barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"Why in the world would you want a round based off a .22 Hornet casehead for this role? What advantage would that offer?"
30 Carbine is obviously preferable, since the rim doesn't have to be turned off. The original SCAMP rounds were chopped up Hornet brass. The advantage is a stronger case head, in the radial direction (hoop stress). While potent for its size, the 5.7 is somewhat limited in its ability to be reloaded because of a tendency to loosen at the primer pocket; to flare out slightly at that location when loaded to max pressure. Not a big issue for a nation/military/LEA, but a deal breaker for some private owners.
A slightly fatter case head, like the Carbine or Hornet or 32ACP (not many cartridges between the 25ACP and 9mm case head size) would make for more durable brass capable of repeated loadings to peak pressure (probably). It also wouldn't detract from the capacity nearly as much as going to the almost-twice-as-large 9mm case head diameter. Seeing as Starline now stocks Carbine brass, I should really get off my duff and buy some & turn some reamers/dies...
"I'm very much aware of officer involved shootings in which 5.7 performed very poorly against actual human assailants"
You know, I heard the same stuff about the results of the PS90 (are these reports you heard about the pistol or the rifle? Use of the pistol for department issue is quite uncommon due to aforementioned grip length). But there is no logical reason rounds fired from it should not be fully capable of decisive results (especially considering the ability to get more rounds on target than a select fire anything-else). Seriously; if the thing consistently destroys grapefruit sized volumes of tissue, why would that not immediately end a guy if placed centermass/CNS? At this point, I'm convinced the vast, vast majority of criticism of the cartridge --especially when fired from the rifle which always delivers the bullet fast enough to reliably expand/fragment unlike certain particular pistol loads-- stems from people expecting it to perform like a full-on 5.56x45 from the rifle, and 357SIG (or even 5.56) from the handgun. The whole point of the endeavor was a cartridge 'good enough' for the job of dispatching attackers (possibly wearing armor) waging a surprise military assault on the undefended rear flank*; not a cartridge with additional power or penetration for punching concealment at hundreds of yards or heavy cover at close range.
If enforcers prefer the enormous step up in power, performance, and training familiarity they get from a compact 5.56x45 carbine, awesome. It's the reason MP5's are falling out of favor, after all (I do recall that PS90's replaced them first, to be followed by UMPs, now followed by M4's; I think there is more than sufficient evidence to suggest LEOs simply get bored easily). But that isn't the same as proof the cartridge is incapable of doing the job, same as it isn't proof that 9mm is incapable of doing the same. All it means is that the dude on (b)ARFCOM who got a direct-impingement 5.7x28 upper fed by five-seven mags probably has a much hotter idea than he realizes, or that contrary to all military experience up until five years ago, soldiers/cops really like having a rifle's power in close quarters.
Or most likely of all, that the 5.7x28 was never intended for offensive roles against defending targets --especially not from the pistol, and the use of it for these jobs runs counter to its best qualities & capabilities. The big one being; if you are the one picking the fight, you don't have to carry the weight of your gear nearly as long, and you also get to more or less determine up front how much you need. The defender has to both carry their load indefinitely, and bear enough to sustain them for any plausible scenario. A lighter, higher capacity load out still capable of crippling/fatal performance is much more advantageous for the defender than the attacker who can just as easily carry heavier weapons/ammo for the duration of the attack.
FWIW, the 25.6oz Five-seveN was to replace the 41oz Beretta M9 (both loaded). The 6.6lb, 20" P90 as an alternative to the 7.5lb, 30" M4, with 2/3 more capacity. While there are other commercial offerings that are more suited to daily carry than the M9 (which is among the worst IMO) the five-seven still ranks highly in some areas, but is of course surpassed in others. FNH has still clearly not made it a priority to improve the pistol in ways that would make it far more practical as a daily carry weapon (shorter barrel/grip length, reducing the length of pull, more common safety layout, full-pressure high velocity frangible ammo)
TCB
*Once more, a scenario not at all unlike a terrorist gun attack on a civilian soft-target, aside from the general lack of procedure and training for all involved. Running away is technically an option for rear echelon personnel also, but NATO wisely realized that it might be useful for a good portion of them to be capable of defending themselves during the retreat or while waiting for reinforcements; not unlike the simple desire of those of us who decry gun free zones.
30 Carbine is obviously preferable, since the rim doesn't have to be turned off. The original SCAMP rounds were chopped up Hornet brass. The advantage is a stronger case head, in the radial direction (hoop stress). While potent for its size, the 5.7 is somewhat limited in its ability to be reloaded because of a tendency to loosen at the primer pocket; to flare out slightly at that location when loaded to max pressure. Not a big issue for a nation/military/LEA, but a deal breaker for some private owners.
A slightly fatter case head, like the Carbine or Hornet or 32ACP (not many cartridges between the 25ACP and 9mm case head size) would make for more durable brass capable of repeated loadings to peak pressure (probably). It also wouldn't detract from the capacity nearly as much as going to the almost-twice-as-large 9mm case head diameter. Seeing as Starline now stocks Carbine brass, I should really get off my duff and buy some & turn some reamers/dies...
"I'm very much aware of officer involved shootings in which 5.7 performed very poorly against actual human assailants"
You know, I heard the same stuff about the results of the PS90 (are these reports you heard about the pistol or the rifle? Use of the pistol for department issue is quite uncommon due to aforementioned grip length). But there is no logical reason rounds fired from it should not be fully capable of decisive results (especially considering the ability to get more rounds on target than a select fire anything-else). Seriously; if the thing consistently destroys grapefruit sized volumes of tissue, why would that not immediately end a guy if placed centermass/CNS? At this point, I'm convinced the vast, vast majority of criticism of the cartridge --especially when fired from the rifle which always delivers the bullet fast enough to reliably expand/fragment unlike certain particular pistol loads-- stems from people expecting it to perform like a full-on 5.56x45 from the rifle, and 357SIG (or even 5.56) from the handgun. The whole point of the endeavor was a cartridge 'good enough' for the job of dispatching attackers (possibly wearing armor) waging a surprise military assault on the undefended rear flank*; not a cartridge with additional power or penetration for punching concealment at hundreds of yards or heavy cover at close range.
If enforcers prefer the enormous step up in power, performance, and training familiarity they get from a compact 5.56x45 carbine, awesome. It's the reason MP5's are falling out of favor, after all (I do recall that PS90's replaced them first, to be followed by UMPs, now followed by M4's; I think there is more than sufficient evidence to suggest LEOs simply get bored easily). But that isn't the same as proof the cartridge is incapable of doing the job, same as it isn't proof that 9mm is incapable of doing the same. All it means is that the dude on (b)ARFCOM who got a direct-impingement 5.7x28 upper fed by five-seven mags probably has a much hotter idea than he realizes, or that contrary to all military experience up until five years ago, soldiers/cops really like having a rifle's power in close quarters.
Or most likely of all, that the 5.7x28 was never intended for offensive roles against defending targets --especially not from the pistol, and the use of it for these jobs runs counter to its best qualities & capabilities. The big one being; if you are the one picking the fight, you don't have to carry the weight of your gear nearly as long, and you also get to more or less determine up front how much you need. The defender has to both carry their load indefinitely, and bear enough to sustain them for any plausible scenario. A lighter, higher capacity load out still capable of crippling/fatal performance is much more advantageous for the defender than the attacker who can just as easily carry heavier weapons/ammo for the duration of the attack.
FWIW, the 25.6oz Five-seveN was to replace the 41oz Beretta M9 (both loaded). The 6.6lb, 20" P90 as an alternative to the 7.5lb, 30" M4, with 2/3 more capacity. While there are other commercial offerings that are more suited to daily carry than the M9 (which is among the worst IMO) the five-seven still ranks highly in some areas, but is of course surpassed in others. FNH has still clearly not made it a priority to improve the pistol in ways that would make it far more practical as a daily carry weapon (shorter barrel/grip length, reducing the length of pull, more common safety layout, full-pressure high velocity frangible ammo)
TCB
*Once more, a scenario not at all unlike a terrorist gun attack on a civilian soft-target, aside from the general lack of procedure and training for all involved. Running away is technically an option for rear echelon personnel also, but NATO wisely realized that it might be useful for a good portion of them to be capable of defending themselves during the retreat or while waiting for reinforcements; not unlike the simple desire of those of us who decry gun free zones.
. Velocity isn't everything I agree, but when it comes to little bullets it matters a whole lot more. Defense loads from the five-seven pistol are capable of barely attaining the speeds required for more advanced bullet performance characteristcs than mere expansion (tumbling, fragmenting w/ multiple wound paths, high BC upon contact for better initial penetration w/o deflection, and some argue even low levels of hydrostatic shock [though I think slightly higher speeds are needed for it to be reliable/significant]), which is why speed is a particularly meaningful value when it comes to this round. If it were any slower its speed would not matter much at all, if the round were any faster there would be fewer questions about its performance.
