Carrying a Five-Seven?
- Thread starter CmdrSlander
- Start date
- Status
Zerodefect
member
I've shot some allmost live things with a Ps90. Chunks of waste pork etc.
Buy one, try it out, if it deosn't pass your testing sell it. No sense in arguing it by what some 3rd party said about the round from an internet away.
Results were similar to 9mm. Exactly like FN said they'd be. Not a powerful round for sure, but OK for the niche it fits into. (CQB defense with limited wall penetration etc.)
Buy one, try it out, if it deosn't pass your testing sell it. No sense in arguing it by what some 3rd party said about the round from an internet away.
Results were similar to 9mm. Exactly like FN said they'd be. Not a powerful round for sure, but OK for the niche it fits into. (CQB defense with limited wall penetration etc.)
MachIVshooter
Member
I'd probably pick one up in the ~$500 price range, but a grand is too much for a novelty gun like this. I wouldn't have paid much more than I did for my PMR-30, either ($329).
It's the cheap production of .22 LR that causes the "rimfire reliability" debacle. I've never had a misfire with .22 WMR, and not one single hiccup with my PMR after a minor extractor mod.
Not saying I believe the .22 WMR is a good defensive round, either, as it has even more drawbacks than the 5.7x28mm. But from a reliability standpoint, I'd trust my PMR-30. As I also said, though, the PMR is just as bulky as the Five-seveN, and I don't wanna carry it anyway.
The round is a whole different animal from a rifle, basically a rimless .22 Hornet. Thing is, though, there are more compact, lighter and less expensive 5.56mm Rifles, and the ammo is cheaper as well as being far more powerful. Even fired from my 9" PLR-16 (which is much smaller and lighter than a PS-90, and very accurate) 5.56mm exceeds the performance of 5.7x28mm from the 16" PS90 barrel. And the capacity argument is shot with the Beta C-mags doubling the capacity of the PS-90 mag; The PLR-16 with a fully loaded 100 round Beta-C mag (7.2 Lbs) is a quarter pound lighter than a loaded PS90 (7.5 Lbs., as heavy as an AR-15). With a 30 rounder, the PLR is under 4 lbs. I don't think I need to even mention the cost difference. AR-based pistols are only slightly longer and heavier than the PLR.
While a Five-seveN would probably follow me home at the right price, the PS-90 is on my "never" list. I view it as particularly useless for the above reasons, as well as my personal opinion that it's chunky and uncomfortable with a crap trigger.
trlhrv
Member
I owned one for about a year. It is a nice novelty piece and is the loudest handgun I ever fired. I wouldn't want to be standing behind the BG that takes a hit from it. I sold it and have no regrets. You can find them all day at gun shows for under $1000 now and ammo is about the same cost as high end 45 ACP.
No, it's just not significant, which is what I already said in the post you quoted.
Actually, EA offers bullets with penetration depths ranging from 8 inches, to 10 inches, to 12 inches, to 16+ inches; penetration beyond a depth of 16 inches, however, is excessive.
Good; then you understand that there is zero difference between one tiny pistol bullet and another tiny pistol bullet. If either bullet strikes a vital structure, the victim will likely be stopped/killed. If the bullets do not strike a vital structure, the victim will likely not be stopped/killed. It's that simple. A pistol bullet will not achieve substantial blood loss from a flesh wound, regardless of its caliber.
Dr. Di Maio is hardly a "minority dissenter." All of the prominent wound ballistics authors have noted that gunshot wounds from FMJ bullets are identical to those created by JHP bullets (in terms of both appearance and extent), and JHP bullets provide a purely theoretical benefit.
No.
I mention expansion because it's of interest to some people; personally, I do not really care about it, because I know it only provides a theoretical benefit.
The Harold Fish case demonstrates that the prosecutor can do that, regardless.
Quite a few people were shot at Fort Hood, and there is a lot of information associated with that incident.
Regardless, my statement is not speculation because all handgun bullets have identical performance characteristics. Meaning, with hits to vital structures, they are effective; but with hits to non-vital structures they are not effective.
If you find it troubling that I have a habit of correcting misinformation, I'd suggest you stop recycling misinformation.
Last edited:
It's smaller and lighter than a PS90 because it's a pistol.
Actually, an SBR PS90 is only one inch longer than your PLR-16, even though it has a fixed stock and a longer barrel; an SBR PS90 is also nearly a pound lighter than your PLR-16.
While you're at it, you might as well say the .223 is a "super-charged 22mag" too; of course, that comparison would be completely invalid, but it would be no less valid than the one you just made.
In a pistol-to-pistol comparison, with 40-grain bullets, the 5.7x28mm EA loads achieve a muzzle velocity roughly 700 ft/s faster than the .22 Magnum.
When 30-grain bullets are compared pistol-to-pistol, the 5.7x28mm EA loads achieve a muzzle velocity roughly 1000 ft/s faster than the .22 Magnum.
http://www.gunblast.com/KelTec-PMR30-2.htm
http://www.gunblast.com/FN-FiveseveN.htm
SharpsDressedMan
member
The rumors I heard was that it was no more accurate than say a Glock, which is good, but I was interested because it might be a GREAT groundhog gun. But, if it won't shoot 2-3" groups at 50 yards, it isn't any BETTER than most other pistols for woodchuckin'.
MachIVshooter
Member
And one can load just about any service caliber to do the same. I can send 135's zipping out of my 10mm's at over 1,700 FPS, and they'll stop well short of 16". My carry load, however, is neither that or the super-penetrating 200 gr. hard casts. I use 180 gr. Golden Sabres loaded to 1,406 FPS for 790 ft/lbs. The bullets have averaged 0.82" expanded diameter and penetrate 14"-17" in ballistic clay.
I do. But comparatively, a 10mm or .45 caliber slug is not tiny. With twice the unexpanded diameter and 2.5-3 times the expanded diamter, they're gonna crush and tear more tissue, period. With regard to handguns and the associated velocities resulting in disabling/lethal wounds, bigger bullet > smaller bullet isn't up for debate.
Of course shot placement is paramount. And that doesn't change when we get into rifle rounds. I wouldn't try to stop someone by shooting them in the arm or leg even if I were using my .50 BMG.
Hahaha. Why don't you see how far that doctrine gets you in terms of credibility. Expanding bullets do more damage than non-expanding bullets, this is not conjectural or conceptual. It's a fact.
Well, then why on earth would you carry something as large and heavy as a Five-seveN when you could be carrying the equally effective baby Browning? I mean, since all handgun bullets have identical performance characteristics .....
They certainly can. And the more you give them, the more they'll use. If you're ever actually involved in a defensive shoot that isn't clear-cut enough to avoid trial, having gone about posting on the extreme lethality of the 5.7 is only gonna worsen matters, as the prosecutor will most likely parade that, along with those VPC press releases and such, before the jury, trying to make them believe that you had murderous intentions and your weapon choice and reasons for that choice demonstrate so. The guy who takes the "walk softly and carry a big stick" approach and empties his S&W J-frame .38 or compact 9mm is not likely to contend with the same level of character assassination. Nowhere near it.
What misinformation? And no, it doesn't trouble me. Just pointing out that ALL of your 50 posts here being about the 5.7 and your being generally cantankerous isn't helping your case and certainly won't garner friendly thoughts from other members.
By ATF definition, yes, although it's a stretch by dimensions. Regardless, my point was that it offers twice the capacity with a more potent round from a smaller and lighter weapon
Only if loaded with the 4 pound Beta C-mag. With a normal GI or P-mag, a fully loaded PLR is 2-1/2 pounds lighter than a fully loaded P90/SBR'd PS-90.
Ash
Member
Mach, the 45 has actually 4 times the frontal surface area of the 5.7 (even 9mm has 2.5 times more frontal surface area, unexpanded). The 45 does have twice the diameter, but 4 times the surface area. The expanded 10mm (or 45acp) you mention has 13 times the frontal surface area.
Also, there is a significant difference between fmj and expanding bullets. There is a reason state laws ban FMJ for hunting as it does not reliably stop an animal fast enough for a humane kill.
Also, there is a significant difference between fmj and expanding bullets. There is a reason state laws ban FMJ for hunting as it does not reliably stop an animal fast enough for a humane kill.
Side note: "ballistic clay" is not elastic so it's not comparable to ballistic gelatin, let alone actual human tissue.
The comparitive size difference doesn't matter; they're all tiny. The bullets don't wound on account of their great size. To quote Dr. Di Maio:
"It is the nature of the structure injured, not the nature of the bullet, that causes the incapacitation."
The difference does not amount to what you've stated. Actually, the expanded diameter of even a .22 Magnum out of a rifle barrel is virtually identical to that of a 9mm JHP, anyway:
http://www.brassfetcher.com/index_files/Page2548.htm
The .22 Magnum bullet above expanded to .48 inches and penetrated 9.1 inches, so the only real difference between that and a typical 9mm load is that the 9mm penetrates a few inches deeper.
Meanwhile, compared to the .22 Magnum load I linked above, EA's 5.7x28mm JHP loads push a heavier bullet out of the Five-seveN pistol at a higher muzzle velocity, so it's quite easy to understand how they achieve the performance that they claim they do: significant expansion (roughly equivalent to 9mm) while retaining enough penetration to meet the FBI minimum.
Actually, all of the prominent wound ballistics authors agree with those statements. Dr. Di Maio's level of expertise on this subject is common knowledge. See also:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/parnell/dimaio.htm
"When I asked about his qualifications, Dr. Di Maio sent me his 13-page Curriculum Vitae with information on his extensive work in the forensic field. I believe that a concise discussion of Dr. Di Maio’s credentials is in order. Dr. Di Maio attended St. John’s University as well as the State University of New York. His postgraduate training included stints at Duke University, SUNY, and the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner of Maryland. Dr. Di Maio, who is a veteran of the Army Medical Corps, is board certified in Forensic, Clinical, and Anatomical Pathology. He is currently Chief Medical Examiner of Bexar County (San Antonio) Texas as well as a Professor of the Department of Pathology at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio.
Other positions held by the doctor include Editor in Chief of the Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology and a membership on the Strategic Planning Committee of the National Association of Medical Examiners. Dr. Di Maio is the author or co-author of four books and 75 articles concerning forensics and related matters. He has won several awards for his work including the Outstanding Service Award from the National Association of Medical Examiners in October 1999."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/post-mortem/interviews/vincent-dimaio.html
"A forensic pathologist for more than 40 years, DiMaio retired as the medical examiner of San Antonio in December 2006."
When taken to an extreme that is definitely true; a .50 BMG creates a bigger hole in a human target than a .22 Short does. No one is disputing that fact.
However, in this case you are comparing one tiny pistol bullet to another tiny pistol bullet, and you are simultaneously trying to quantify the significance of increased bullet diameter, which cannot be done no matter how hard you try. Therefore, in a comparison such as this one, the benefit of increased bullet diameter is purely theoretical.
You're assuming all else is equal, which it is not. The Five-seveN is a better overall weapons platform than the Baby Browning, or similar weapons.
The Harold Fish case demonstrates that the prosecutor can and will do that, regardless of the weapon, so that argument remains completely invalid.
Actually, all along I have noted that none of the pistol calibers we're discussing are extremely lethal; in fact, pistol calibers as a whole are not very lethal at all. This contrasts sharply with your obsession with bullet diameter and "extremely lethal" or "big" handgun bullets. It's worth noting that the unofficial record for "most gunshot wounds survived" goes to a New York man that was shot 21 times by NYPD with the "big" 9mm round:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/man_shot_times_hears_first_details_7n0Y8ciCj95zaj2xzsUy4K
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/St...ut-With-New-York-Cops/Article/201008215680186
A 23-year-old man has dodged death after being shot 21 times by police during a shoot-out at a New York street party.
<snip>
"I would say more than 20 gunshot wounds is a record," Dr Vincent DiMaio said.
"Of course, the real issue is where you get shot. One bullet can kill you, but believe it or not, a body can survive a lot of bullet wounds."
1. Magazine capacity beyond 50 rounds (or even 30-something rounds, really) is essentially meaningless for self-defense purposes.
2. The 5.56 round out of a PLR-16 is actually quite similar to EA 5.7x28mm out of a P90/PS90.
3. An SBR PS90 is "larger" (one inch longer) because it's not a pistol. It has a fixed stock and a longer barrel.
4. The PLR-16 is only lighter if you use a smaller magazine, so no, the PLR-16 does not offer a larger magazine capacity in a lighter weapon; you get one or the other, but not both.
Last edited:
Orion8472
Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2008
- Messages
- 3,638
I have been reading the posts. There are pretty spirited exchanges going on. Here's my less than spirited, but honest reply.
I believe this round would have plenty of potential if needed for defense. Many have been killed with the .22lr, and this round has much more potential, so I would hope that this point would be agreed upon.
I own a Five Seven and only have the SS197 [blue tip ammo]. It is the least expensive. . . though still pretty pricey. I wish they would make a practice round for about $5-$7 less, but it is doubtful they will.
As for EA's rounds, . . . . I have absolutely no intention of purchasing anything from them. The price for the SS197 is expensive enough, I wouldn't want to nearly double the price for "better ammo", even if it really is. It is just too much.
Bottom line is, the Five Seven is quite useful. Would I carry mine? Doubtful. I'm not big enough [or wear baggy enough shirts]. Perhaps in the winter.
I believe this round would have plenty of potential if needed for defense. Many have been killed with the .22lr, and this round has much more potential, so I would hope that this point would be agreed upon.
I own a Five Seven and only have the SS197 [blue tip ammo]. It is the least expensive. . . though still pretty pricey. I wish they would make a practice round for about $5-$7 less, but it is doubtful they will.
As for EA's rounds, . . . . I have absolutely no intention of purchasing anything from them. The price for the SS197 is expensive enough, I wouldn't want to nearly double the price for "better ammo", even if it really is. It is just too much.
Bottom line is, the Five Seven is quite useful. Would I carry mine? Doubtful. I'm not big enough [or wear baggy enough shirts]. Perhaps in the winter.
LightningMan
Member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2008
- Messages
- 1,029
I only wish for the 5.7x28mm round is; I sure wish you could buy new brass for it. To me thats the biggest drawback to owning one, which I do. And no I don't conceal carry one either, to big along with alot of other pistols out there. From what I understand about EA's ammunition as to why it's so expensive, is because they have to buy factory ammo like the SS197 & pull the bullets to make their own ammunition. Now this may not be the case any longer but I don't know. BTW I do have 2 boxes of S4 raptors that I paid about $40 a box, yep it's expensive. LM
MachIVshooter
Member
Equivalent to an unexpanded 9mm bullet. You've just inadvertantly admitted that the 5.7x28 is no more effective than FMJ 9mm, which is not known for being particularly effective.
So by that logic, we can reduce the 5.7 by half to .112 caliber, and double the .45 to .903 caliber, but because they're both still "small", the .112 bullets should cause as much damage as the .93" bullet???
At what point do you consider it "big"? 20mm? 40mm? 105mm? even the 105 is still "small" compared to the size of a human body, being of similar circumference to my fist (13" and 12.4", respectively).
In summary, while all small arms bullets are "small", a .45 is one helluva lot bigger than a .22, and that DOES matter. Arguing otherwise is just foolish.
Agreeing with much of something someone says or acknowledging their expertise is not tantamount to unconditional acceptance of their every opinion or theory as fact.
So once again, under a certain unspecified size, you believe that there is no benefit of having a larger round. Interesting. Wrong, but interesting. I can't fathom the thought process that has led you to this conclusion, though.
So if you increased the Baby Brownin'g capacity to 20+1, you'd carry it as confidently as the 5.7 or any other handgun? Because you've already asserted that the cartridge is just as effective as any other....
Taken out of context (obvious by the sentences relative ambuigity). And I don't think you really understand what he means.
What this means is that the bullet damaging X amount of tissue is not what causes the incapacitation, but what structure (organ) that tissue was. You cannot take this to mean that a small bullet damaging only a small portion of one lung is just as effective (or ineffective) as a larger bullet that destroys 3 times as much of that lung tissue. 3 times the damage means 3 times the hemorrhaging, assuming that the blood vessel structure was uniform throughout the tissue. Of course, it is not, so the larger bullet actually increases the odds of causing greater hemorrhaging, because, given the same shot placement, the larger slug will never do less damage, and may tear vessels that the smaller bullet misses. This also illustrates why expanding bullets or bullets that yaw and tumble are more terminally effective than bullets that pass straight through at nominal diameter.
Further, where handgun velocities are concerned and hydrostatic shock with the resulting permanent cavitation causing torn tissue well in excess of actual bullet contact area is not present, more pointed or round-nosed bullets tend to push tissue aside rather than tearing it, and most of that tissue will return to it's former state after the bullet passes through, with only bruising from the capillaries that had their elasticity exceeded by the stretching. The jagged edges of the jacket petals found with JHP's, however, actually cut and tear at much of the tissue that a FMJ would simply push aside.
This is a .355" 102 gr. Golden Sabre I recovered from ballistic clay. I was pushing them a bit too fast, so the jackets and cores often separated. Still, it's a good example of JHP expansion:
Well, no, actually, it demonstrates that using cartridges or platforms that are outside of the arbitrary "normal" class can be costly in court. But as I said, I don't really care if you want to tempt fate, so there's no point in arguing this further. Everyone else gets it.
Says who? You? Because that is the maximum capacity of the P90, anything beyond that is "meaningless"? One could just as easily argue that for most any number picked out of thin air. I feel that more than 15 rounds required means you should have not been there or had a rifle, so I guess my feeling that the 20 round capacity of the Five-seveN is useless is just as valid as your arbitrary number of 50.
Except for being less than a third the cost and giving 25% more energy, yeah, pretty similar.
Does it really matter what the ATF definition is? We all know the PLR is a 9" barreled rifle with the stock removed (SU-16D). If anything, it adds to the flexibility, being equally adept with one-handed use as two with the sling to stabilize. Or get the same SBR stamp you'd need for the PS-90 and add a folding stock to the PLR.
You seem to know the 5.7 and only the 5.7. But OK, fine, we'll go with the Surefire 60 rounder (MAG5-60). With that mag fully loaded, the PLR tips the scale at 5.2 Lbs. Still 1.4 pounds lighter with 10 extra rounds. How long do you wanna do this dance?
ETA:
I was just looking through my load records, so if you wanna continue the 5.56/9" barrel vs. 5.7x28/16" barrel, I had clocked 40 gr. handloads through my PLR at 3,240 FPS, which is well into the realm of real temporary and permanent cavity damage. That's pushing the .223 to it's limits, just as EA has done with the 5.7. Apples to apples now
Last edited:
Wrong again.
The .22 Magnum bullet I linked expanded to .48 inches and penetrated 9.1 inches, so the only real difference between that and a typical 9mm JHP load (not FMJ load) is that the 9mm penetrates a few inches deeper.
Meanwhile, compared to the .22 Magnum load I linked above, EA's 5.7x28mm JHP loads push a heavier bullet out of the Five-seveN pistol at a higher muzzle velocity, so it's quite easy to understand how they achieve the performance that they claim they do: significant expansion (roughly equivalent to 9mm) while retaining enough penetration to meet the FBI minimum.
A fist-sized projectile is dramatically larger than a thimble-sized projectile. A thimble-sized projectile is not dramatically larger than a slightly smaller thimble-sized projectile.
The .45 is still roughly equivalent to a thimble in terms of size, so that's irrelevant.
As long as we are discussing tiny thimble-sized pistol bullets, absolutely. The bigger bullet's advantage is theoretical; its significance cannot be quantified.
The Baby Browning would still be an inferior weapons platform; assuming all else is equal, a .25 ACP handgun (achieving 15+ inches of penetration) carrying 20+1 rounds would certainly be an adequate self-defense weapon.
His comments were definitely not taken out of context. Quote:
"First, it should be said that hollow-point bullets do not mutilate organs or destroy them any more than their solid-nose, all-lead counterparts of the same caliber. The wounds in the skin, as well as those in the internal organs, are the same in appearance and extent for both types of ammunition."
No, it doesn't; that was a fabrication on your part. He clearly notes (quoted above) that the wounds created by FMJ bullets are identical to those created by JHP bullets.
As Dr. Di Maio points out, "the brain can function for 10 to 15 seconds without oxygen, even if all blood is cut off by the wound." In the extreme example you listed, the tiny difference in diameter would actually cause the bullet to graze the blood vessel, not destroy it; so you are looking at the victim potentially being up and about for even longer than the 10 to 15 second oxygen reserve in the brain.
In fact, he/she will probably be up and about substantially longer than the time it takes for his/her brain to deplete that reserve of oxygen in the brain, since the wound hasn't even cut off all of his/her blood; rather, as a graze it has cut off only a portion of it. For example, LAPD officer Stacy Lim survived being shot in the heart (grazing) with a .357 Magnum revolver:
http://www.lapdonline.org/inside_the_lapd/content_basic_view/27327
(emphasis added)
"The bullet ravaged her upper body when it nicked the lower portion of her heart, damaged her liver, destroyed her spleen, and exited through the center of her back, still with enough energy to penetrate her vehicle door, where it was later found. Critically wounded, the officer brought up her weapon and fired one round which struck her assailant. He then turned and ran, but the officer followed him and fired three more rounds, which hit and fatally wounded the gunman."
Theoretically, perhaps, but JHP designs are available for all of the calibers we're discussing.
No, I said that magazine capacity beyond that of a pistol is essentially meaningless in a self-defense shooting, and that's correct.
No, discussing a pistol's magazine capacity is quite a bit different. You are much more likely to actually utilize a pistol's full magazine capacity (typically 10-20 rounds) than a rifle's full magazine capacity (typically 30-100 rounds).
Energy is irrelevant, and the cost is irrelevant unless you can't afford to shoot .45 ACP. If you can afford to shoot .45 ACP, you can afford to shoot 5.7x28mm. Better yet, if you can reload, you can shoot very cheap 5.7x28mm anyway.
Yes, because the weapon is indeed a pistol: it has a short barrel and no stock.
The PLR-16 is then longer than the PS90 SBR, unless you fold the stock, in which case the PS90 SBR is ready to be shouldered and fired immediately while the PLR-16 is not.
It's still a pistol with a short barrel and no stock, so it's not comparable.
EA's 30-grain loads out of the PS90 get about 3,100 ft/s, as independently chronographed. Apples to apples indeed; the difference between the two is incredibly minimal.
baylorattorney
Member
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2011
- Messages
- 489
Owned one. Absolutely unimpressed in all regards. Perhaps if we were given the ammo originally intended for this gun, but we are not. I shot a jack rabbit at 50 yards and it didn't kill it.
Lord have mercy, there is some spirited debate going on in here. With rather a lot of cherry picking going on. For my .0000002 cents the 5.7 is a nice solution to problem I don't have. If body armor wearing thugs come after me and all I have is a pistol I ain't gonna stick around and try my odds.
MachIVshooter
Member
The largest expanded diameter of a 5.7x28mm on that same website you keep referencing was .373", a whole 18 THOUSANDTHS of an inch larger than UNEXPANDED 9mm bullets. Show me the gelatin results for the EA stuff getting close to 1/2" and 12+ inches of penetration, and I'll conceed that 5.7x28 is as effective as 9x19mm JHP. Of course, that's still short of .357, .40, .45 and 10mm, but that's another argument. Let's get past this one first.
So I'll ask again, at what point do you consider a bullet not small?
Considering that he's retired after a 40 year career, when exactly were those statements made? He's referencing "solid-nose, all-lead counterparts". Aside from cheap commercial reloads, how rare are those in the contemporary ammo market for common service calibers? Even most .38 Spl. plinking ammo is FMJ/TMJ today.
A few things have changed since the sixties with regard to bullet design and terminal performance. It's well known that a lot of older JHP designs did not expand reliably, the cavity often filling and then performing like a FMJ.
No, actually, he clearly notes that "hollow points (does not specify jacketed) do not mutilate organs or destroy them any more than their solid-nose, all-lead (LRN, LWC, LSWC) counterparts" Nowhere does he say JHP or FMJ in the text you've quoted.
If you'd comprehended what I'd written, you'd understand that the larger bullet would have then grazed the vessel that the smaller bullet missed completely. That was my point.
We can go on all day citing anecdotal accounts of people surviving nasty wounds, as well as those pushing up daisies from lesser calibers. Something like 82% of handgun wounds are survived. Does not change the fact that larger handgun calibers have a higher success rate than smaller ones.
Only when it doesn't support your argument, evidently.
No, energy doesn't kill or incapacitate. In of of itself, kinetic energy does nothing. What it does do is drive the same weight and diameter bullet deeper, or drive a larger/heavier bullet to the same depth. By balancing the penetration with the diameter for a particular target, we are able to make a more terminally effective round with the cartridge that produces more energy by making a deeper wound channel if necessary (.25 ACP vs. your 5.7) or a larger one if maximum penetration will be exceeded (5.7 vs. 10mm).
There's that "irrelevant" energy thing again. The .25 lacks the energy to drive it's bullet that deep.
Can't even remember your own words. Here, let me help:
I don't see the word "pistol" in there. Anyone else?
That's purely specualtive. Sources?
I never heard anyone say after a gunfight "I had too much ammo". For the record, I don't believe that more than 15 rounds is useless. I do believe, though, that if you need more than that in a defensive situation, you made a serious mistake somewhere along the lines.
Once again, the energy is irrelevant unless it supports your argument. Cost is never irrelevant. And I have never paid $1.14/round for .45 ACP. Why do I use that number? Because that is the price of the EA ammo you keep citing. The point of that post, however, was that the 5.7 is not so similar to the 5.56 as you stated.
With stock, the PLR becomes the SU-16D, and it is capable of being fired with the stock folded. And it's still lighter.
It's just as accurate and more powerful with less bulk and weight. How is it not comparable? Oh, that's right, because to compare it reveals the PS90's inferiority to other weapons, and we can't have that, can we?
I thought we were comparing the P90/PS90SBR, not the longer, heavier PS90 16". Even at that, it's 140 FPS slower with a 10 grain lighter bullet. I know you hate that energy thing, but here it is again:
PS90 16", 30 gr. @ 3,100 FPS = 640 ft/lbs
PLR-16/SU-16D 40 gr @ 3,240 FPS = 933 ft/lbs
That's 45.7% increase in power for the 5.56 from the PLR. Compared to the P90 or SBR figures, it's a 67% increase
Incredibly minimal difference? Not from where I'm standing.
The 5.7 cannot compete with the 5.56 from any barrel length. Incidentally, the P90/PS90 also can't compete favorably against the myriad 5.56mm platforms. That's been evident by the lackluster sales. I haven't even seen one in a local shop for quite some time, yet they can't keep AR's and 5.56mm pistols in stock. Wonder why?
Since we began with discussing the pistol, it's also worth mention that it's a seldom stocked item in most gun shops. While a neat little gun, it's overpriced for what it is: A novelty.
If the 5.7x28 were so fabulous, it would have taken the market by storm. It isn't, and it didn't.
Again, I already showed a .22 Magnum bullet that expanded to .48 inches and penetrated 9.1 inches; the only real difference between that and a typical 9mm JHP load is that the 9mm penetrates a few inches deeper.
Meanwhile, compared to the .22 Magnum load I linked above, EA's 5.7x28mm JHP loads push a heavier bullet out of the Five-seveN pistol at a higher muzzle velocity, so it's quite easy to understand how they achieve the performance that they claim they do: significant expansion (roughly equivalent to 9mm) while retaining enough penetration to meet the FBI minimum.
As long as we're discussing pistol bullets, they're all small; they're all roughly equivalent to (or slightly smaller than) a thimble in terms of size.
I already linked the book I've been citing; it was published in 1999. The performance of JHP bullet designs has not changed dramatically in the last decade.
Correct. Hollowpoint bullets do not mutilate organs or destroy them any more than their solid-nose counterparts. My argument stands -- the increased diameter of a hollowpoint bullet (over a solid-nose bullet) does not lead to dramatically increased wounding potential; in fact, the wounds are identical.
Yes, in the extreme example you listed, the tiny difference in diameter would actually cause the bullet to graze the blood vessel, while the other bullet would barely miss it; however, you are still looking at the victim potentially being up and about for much longer than the 10 to 15 second oxygen reserve in the brain. To quote Dr. Di Maio:
"In regard to charges that hollow-point ammunition is “more lethal”, in an unpublished study of over 75 fatalities from hollow-point ammunition by the author, he was unable to demonstrate any death that would not have occurred if the bullet had been an all-lead bullet. As to increased severity of wounding, this is purely theoretical. To this day, the author cannot distinguish a wound by a hollow-point bullet from that by a solid-lead bullet of the same caliber until recovery of the actual bullet."
That is not a fact. That is pure fabrication on your part.
No, energy transfer is irrelevant and I have always said it is. Regardless, the 5.7x28mm is roughly equivalent to the 9mm in terms of muzzle energy.
Wrong. The .25 ACP is actually quite capable of penetrating to a depth of 15+ inches:
http://www.brassfetcher.com/index_files/Page1715.htm
Pistols are limited to a magazine capacity of about 30 rounds, at max. What I said is correct; you are much more likely to actually utilize a pistol's full magazine capacity (typically 10-20 rounds) than a rifle's full magazine capacity (typically 30-100 rounds).
I could certainly find accounts of self-defense shootings where a pistol magazine was depleted, but you won't find any meaningful number of self-defense shootings where a 50-round rifle magazine was actually depleted; however, feel free to try.
Once again, yes, energy is irrelevant and I never said it isn't.
FN's SS195/SS197 ammo types are well suited to practice shooting, and they're generally easy to find. They're widely available in my local area, for .45 ACP prices. With that aside, there is nothing demanding you practice for $1.14/round with EA's ammunition.
Indeed, and the PLR-16 is then much longer than the PS90 SBR, unless you fold the stock, in which case the PS90 SBR is ready to be shouldered and fired immediately while the PLR-16 is not.
It has a shorter barrel and no stock, so no, it is not "just as accurate." If you add a stock, it doesn't have "less bulk" (it's actually much longer).
The "increase in power" is an increase in muzzle energy. To put it simply, the 5.56mm load you quoted is slightly heavier and a tiny bit faster than the 5.7x28mm load; overall, the two loads are indeed quite similar.
Actually, all of the gun shops in my local area stock Five-seveN pistols, and claim that they're selling well. FNH USA has said the same thing (23k+ sold annually) in my conversations with them.
Last edited:
meanmrmustard
Member
DmL5, your quoting of doctors in the field of bullet wounds certainly solidifies the validity of your points, but I must ask: if indeed you believe that no more damage is done from an expanding bullet than it's non expanding counterpart, then are you suggesting that the damage done by hydrostatic shock is irrelevant? Energy transfer I would think DOES have it's values when talking of wounds. The shock from a larger caliber pistol bullet hitting soft tissue and bone (ie: BG) can kill in itself, even if a vital organ was not hit. I severely doubt this can be achieved with an FMJ. Fragmenting bullets, on the other hand, do what their name implies, they're frangible. Jacket seperation means more tiny projectiles passing through flesh and causing damage, more so than the FMJ. The entry may look the same, to reiterate your quotes of the good doctor, but I think the similarities end there.
Ash
Member
It is a fact that expanding bullets do more damage than FMJ's. One report compared to the literally hundreds of thousands of animals taken by expanding bullets annually, is enough. It is illegal to hunt with FMJ's in most places for the same reason. It is also considered inhumane and unethical to hunt with FMJ's. I have my own eyes and have seen the damage done to a squirrel with FMJ 22's compared with hollow point stingers. I have seen the damage done by expanding bullets on deer. I have seen fmj wounds on men. There is a huge difference.
The only place the discussion even gets to come to parity is the fact that handguns have much less energy than rifles.
Medical studies have a long and fine tradition of being contradicted repeatedly. Remember when cholesterol was uniformly bad? Now its not. High cholesterol = heart attack. Now it does not. Saccharin causes cancer. Now it does not. Now studies point to high amounts of whole-wheat bread causing more weight gain than similar amounts of red meat.
One doctor does not equate fact. Ever.
The only place the discussion even gets to come to parity is the fact that handguns have much less energy than rifles.
Medical studies have a long and fine tradition of being contradicted repeatedly. Remember when cholesterol was uniformly bad? Now its not. High cholesterol = heart attack. Now it does not. Saccharin causes cancer. Now it does not. Now studies point to high amounts of whole-wheat bread causing more weight gain than similar amounts of red meat.
One doctor does not equate fact. Ever.
bigfatdave
Member
You know what, take it to PM, you two.
I'm about tired of digging through endless quote and argue when you're supposed to be posting pictures of your actual "I carry this gun every day all day" gear, DmL5. You seem to solely exist for the purpose of promoting the revolutionary weapons platform produced by FN, and only by FN. So show us some beat-up sweaty carry leather or Kydex, already, otherwise I'm going to assume that you're just another bored summer-vacation type who has picked a dead horse to beat.
I'm about tired of digging through endless quote and argue when you're supposed to be posting pictures of your actual "I carry this gun every day all day" gear, DmL5. You seem to solely exist for the purpose of promoting the revolutionary weapons platform produced by FN, and only by FN. So show us some beat-up sweaty carry leather or Kydex, already, otherwise I'm going to assume that you're just another bored summer-vacation type who has picked a dead horse to beat.
MachIVshooter
Member
It's not about one specific factor. A heavy bullet in and of itself means nothing.
The threshold at which hydrostatic shock begins to occur is around 2,000 FPS. Below that, the wounding mechnism is physical contact by the bullet crushing and tearing tissue. This is why larger bullets and especially larger bullets that expand are more effective. With that said, they still have to penetrate deep enough. This is where energy (not the mythical "energy transfer") comes into play.
No worries, I'm done. There's no point in continuing with someone who keeps parroting the same thing over and over, being completely obtuse and unwilling to directly respond to what I've said with anything thoughtful.
From everything I've read, the FNH 5.7 pistol seems nicely made, accurate, and reliable. I haven't seen anything that says it has any compelling ADVANTAGE over any other defensive pistol in convenience, concealability, accuracy, or stopping power that would justify getting one over any other defensive pistol in 9mm, 10mm, .40, or .45 calibre, though. Particularly considering its price, and the price and limited availability of its ammunition.
For uses other than defense, it looks like it's a nice, flat-shooting piece for plinking, target practice at longer ranges, and maybe small game hunting, but for the price, I'd be more likely to go with a .22 LR or .22 Magnum for those purposes, personally. Money is tight.
For uses other than defense, it looks like it's a nice, flat-shooting piece for plinking, target practice at longer ranges, and maybe small game hunting, but for the price, I'd be more likely to go with a .22 LR or .22 Magnum for those purposes, personally. Money is tight.
- Status
