Soviet rounds myth vs reality

[barnbwt]

While I do believe a short M4 in 7.62Tok would be a great piece, my whole initial point was that making it would have had many benefits (almost certainly including dramatically wider adoption due to much lower cost and identical manual of arms) not realized by FN making the P90 instead. <shrug>

I agree about the P90, though Tok would be pretty awful for that type of magazine. Very important the case have no taper at all. Me personally, I'd have preferred they base the new round on 22 Spitfire, since it'd be a bit more powerful and still best 9mm-size case heads for capacity, but I'll bet the forces involved to take advantage of that would exceed what they could get away with using simple blowback designs of a sub-9mm bolt weight. Unlike H&K, Herstal realized that making the rifle for fry-cooks & mechanics just as complex and expensive as the main infantry rifle but 1/3rd as powerful was a really stupid idea. H&K saw it as an opportunity to trick NATO into spending as much money as they would fielding a new rifle on secondary equipment. Sadly, they failed to thread the needle very well with their cartridge design, and were unable to produce a safe sidearm to accompany the PDW, missing their end on a large portion of the bid's terms, yet still raised a fuss when FNH's solution was going to be adopted, and lobbied the German delegation to veto the measure.

To be fair to FNH, I doubt they spent much money arriving at the core concept of the 5.7x28, and I doubt they'd have been able to simply 'lift' Tokarev & take it straight to NATO. They would have still had to develop all the tooling & processes to make and test the "standard round" the PDW would be designed around, even if it was nominally identical. And that's assuming the 'optics' of an ex-Soviet round being presented to NATO states wasn't a deal-breaker (a round typically used for executions, to boot)

If you want to start a thread about authentic, realistic goals for a PDW, that might be a worthy topic.

I can try, but I can't promise others will abide by the 'authentic' or 'realistic' aspects --we've got someone here already with the old "5.7 wounds are just like 223" schtick that set the round up for failure with silly expectations in the first place (my local PD bought P90's based on such claims), while at the same time claiming 5.56 is necessary for roles previously dominated by subguns because of its superior penetration (so I guess those 'fist-sized' holes of the 5.7 are now going all the way through the target, or something?), while at the same time claiming 9mm AP or 5.7 from a pistol is sufficient for armored targets at close range, obviating the need for the additional performance of Tokarev (but somehow not the MASSIVE additional performance & drawbacks of an upgrade to 5.56)

PDW threads always end badly for some dumb reason, probably not enough people having any experience at all with them, or people with zero experience shooting pistols farther than 10 yards. Tokarev and 5.7x28 in particular bring out all sorts of irritability, without fail. Even worse than Grendel or 32acp discussions.

TCB

 

[JShirley]

I was in the area during one of the first shootouts involving a PD using the FN Five-Seven. Underwhelming performance.

 

[grampajack]

I was in the area during one of the first shootouts involving a PD using the FN Five-Seven. Underwhelming performance.

Who said the performance was underwhelming? What round was being used (I'll bet it was SS198LF), and where was shot placement?

This is why we find each other so irritating: you deal in perceptions, and I deal in facts. You do realize that there was a time when just about every LEO in the country preached the "underwhelming" performance of 9mm. When discussing rounds with 500 ft-lbs or less of energy, there are always going to be trade-offs. And most failures to stop are the result of poor ammunition and/or, more often than not, poor shot placement. What we need to know is, In the above situation, was it the round or the officer who failed? And if it was the round itself, would conventional rounds (9mm, .40, .45) be expected to succeed?

You saw the video I posted, and gel doesn't lie. What you see is what you get. Slightly less penetration than the average 9mm HP, but huge gains in cavitation. Is it enough? Probably. Is it ideal? Probably not, at least not for me (I generally think the FBI standards should be 18-20'', but that's a whole different debate). BUT, it's an alternative to 9mm that has certain advantages. To improve upon it would be to recreate .223, and we'd be back at square one. All pistol cartridges make concessions; it's up to the user whether its benefits outweigh those concessions.

And again, I never said, nor will I ever say, that 5.7mm is in any way even approaching the performance of .223; I said that the wounds resemble .223 (or any other high velocity round) on a smaller scale. And that's completely true! The wound profile of 5.7mm looks more like that of a high velocity rifle than that of a pistol. If you go back and read my posts, I've said that 5.7mm is similar to 9mm in terms of power, giving up a few inches of penetration in exchange for significant cavitation.

Just to be clear, I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm a 9mm man, and probably will be until the end of time. Before I knew much about ballistics, I was a .45 ACP zombie. My only consolation is that I didn't ever get on the .40 S&W short bus. From an emotional perspective, I would like to carry a 1911A1 in .45 ACP, but my analytical side tells me that would be about the worst solution. Thus, I carry a plastic fantastic in 9mm. It's not glamorous, but it gets the job done, and it's going to take some major advancements in ballistics to make me change my mind. Quite frankly, I think the laws of physics dictate that 9mm is just about as good as it's going to get. To do better, we'll have to wait for directed energy weapons. Luckily, that's a debate I probably won't have to have in my lifetime.

 

[grampajack]

I agree about the P90, though Tok would be pretty awful for that type of magazine. Very important the case have no taper at all.

The capacity is one of the P90's greatest strengths. You take that away, and it doesn't look nearly as good on paper. But, so long as certain preconditions are met, capacity is king. There's a reason why police carry G17s instead of .44 magnums. After you have satisfied the basic need for penetration and cavitation, anything extra is superfluous if capacity is reduced as a result. Close gunfights with pistol caliber cartridges are won by the person who can put the most rounds on target in the least amount of time, and fractions of a second decide who lives and who dies. So if the minimum standards are met, then improvements are based on increased capacity and, perhaps most importantly, reduced recoil.

Sadly, they failed to thread the needle very well with their cartridge design, and were unable to produce a safe sidearm to accompany the PDW, missing their end on a large portion of the bid's terms, yet still raised a fuss when FNH's solution was going to be adopted, and lobbied the German delegation to veto the measure.

"Threading the needle" is a very fair assessment of PDW cartridges. Slight changes in weight and bullet design that would be totally meaningless to a conventional pistol cartridge can make or break it. It's also difficult to find a bullet that will perform consistently across variations in velocity due to barrel length and range. That's one area where FN has done a decent job with the SS190. Consequently, once you get a cartridge dialed in, you can't arbitrarily change anything, not by a single grain even, without fully testing it. You also have to maximize the energy by finding a bullet that yaws 100% of the time with minimal deformation, as the energy to deform the bullet will take away from the the permanent cavity, thereby making the bullet no more effective than .380 ACP. With these things in mind, FMJ style solid copper bullets are best. They mimic the performance of SS190, and even exceed it in some cases. The failure of most 5.7mm cartridges is an inability to understand that expanding or fragmenting bullets simply do not work in that application. In short, PDW rounds are extremely unforgiving from an engineering perspective.

 

[JShirley]

you deal in perceptions, and I deal in facts

Hahahahahaha! Haha. Hee. <sniff> Sure, that's what's happening here.

Before I ignore you for the next couple of years, let me suggest you read a whole lot more than you post, and that you actually base more of what you do post on you actually shooting. Oh, and also maybe work on your reading comprehension. That is all.

 

[dogtown tom]

grampajack ....you deal in perceptions, and I deal in facts....

This may be the silliest thing you have written.

grampajack ...The capacity is one of the P90's greatest strengths. You take that away, and it doesn't look nearly as good on paper. But, so long as certain preconditions are met, capacity is king. There's a reason why police carry G17s instead of .44 magnums.

Yet few police officers ever carried .44magnum revolvers......when capacity was identical they carried .38 special or .357 magnum.

Once again the example you give is not based on actual fact.

 

[grampajack]

...

This may be the silliest thing you have written.

Why? Seriously, why? Like I said before to Sherley, if I got a fact wrong, then I will correct myself. Tell me where my logic is flawed instead of making useless snide remarks that contribute nothing to the discussion.

Yet few police officers ever carried .44magnum revolvers......when capacity was identical they carried .38 special or .357 magnum.

Once again the example you give is not based on actual fact.

And I get accused of poor reading comprehension? Not only is this a drive by comment, but it's completely out of context. Did I say cops ever carried .44 magnums? No, I did not (although some did, and maybe still do). If you'll read, I said cops DON'T carry .44 magnums, as an example, and not to imply in any way that they ever did. I was illustrating a point, that bigger isn't always better, that once a certain level of terminal performance has been reached, a more powerful handgun at the sacrifice of capacity and controllability is counterproductive. Do you get it now?

Probably not, so here's another example, this time historically based (since you seem to have trouble with hypothetical examples). The FBI has ditched .40 for 9mm for the reason I just described.

Here's another. The police went from .38 revolvers to 9mm automatics because it gave them increased power and capacity with no added recoil.

Now how about actually contributing something, instead of just making offhand commentary?

 

[grampajack]

Hahahahahaha! Haha. Hee. <sniff> Sure, that's what's happening here.

Before I ignore you for the next couple of years, let me suggest you read a whole lot more than you post, and that you actually base more of what you do post on you actually shooting. Oh, and also maybe work on your reading comprehension. That is all.

Yes, because I would be so heartbroken if you ignored me. (here's where I would insert the smiley rolling on the floor, were it an option)

Again, you're copping out. Either make an argument or get off the pot.

You don't know anything about me, what I shoot, or how much I shoot. And I don't know anything about you. For all I know, you haven't fired so much as a .22 outside mandatory range training. And I'm not about to tell you what guns I own, nor would I expect you to. All I will say is that my grandfather gave me my first muzzleloader when I was three, a .32 caliber that was taller than me. I don't even know how old I was the first time I shot a real gun because I was too young to remember. And I've had access to my family's 80 acre farm since that time. You could probably retire if you mined all the brass I've left out there.

Your suggestion that I don't have enough experience with guns to comment on them is ludicrous. I would say it's another ad hominem, but I'm pretty sure that the false argument has to be true to apply that term. So for lack of a better expression, you're just making crap up.

"That is all."