"i mean, if i want crap ballistics suitable for killing rabbits, give me a 15oz walther P22 and the cheaper ammo that goes with it"
Run the numbers; it's more like a step up from 22WMR, or a 5.56 after a few hundred yards. Check the gel tests; it ain't no ice-pick, the rounds typically tumble, fragment, or expand (reliably-ish in the case of SS197SR which is the slowest load) depending on the bullet design.
"the problem with these really high velocity rounds in pistols, they generally dont get enough barrel length to pick up enough velocity to really do much"
Query: how much is required? The duty loads of the 5.7 routinely do +2100fps for Pete's sake. It's not gonna blow crap up like a 22-250, if that's what your expectation is
Comparing the 5.7 to rounds almost 3X heavier isn't exactly the most effective way to determine anything about it, btw. Apples and 45-70s. Gel tests are much more illuminating, and show just how many angels we've been fretting over on the pinhead (it's the same ~1ft of penetration as seen for all duty rounds).
"40 grains at 1675fps isnt impressive at all, heck a 30 luger will shoot a bullet more than double that weight at almost the same velocity from the same barrel length"
That 40gr load is
the heaviest one out there for 5.7, specifically formulated by FNH to be the most telegenic ("sporting round"); hardly the best load for defense, although they are pretty. Even still, ballistic effect is impressive in some ways (I'm guessing this one's a PS90 so the fragging is more severe)
Total depth was about 11" in this one (I think due to the tumbling dynamics the 5.7 bullets rely on, there seems to be a greater sensitivity to gel calibration, where some folks get +/- about an inch --this one on the low end-- test-to-test. 9mm seems slightly easier to get consistent ~12" depths on, batch to batch, from what I can tell). Perm wound cavity was nearly 3" wide...
The terminal effects are situation-sensitive, though; somehow MAC got the exact same round from the exact same SMG barrel to neatly mushroom
. Bone-based tests are even more varied, with some splintering the member into shrapnel, others neatly expanding the bullet, others deflecting the bullet trajectory. While wholly unscientific, meat-based tests are consistently gruesome compared to larger rounds (4" diameter cavity), though only about 3/4ths as deep as 9mm. I think the only conclusion one can draw is that penetration is likely a bit less, and damage up to that point likely a bit more, compared to much heavier pistol bullets of similar kinetic energy. More unsatisfying than dramatic one way or the other, but that basically is the claim made by the round's proponents.
"not to mention its about $0.50/rd for that barely better than .32acp 5.7x28mm ammo"
1) 32acp gets really short shrift, in part due to ancient FMJ/cast ammo, part due to tiny blowback guns with neither the barrel length to develop velocity, nor the mass to restrain its modest pressure & recoil. Also the recent popularity of the 'vastly more powerful' 380 of mostly similar performance but larger diameter (deja vu; that's basically the relationship between 5.7x28 and 9mm)
2) It's selling for like $.35/rd anymore, which isn't terrible for jacketed hollowpoints (sadly, the
actual cheap ball ammo, is unavailable to us because of Reagan)
TCB