wait a second, when did I say that 5.7x28mm is a poor performer?That argument wasn't directed at you in specific.



So does this prove to you that 5.7x28mm is effective (given proper shot placement)Yes, it is.



or does it prove that it's superior to 9mm (which I do not believe)?No, it's not; not in terms of lethality. FN's factory SS197SR is similar to a 9mm FMJ, and EA's 5.7x28mm types are closer to a 9mm hollow-point. Aside from that, though, virtually every aspect of the pistol itself is advantageous as compared to any other full-size pistol.

A spare 30-round Five-seveN magazine can be carried for less weight than a spare 17-round Glock magazine, even though it carries about twice as much ammunition. A Five-seveN pistol loaded with 20 rounds weighs the same as an empty Glock 17 pistol. The Five-seveN also has a higher flush-fit magazine capacity, shoots flatter, recoils less, and with EA's ammunition has the ability to penetrate virtually any type of body armor.



9-10 inches that SS195 typically achieve should be sufficient against leaner-than-average (I would assume) victimsSS192/SS195 typically achieve only 7-9 inches of penetration in ballistic gelatin.



shooting unarmed people bunches of times kind of nullifies the need for penetration marginPenetration can be critical regardless of whether or not the victims were "shot multiple times anyway." See, for example, the FBI Miami 1986 shootout; Platt was shot multiple times and the insufficient penetration of one bullet still allowed him to continue fighting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI_Miami_shootout,_1986



exploding a large bomb outside a building is less effective in terms of mortality rate (albeit potentially more effective in total deaths) than a deranged mass murderer shooting people with a pistol at close range while they're trying to get away from or attack him--20% versus 30%, there you go.Of course, and a bomb is far more destructive than a pistol loaded with 9mm FMJ rounds, even if the mortality rate is not as high; but my point is that the mortality rate in any given incident is irrelevant without taking all of the details into account.

For example, people tend to jump to conclusions based entirely on the high mortality rate at Virginia Tech, and they suppose it's due to his use of hollow-point bullets. In reality, it was due largely to his extremely lethal shot placement (31 of 33 were shot in the head). For another example, people tend to jump to conclusions based entirely on the relatively low mortality rate at Fort Hood, and they suppose it's due to his use of a 5.7x28mm weapon. In reality, it was due largely to the fact that most victims were shot in non-vital areas.



But there were more victims to treat, and the shooting went on for a lot longerThere were also a larger number of medics immediately treating the victims at Fort Hood; and as I said, they were being treated inside the building as the shooting continued outside, so the length of the shooting didn't really make a difference.



While a small theoretical improvement in lethality may be sufficiently advantageous to recommend one load over another in the context of that discussion, the difference is negligibleThat is correct; but many seriously believe there is a dramatic lethality difference between one tiny pistol bullet (5.7mm) and another tiny pistol bullet (9mm, etc), or that there is a dramatic lethality difference between a 9mm FMJ and a 9mm JHP.

So one counter-argument to that logic is that the Fort Hood shooter used FN's factory ammunition types, which are generally accepted to be very poor performers in comparison to EA's ammo types anyway.

Manco
March 13, 2011, 09:55 AM
FN's factory SS197SR is similar to a 9mm FMJ, and EA's 5.7x28mm types are closer to a 9mm hollow-point. Aside from that, though, virtually every aspect of the pistol itself is advantageous as compared to any other full-size pistol.

I think it's generally true that the law of diminishing returns kicks in very early with regard to pistol calibers and the manner in which they wound. They all poke small holes, so even .22 LR, given adequate penetration, can at least approach the effectiveness larger/more powerful calibers, in my opinion. After that it's a matter of modest gains, and at some point, which is unknown and depends on the individual to decide, effectively it's just a matter of comfort level and confidence.

SS192/SS195 typically achieve only 7-9 inches of penetration in ballistic gelatin.

Admittedly, my estimate was based on older tests, so I looked up newer ones and found that the rounds were clocked at 400 fps faster than the older ones. :scrutiny: I guess they load them hot these days. Not unexpectedly, when using the same expanding bullets, penetration suffers.

Penetration can be critical regardless of whether or not the victims were "shot multiple times anyway." See, for example, the FBI Miami 1986 shootout; Platt was shot multiple times and the insufficient penetration of one bullet still allowed him to continue fighting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI_Miami_shootout,_1986

If you want an example of an excessively different scenario, then this would be it--extremely determined and heavily armed attackers who took cover (at least partial cover in a vehicle), plus a really, really small sample size (as if the other incidents weren't already rather limited in this regard). Had such a thing (inadequate penetration) happened, say, once during the Fort Hood shooting, resulting in one fewer death, it would only have changed the mortality rate by a couple of percentage points, just like I pointed out earlier. In addition, when you're close enough to pick your shots--as one of the FBI agents eventually managed to get when he finished off the bad guys--the relative importance of penetration margin goes down. Some of the shots taken at Fort Hood were outright executions of those who were already shot in the legs or hiding under a desk, and these are just individual data points in a larger picture.

Looking at this another way, the FBI analysts saw how one bullet failed to penetrate deeply enough at Miami, and wisely decided that there should be a minimum penetration standard. There are only precious few factors that we can control ahead of time, so it behooves us to figure out what those are and address them adequately in order to improve our chances of surviving, even a little bit--this is why penetration depth is SO very important and rightfully emphasized when the subject of choosing which load to use for defensive purposes comes up. That said, it still only matters a small percentage of the time, so it's not as important when doing a statistical analysis of a shooting that has already occurred. Did the vast majority of the rounds expended by the Fort Hood killer really need 12" of penetration to be effective? Nah, it usually doesn't take that much to reach the vitals--it's only for worst-case scenarios. In the meantime, I personally prefer 18" of penetration (which the FBI also deems advantageous) for "worst-worst-case" scenarios, even though admittedly half of that should get the job done against humans nearly all of the time.

For another example, people tend to jump to conclusions based entirely on the relatively low mortality rate at Fort Hood, and they suppose it's due to his use of a 5.7x28mm weapon. In reality, it was due largely to the fact that most victims were shot in non-vital areas.

This happens a lot when shooting pistols at people who are trying to get away, and in cases where not every shot was done execution style. The percentages almost always seem to be similar in such cases--about 1/4 to 1/3 of victims end up dead from their wounds (the lower range in random shooting incidents, collectively, and the upper range when a few executions are involved, I suppose). That's all Shawn was trying to point out, I think, and we're making an awful big deal out of it. :) It was a note presumably intended for those who believe in extreme ideas such as 5.7x28mm being significantly less effective than larger calibers, or conversely that 5.7x28mm offers centerfire rifle-class performance in a pistol, neither of which either of us believe. ;)

DmL5
March 13, 2011, 05:49 PM
Had such a thing (inadequate penetration) happened, say, once during the Fort Hood shooting, resulting in one fewer death, it would only have changed the mortality rate by a couple of percentage points, just like I pointed out earlier.Not necessarily, because SS195 doesn't just fall short of the FBI penetration standard, it falls far short of it. Like I said, it typically penetrates only 7-8 inches in ballistic gelatin, and that could potentially be problematic even if the bullet doesn't strike an intervening arm.

You are correct that an increase or decrease in penetration/expansion generally will not make a dramatic difference in a shooting. I only mention it because, again, many seriously believe there is a dramatic lethality difference between one tiny pistol bullet (5.7mm) and another tiny pistol bullet (9mm, etc), or that there is a dramatic lethality difference between a 9mm FMJ and a 9mm JHP. One of the counter-arguments to that logic is that the Fort Hood shooter used FN's factory ammunition types, which are very poor performers (SS195, especially) in comparison to EA's ammo types.



That's all Shawn was trying to point out, I think, and we're making an awful big deal out of it. It was a note presumably intended for those who believe in extreme ideas such as 5.7x28mm being significantly less effective than larger calibersNo, that's not what he was trying to point out; hence the big deal. The author in question actually does believe that 5.7x28mm is dramatically less effective than other pistol calibers, and he has tried to use Fort Hood as a case against it several times here in the past. Example:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=526888

If you enjoyed reading about "Tell me about the 5.7 rd...please" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!