5.56mm x 45mm versus 5.7mm x 28mm, simple!

[phaT-X]

I saw a post asking why NATO and the UNITED NATIONS and other international organizations don't switch to 5.7mm x 28mm ammo. They are both accurate bullets, both have good penetration, though the 5.56mm is slightly better, but the 5.56mm x 45mm has alot more 'knock-down' power compared to the 5.7mm x 28mm rounds. The 5.56mm x 45mm, which is almost identical to the .223 remington rounds has high impact and causes fragmentation inside flesh, therefore wounding ability is VERY high, much greater than that of the 5.7mm x 28mm.

Some people may argue the 5.7mm is more accurate, I disagree, in right weapon, the 5.56mm is just as, if not more sometimes, accurate than the 5.7mm x 28mm ammo. NATO and the UN use the 5.56mm rounds as a STANAG 4172 round/clip, it comes in 30 pc clips, 45 pc clips, and CMag 100 rnd clips, and they are very effective.

The modern world chooses US made / type weapons, cause the have the best of both worlds, accuracy and knock-down (or wounding) power, while the old world sticks to it less accurate, but high damaging 7.62mm round as it's "primary ammo" type. The US also uses the 7.62mm in some M249, 25x, and M60/M260 machine guns.

Basically the round is very accurate, high velocity, and high damage. It comes in standard shell types, high velocity / armor piercing ammo type, incendiary types, and combos of the mentioned (like incendiary and armor piercing, but "low" incendiary effects).

Btw, the post was old, that is why I started a new one...

 

[phaT-X]

Also, forgot..

Weight of the 5.56mm rounds are 40 to 90 grains, most common is 55 grain.

Weight of the 5.7mm x 28mm rounds are 23 grains, 28 grains, and the heaviest being 31 grains, they are trying to produce a 39 grain version too.

Alot of NATO soldiers have M4's with 5.56mm x 45mm rounds and FN 5/7 with 5.7mm x 28mm rounds, some have M4's with 9mm Rugers/Walthers, some have FN P90s w/ 5/7, which both use 5.7mm x 28mm rounds, but most perfer the 5.56mm firing weapons for ease of use, accuracy, and mobility, just like the 5.7mm firing weapons, but also has high knock-down/wounding power.

 

[gunnutery]

Welcome to THR.

Just checking, are you asking why NATO and/or the U.N. doesn't switch to 5.7?

Forgive me if I'm misreading the post, but I'll answer the above question.

I believe it's a great cartridge for personal defense weapons. I forget now who's done all the research here on THR about many field accounts of the lethality of 5.7. Primarily on a couple U.S. agencies that issue them and the Mexican drug war. There are many accounts of how well the round works.

The two main issues I see with issuing 5.7 are:
1) The effective range. I just did a quick search and found approximately 200 yards. One of the main gripes in current theater of operations was that the 5.56 was not reaching out far enough, which is good for 500-600 yards. Therefore 200 yards isn't going to cut it, at least not for a main issue rifle.
2) The cost. It probably boils down to money (doesn't it always) more than effective range. To procure a complete new weapon, or even just to switch upper receivers on current M4s and M16s would cost a fortune, for every country involved. Not to mention the MAJOR defense cuts looming for the U.S., U.K. and other NATO countries exiting the war.

As for myself, the 5.7x28 is the only other caliber I'm looking to for diversity in my current collection. It gets hard to fund lots of different calibers. I'd love to get a PS90 for my wife since she doesn't like "heavy" long guns. I agree that it's a great performer for it's intended role.

 

[barnbwt]

If you have to fit a small caliber, high velocity round into a handgrip magwell, the 5.7 is pretty good. Comparing the 5.56 and 5.7 is kinda like comparing a 30 Tokarev and a .308, though--same caliber, way different power levels. So it's not really fair to stack them against eachother (unless they are being applied to similar platforms, like PDWs).

Lots of NATO countries use 5.7 (in limited capacity) since FNH went to the trouble of developing the round for NATO requirements (before H&K skunked the deal), and would probably be upset if they were simply left holding the bag of R&D costs. And besides, it's also a perfectly good service round used in very well made weapons.

BTW, I think the AR57 is probably the cleverest Upper concept going right now; gives the P90 a run for its money (since it costs twice as much)

TCB

 

[mr.trooper]

Who argues ANY of that stuff?

5.7 is intended for PDW use - pistols and machine pistols. It was never intended for offensive use in an infantry rifle. Never seen anyone suggest otherwise.

 

[henschman]

Also the 7.62 you refer to as being the choice of the "old world" is a completely different round from the 7.62 NATO. The NATO cartridge is 7.62x51, and is a high power rifle round. The other is 7.62x39, and is an intermediate power cartridge designed for assault rifles.

 

[The_Armed_Therapist]

the 5.56mm is slightly better

Um... NO. It is not slightly better. It is quite significantly better. I very rarely hear those in the military claiming that the 5.56 is too powerful. I DO, however, hear many complain that it's too weak. Why in the world go so much weaker?

I agree with Mr. Trooper...

Who argues ANY of that stuff?

LOL

 

[Jim Watson]

Weight of the 5.56mm rounds are 40 to 90 grains,

Uh, no.
The weight of the 5.56mm BULLET is about 62 grains.
A ROUND is the whole cartridge and its weight is used in figuring the burden on the soldier and supply chain.
Also bullet weights other than the 62 grain SS109/M855 -- EPR/M855A1 -- SOST/Mk 318 are either special purpose items not in general issue (Mk 262 77 gr) or are commercial products.


And we won't get into the "clip" versus "magazine" thing with an expert like the OP, will we?

 

[HOOfan_1]

Asking why nato doesn't switch from 9mm to 5.7x28 would be a more sensible debate.

 

[Jim Watson]

Why they don't spend a ton of money to replace a long time established readily available caliber for seldom used sidearms seems pretty obvious to me.

The elite supertroops get what they want anyhow, and if they figure they need a 5.7, I bet they can get it.

 

[HOOfan_1]

Why they don't spend a ton of money to replace a long time established readily available caliber for seldom used sidearms seems pretty obvious to me.
.

I wasn't suggesting that they should replace the 9mm with the 5.7, but the 9mm and the 5.7 are much closer in usage than the 5.7 and the 5.56x45

 

[Trent]

The purpose of the 5.7x28mm was for use in a highly reliable, highly accurate, very controllable, compact personal defense weapon (submachinegun) with a high ammunition capacity and an effective range of 200 meters.

Those were the design parameters.

No conventional ammunition met those design parameters so they designed new ammunition to fill the role.

The ammunition and P90 were developed in conjunction with each other to form a system. The NATO adoption was required to standardize the supply chains for those weapons.

It's not a replacement round for 5.56 NATO and fills a vastly different role than your typical infantry battle rifle.

 

[MistWolf]

Nevermind. The original post doesn't rate any kind of response