5.7x28 "too fast for our backstops"

[ratt_finkel]

There is a certain range that I belong to. Like most ranges, they have acceptable calibers. Most indoor ranges do not accept .50BMG for instance. This particular range had 5.7x28 on their list. It didn't bother me till recently as I'm looking at picking up a PS90 in the near future. And would like to be able to use it at their range.

I asked the clerk why it was not allowed. He replied, " that round is moving too fast for our backstops". I was so dumbfounded I didn't even know what to respond with. Now this same range has rifle bays that happily accommodate .308, 30-06 and other popular hunting rounds. I have to imagine those rounds penetrate significantly more than the 5.7 round.

Any suggestions on how to convince them to consider this round?

 

[JRWhit]

I have a feeling they would be annoyed with any inquiry to change any rule. It may be lost cause. I would take a factory ballistic sheet print off of the ammo used and show it to them along side the other cartridges they do allow. If they still refuse, guess that's there choice.

 

[taliv]

5.7x28 will not hurt a backstop more than 308win or 30-06.

the confusion is that when people make "rifle rated" backstops or steel targets, they use AR500 or harder steel. When they make "pistol rated" backstops, they use AR400 or less, typically.

5.7x28 is moving pretty fast (2100 or so out of a ps90? 1900ish out of a pistol iirc) and i wouldn't let you shoot my pistol targets with it from close range.

ask them if you can shoot your 5.7x28 on their rifle backstops. that shouldn't be a problem

 

[Zoogster]

Is comparing it to what rifle cartridges they allow fair? Do they not have a seperate rifle and pistol range using different backdrops?
If so what they allow on a rifle range would have no correlation with what they allow on a pistol range.


If I had to make a guess it would be that they don't want 5.7x28 pistols on thier pistol range, but shouldn't care about a PS90 on thier rifle range. 5.7x28 has less penetration than many 5.56//223 loads, shoots a round the same diameter, and to lower velocity, and I imagine they have a lot of ARs being shot on thier rifle range.


Is it a chain and management decisions are simply poorly interpreted by those managing the range? Or are you complaining about what they will let you shoot on thier pistol range and then citing what they allow on thier rifle range?

 

[Sam1911]

We tested 5.7 (and .30 Carbine) on our steel targets and determined that it did cause a noticeable (though tiny) cratering effect, so we don't allow it either.

On the rifle range where anything goes? Yeah, it's fine.

 

[barnbwt]

Is this for use on the same bay where an AR "pistol" might be used? Or the same bay where an AR rifle may be used? If either is the case, the owners are full of it and CYA'ing over perceived bad press regarding the 5.7 round. The Brady's and FNH started this notion that it impacts like a tungsten penetrator or something, when in fact, it's just a fast cartridge (especially true for the "civvie" bullets).

As Sam1911 says, it's going barely fast enough to cause increased wear on some materials, but on a rifle or 223-pistol rated backstop, it's silly to bar its use. You still occasionally hear of ranges that bar its use on the same backstops 308 is thrown at (usually ranges that require you to buy their ammo and who don't feel like stocking 5.7x28, I'm guessing )

TCB

 

[strambo]

On a backstop rated for pistol and shotgun, makes sense. The 5.7 was specifically designed to punch through armor. On a rifle rated backstop, yeah that's silly. Any rifle round .223 and up has way more energy and penetration potential.

 

[barnbwt]

Publicly available 5.7x28 (SS195LF, SS197SR) loadings are soft and hollow point rounds (respectively), which deform and fragment upon impact as much as any other well designed defensive bullet (moreso than stuff like 223 since the bullet is much weaker in design to expand/fragment at the lower velocity)

The only "armor piercing" round was SS190 (and similar subsequent improvements) which contained an aluminum penetrator, and a higher pressure charge; the combination of which attained sufficient speed to shear, not pierce, through Kevlar weave. At that point, the lightweight projectile was quickly arrested by its low inertia --armor penetration + low over penetration. That's the theory, anyway.

But the fact is, the 5.7x28 you see in the real world is not a particularly penetrative round (it's like 10" or something out of the carbine, and a couple inches more than that from the pistol). There is no FMJ 5.7x28 (for some reason). I wish there was, it'd probably be cheaper than Hornady Vmaxes

It does, however, go fast enough that its initial contact with a rigid surface exceeds the strength of some backstop materials; minor cratering

TCB

 

[Double Naught Spy]

On a backstop rated for pistol and shotgun, makes sense. The 5.7 was specifically designed to punch through armor. On a rifle rated backstop, yeah that's silly. Any rifle round .223 and up has way more energy and penetration potential.

It was not specifically designed to punch through armor, LOL. There is one AP round for it that will, but on the whole, it was not.

 

[leadcounsel]

I realize that they are slower, but the energy of a .44 magnum, 500 magnum, 7.62x25, and .357 magnum would seem to cause more damage to the backstops or targets than the SOFT lead civilian 5.7 ammo.

 

[deadin]

Yes they will crater a backstop as will some rifle rounds. Other than causing slightly accelerated wear on the steel, the main problem with cratering is that each "crater" then presents a vertical surface to subsequent rounds and can cause backsplash. This is not a big deal at rifle ranges but can be dangerous at the normal range pistols are shot at. Our indoor 50 ft pistol range has banned magnums and all FMJ for this very reason. It's pretty disconcerting to be hit with flying bits of copper or lead that are moving fast enough to draw blood. (I know because it has happened to me...)
Management get pretty tired of having to bring in a welder and grinder to smooth out the craters.

 

[Trent]

It was not specifically designed to punch through armor, LOL. There is one AP round for it that will, but on the whole, it was not.

Actually, yes it was. FN Herstal design parameters for the cartridge were for a terminal effect that was capable of penetrating soft body armor to 200 meters when fired out of the carbine length action.

When they brought civilian models in to the US there was a grand uproar citing that the cartridge was nothing more than a "cop killer handgun", despite the fact that the pistol length action was never designed or capable of penetrating soft body armor to the 200 meter range that the personal defense weapon carbine action was capable of.

So FN Herstal / Fiocci voluntarily downloaded the ammunition to lower velocities and voluntarily restricted the sale of the original milspec ammunition to accredited Law Enforcement Agencies, only. Occasionally you'll see that ammo hit the civilian market presumably by (greedy? less scrupulous?) LEO agencies or individuals within.

The accepted Federal guidelines on "armor piercing" ammunition has nothing whatsoever to do with terminal effect, and ability to penetrate any particular armor at any particular range fired from any particular firearm(s). Rather, the Federal guidelines stipulate that projectile construction fired from pistols cannot consist of certain metals, with no regard to whether that projectile/cartridge/firearm is capable of penetrating armor.

The original FN/Fiocci 5.7x28mm cartridge is NOT an armor piercing round, by Federal definition.

"Armor piercing" (with a perspective on reality), is a relative term - depends on the armor composition, the projectile composition, the velocity it's travelling (which is somewhat dependent on the firearm it is fired from).

"Armor piercing" (from the Federal Government's viewpoint), is an absolute term - depends only on projectile composition, with no regard whatsoever for it's ability to penetrate specific types of armor at any given velocity or range.

(Source; I testified on an Armor Piercing hearing at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives last year relating to the proliferation of "rifle caliber" handguns and proposed re-classification of centerfire ammo which is now available in "handguns".)

 

[ChaoSS]

It was not specifically designed to punch through armor, LOL. There is one AP round for it that will, but on the whole, it was not.

Actually, I believe that was the whole point behind the development of the round, a small submachine gun with the power to penetrate armor where pistol rounds from a submachine gun would not.

Not that all modern ammo will do the same, but still...

 

[Sam1911]

Occasionally you'll see that ammo hit the civilian market presumably by [strike](greedy? less scrupulous?)[/strike] AWESOME LEO agencies or individuals within.

 

[ratt_finkel]

I made a quick call to the range just now to verify. Sounds like 5.7 is allowed on the rifle range. Both pistol and rifle ranges are 25 yards. Question is whether or not they would allow the five seven pistol on the rifle range.

 

[Stevie-Ray]

Sometimes the range owner needs a bit of help. In my younger days my favorite range had a limit of 2000 fps. I didn't fire my .30-30 Contender as it generally spat out 150s at about 2100 fps. The owner asked my why I didn't shoot the Contender and I explained. He said, "That'll even take a .35 Remington." I said, "Maybe, but the .30-30 is faster out of a Contender." He told me I was wrong, but then at a later visit, somebody asked about using a .30-30 Contender and was told no.

 

[ratt_finkel]

Went to the range in question today. Confirmed that it's allowed on the rifle range. But not the pistol bay. This particular rep claimed it would punch through their 1/4" steel backstop. Even in hollow point form.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Occasionally you'll see that ammo hit the civilian market presumably by ([strike]greedy? less scrupulous?[/strike]) AWESOME LEO agencies or individuals within.

I like that!

To the point, the "AP" ammo for the 5.7x28 is not technically classified as AP by BATFE standards, but FN Herstal voluntarily opted to restrict sales to govt.

 

[Trent]

Occasionally you'll see that ammo hit the civilian market presumably by [strike](greedy? less scrupulous?)[/strike] AWESOME LEO agencies or individuals within.

HAHA Ok yes, I concede I like that phrasing a LOT better.

 

[barnbwt]

I agree as well. Never hate the scalper, hate the circumstance that makes it possible to gouge (i.e. FNH in this case )

I'm just glad Herstal is making the ammo again --that extended strike last year had me worried, but I'm now taking steps to ensure a 6mo disruption won't suck so bad in the future

"claimed it would punch through their 1/4" steel backstop. Even in hollow point form."
I don't know or have a ton of experience on the non-dirt-mound terminal ballistics of 5.7, so I'd be curious to know how it performs on hard/rigid barriers as well. It's certainly going fast enough to shear/punch to some extent, but the civie bullets are so weakly constructed that it's hard to picture it punching anything .

Quick question; is there any reason why true armor piercing or solid metal rounds couldn't be used in the PS90? I thought the AP ban was for pistols only (or does the presence of a pistol chambered for the round magically turn the 5.7x28 cartridge into a "pistol chambering")? A solid bronze slug weighing about 1/4 less than the lead core would be going pretty darn fast, and hold together upon contacting... just about anything . Even if AP bullets aren't allowed, you could still do a copper-plated Titanium alloy round ('cuz that wouldn't be armor-piercing, according to the law )

TCB

 

[Torian]

It was not specifically designed to punch through armor, LOL. There is one AP round for it that will, but on the whole, it was not.

Indeed. The loadings we have available to us have been totally neutered.

 

[stressed]

This is ridiculous. There are NO steel core AP 5.7x28 rounds used in the US by civilians.

Gee, better not shoot .22 Hornet there either.

 

[Trent]

I'm just glad Herstal is making the ammo again --that extended strike last year had me worried, but I'm now taking steps to ensure a 6mo disruption won't suck so bad in the future

Yeah next time I get a supply of 5.7 Fiocci, I'm buying a couple thousand rounds. I've only got about 400 left. And I'm not shooting them until I get more. The American Eagle.. it's not a substitute. It's frigging dangerous ammo.

"claimed it would punch through their 1/4" steel backstop. Even in hollow point form."
I don't know or have a ton of experience on the non-dirt-mound terminal ballistics of 5.7, so I'd be curious to know how it performs on hard/rigid barriers as well. It's certainly going fast enough to shear/punch to some extent, but the civie bullets are so weakly constructed that it's hard to picture it punching anything .

I've seen the blue tip hornaday projectiles shred themselves going through an empty tin can before. They're quite volatile. That's exactly why I keep it as a home defense firearm of choice - 8 people (5 kids), 3 dogs, and 4 cats in in our 5 level house. If I have to shoot an intruder, I don't want collateral damage.

Quick question; is there any reason why true armor piercing or solid metal rounds couldn't be used in the PS90? I thought the AP ban was for pistols only (or does the presence of a pistol chambered for the round magically turn the 5.7x28 cartridge into a "pistol chambering")? A solid bronze slug weighing about 1/4 less than the lead core would be going pretty darn fast, and hold together upon contacting... just about anything . Even if AP bullets aren't allowed, you could still do a copper-plated Titanium alloy round ('cuz that wouldn't be armor-piercing, according to the law )
TCB

I imagine you could load up 55 gr AP in it, I've heard of people reloading 55gr projectiles in the 5.7. I would *NOT* do so if you have both the rifle and pistol. In fact, I didn't keep SS109 (5.56 AP) around when I had a functional AR-15 pistol. Now that I don't have an AR-15 pistol (only rifles), I've got SS109 on the shelves.

Mainly that AP thing becomes "constructive possession" on calibers that have rifle and handgun chamberings.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Mainly that AP thing becomes "constructive possession" on calibers that have rifle and handgun chamberings.

Except that the prosecutor would have to prove that you used the AP ammo in a handgun. That's a pretty tall order, unless someone was dumb enough to film himself doing it (no shortage of idiots who violate NFA and 18 USC on camera, though).

Having said that, I don't think you'd want to have AP rifle ammo lying about if your only so-chambered firearm was a handgun. Though technically they still need to prove (convince) that you did use or intended to use it in the handgun, that's a lot easier if you had no rifle.

 

[barnbwt]

I think we're barred from making AP since there's a pistol made for the caliber, and that combined with the fact no AP ammo was made, means we can't come into possession without making it; moot question

TCB