The Caliber Wars! Myths Vs. Reality.

[G|0cKbYtE]

Trollolololol

There you go again... I've learned not to spend much time with you as you have only one purpose and that is to confuse and misinform... I think I'm going to start calling you Kachum as you are always trying to bait the waters with your deliberate misinformation.

I have bumped the 5.7 thread in autoloaders so those that are interested in watching you get tuned with the 5.7 facts can go there. I will not distract whatever this thread's purpose is with any more specific discussions about the 5.7. There are plenty of videos available with the 5.7 against the .45 in clay, tissue, etc. detailing either comparable or superior permanent wound damage. Brassfetcher recently stated that the S4M would be at least as good or better of a self-defensive choice as 230 grain .45 caliber. It's all available to anybody willing to learn.

 

[Kachok]

Just anwser the questions, do you honestly think that in the examles I provided that the 5.7 was more damaging to the target then the 45 was? And does a 9mms larger TWC make it more powerful then the 45 and 5.7x28? If you honestly think that TWC is directly proportinate to PWC at handgun speeds then you are in denial of factual studies, and you are not intelligent enough for me to debate with you any further. Look who is trolling now, not to mention dodging the questions when he does not like the anwser.

 

[Kachok]

Lets settle this once and for all, forget any and all bias reviews, advertisments, paid endorsements, and the ballistic gel tests where the 5.7 got it's butt kicked. Just look at the math.
Since the .40, 10mm, 357 mag, and 45 are vastly more powerful lets just compare the 5.7 to the century old 9mm. Here are the stats on both of their hottest loads in pistol barrels. 4" for the 9mm and I'll even give the 5.7 the advantage of it's factory 4.8" barrel. Bullets for comparison are the top of the line S4M and the buffalo bore 115gr. Even though the guys in the five and seven forums say they are not getting the advertised 2600 fps we will give them the full benifit of the doubt and assume the advertising is accurate despite the fact that people have recorded 2400-2500fps in their crono.
-----------------5.7mm S4M----9mm
Energy----------405ft/lbs-----500 ft/lbs---Advantage 9mm
Momentum-------10lbs---------23lbs-----Huge Advantage 9mm
Frontal Area-.----.0394--------.1007------Huge Advantage 9mm
Sectional Density-.08-----------.130-----Large Advantage 9mm
Now forget the ultra high performance hard to find ammo and lets focus on the stuff you can buy over the counter at any halfway respectable local gun shop.
9mm Carbon 115gr JHP and the SS195LF
------------------5.7x28---------9mm
Energy------------255ft/lbs------466ft/lbs---Large Advantage 9mm
Momentum--------- 7lbs-----------22lbs-----Huge advangage 9mm
Frontal Area--------.0394---------.1007-----Huge advantage 9mm
Sectional density----.08-----------.130------Large advantage 9mm
By every mesurment we know of the 9mm is superior to the soft tissue performance of the 5.7x28, I have asked on many occasions for the 5.7 junkies to explain to me what magic energy somehow makes it more deadly and nobody can explain it to me, I wounder why
Even the most hardcore 5.7 fan should understand why I am so skeptical of it's "advantages" over conventional handgun rounds.
If you do the same comparison with the 40, 10mm, 357 Sig or any other modern handgun round the comparison get REAL bad for the 5.7x28.
You can call it trolling all you want to but I am the one who is willing to deal with actual facts and figures instead of "this website said" or "my buddie shot a .... and killed it"

 

[Skribs]

Kachok, I think the advantage of the 5.7 is that it's pushing over 2k FPS, which is around the limit where the TWC starts to matter, where you get the "bloodshot" effect.

The 5.7 also has other advantages, namely lower recoil and higher magazine capacity (standard). A 5.7 to the head is likely to be just as damaging as a 9mm to the head.

At least, that's how I'd see it.

You could also look at it this way - if the bullet slows down a bit before it hits its target, or if you consider the TWC to be unreliable even at 2000 FPS (thinking it might be stronger, might not be, at this level), then yes, the 9mm picks up a lot by having a bigger PWC.

Another comment I've seen in other readings is that because hydrostatic shock requires liquid (such as blood), hitting the lungs, which are mostly filled with air, will not cause the same shockwave. Thus, a COM hit is likely to have a smaller TWC. At least, just what I read somewhere (and probably couldn't find the source for the life of me), so in that situation 9mm would also pull ahead.

 

[Kachok]

I get the extra fps carries some advantage, but that is a hefty tradeoff when the faster bullet has very poor SD, that lends itself to shallow nasty wounds rather then deep and deadly ones. Historicly in every case where I have compared larger and smaller calibers of the same energy level the lager caliber is always the more effective of the two. Like the comparison between the 454 Casull and 223 Rem, one is a poor choice even for anything larger then a pronghorn and the other is in regular use for brown bear. That is more then just a little difference there. The 243 vs the 45-70, one is an exceptional small deer caliber and the other is an exceptional caliber for everthing shy of an elephant. The list goes on and on, and the key advantage of the heavier bullets is evident throughout the comparison. Now if you were comparing bullets by their recoil energy rather then their kenetic energy the differences are much less drastic but still present. I just have a really hard time accepting that this is the one exception to the rule, and the lackluster ballistic tests that I have seen only support that. Besides the 9mm is not just as powerful, it has more energy, and momentum and everything else for that matter. Reaching speeds where TWC starts to become PWC is great but it is not magic, creating the pressure wave needed to do that drains a huge amount of the KE hence we don't see that enlarged PWC go more then 3 inches from the point of peak expansion. If the 5.7 were throwing a 62gr at those speeds we could see 6 or 7 inches of nasty permanate would tract, THAT would impress me even if the entrence and exit wounds were the size of a BB.
I will concede that part or the advantage of the heavier higher SD bullets is their penatration far beyond what is needed for human sized targets, but the more consistant wound tract has always been more effective then the peaky one, that theory has been confirmed by hunters again and again. Sorry for all the hunting refrences, but seeing how it is illigal to shoot people at random it is the only thing that I have plenty of 1st hand experence with that relates to killing power. Data sources for stopping power on humans have been highly bias or very iffy science in every single case I have seen thus far. Even the FBI admits there is not a reliable database for the results of shootouts.

 

[Skribs]

From what I understand, the goal of an SD round is roughly 12" of penetration. A 5.7 can do this, and a .45 designed for SD will have roughly 12" as well. I'm specifically talking for humans, of course. Something bigger, like a bear, and you want something with greater penetration. My point is, if 12" will get the job done, then there's no point upgrading to something that does 20". It's one reason why slugs are listed as a poor SD choice over buckshot, even though they would be the better choice against a bear.

So yes, I'll agree that I'd rather have a .357 magnum over a .45 for defense against large predators. But I'd rather have a .45 over a .357 for defense against 2-legged ones, because the round is bigger and the recoil is lighter in the same weight gun.

 

[Kachok]

Actually the effective range of penatration is 12-18 inches so 12" is the minimum, ideal would be a bullet dealing maximum trama through a 14-16" wound cavity. Many high quality JHPs are designed for 14" like the Carbon JHP, Remington Gold Saber, Speer Gold Dots and Winchester T series. The 45 ACPs very old design is still effective because it really does make great use of heavy projectiles, which is one of the only foolproof design functions of a bullet, you can make a bullet too light, but with proper terminal design you can never make a bullet too heavy, heavier bullets carry more momentum and according to some that is every bit as important as kenetic energy. I tend to agree, my bow shoots an arrow with less energy then a 22LR yet it will slice a huge wound through a wild boar and out the other side killing in seconds. Very little KE but lots of momentum and SD.
I feel the need to clarify something, I do not think that the 5.7x28 is a pointless round, it was designed to improve terminal performance over military 9mm FMJs while penatrating soft body armor, and it does both quite well with full power rounds. 9mm FMJs are too stubby to get that high level of yaw so FMJs tend to punch clean through with minimal trama, while I don't think the 5.7 is an improvement over modern 9mm +P HPs in the context of soft tissue damage, it is a huge leap forward for the military applications, as an added bonus it is much more controlable on full auto and has an improved magazine capasity, my buddie was trained on the P90 while in state LE and he loves it. I had this exact same debate with him in person, he now admits that the 9mm can outperform his little pet round but still likes it. There is not doubt that the 5.7 can cause enough trama to be an effective self defence round, but to say that it has more wounding potential then a modern 9mm is a stretch.

 

[DmL5]

To be more then fair to the little 5.7 this test was not done with a 4.8" barrel, or even the P90s standard 10" barrel, no to maximize it's potential this test was done with a 16" barrel at 2400fps.

You cherry-picked an extremely poor load (FN's SS195LF) for your comparison so it was not "fair" in the slightest. EA's loads are pushing the same projectile you mentioned, out of the same barrel length, at muzzle velocities of over 3,050 ft/s (an increase of 650+ ft/s). Alternatively, their other loads push much heavier bullets at (still) higher velocities.

Despite this very small profile it only manages 9" of total penatration well below the recomended 12" minimum.

If penetration is your thing, Brassfetcher tested a random 40-grain 5.7x28mm handload that expanded, penetrated 14+ inches, and created a permanent wound cavity indistinguishable from that of any of the common pistol calibers:

I think this test said it all, having an impressive TWC does not make for a large PWC even at near sniper rifle speeds.

A test of any sort never "says it all." I don't agree with everyone in this thread obsessing over temporary cavitation, but it is true that in an actual human body, the temporary cavity can most certainly contribute to a bullet's wounding potential. See also:

(Warning: Contains graphic photos)

http://www.firearmsid.com/Feature Articles/092402/JohannesburgTraumaUnit3.htm

Note the last case listed in the above link, which documents severe liver damage caused by the temporary cavity of a 9mm hollow-point bullet. Quote from the link:

The laparotomy findings were: extensively damaged inferior vena cava, holes in the stomach, spleen, small and large bowel and a massive cavitating hole in the liver which almost cut the liver in half. The liver had stellate tears in it from the cavitating rupturing effect of the projectile injury.

<snip>

Preliminary analysis indicates that the bullet is of the 9mm Parabellum variety. Handgun projectiles can cause cavitating injuries of inelastic organs such as the spleen, kidneys and liver.

Compare that result to the 45 ACP next to it and try to explain how it is more effective.

The block of ballistic gelatin used in the .45 ACP gelatin test that you attached was not even calibrated for correct viscosity, so you can throw it out completely. In reality, the .45 ACP creates a very tiny permanent wound cavity in calibrated ballistic gelatin and in elastic human tissue, just like the other common pistol calibers:



News flash: the tiny dark lines in the picture above are the permanent wound cavities. They are miniscule. They have even been dyed for enhanced visibility, and they are still miniscule. Due to elasticity, the permanent cavities are not even nearly as large as the (already tiny) bullets that created them.

Energy----------405ft/lbs-----500 ft/lbs---Advantage 9mm

The energy is not an advantage to the 9mm, because it still creates a somewhat smaller temporary cavity than the 5.7x28mm (and energy does not do anything else to directly contribute to a bullet's wounding potential).

Momentum-------10lbs---------23lbs-----Huge Advantage 9mm

Completely irrelevant. Regardless of the difference in momentum (and assuming the load actually achieves the velocity that Buffalo Bore claims), you can expect 5.7x28mm to perform very well on bone for the same reasons it performs very well on steel/titanium/misc panels, while the 9mm does not. Reality (in actual shootings with 5.7x28mm) has shown us that it does.

Frontal Area-.----.0394--------.1007------Huge Advantage 9mm

If frontal area is your thing, the 5.7x28mm with the right projectile can achieve an average diameter very similar to a 9mm JHP. Actually, even .22 WMR out of a rifle can achieve an average diameter of .48 inches, which is virtually identical to that of a 115-grain 9mm hollowpoint (about .53 inches, depending on load). The .22 WMR's penetration depth in 10% ballistic gelatin is also identical to that of the 115-grain 9mm, at about 9.1 inches:

http://www.brassfetcher.com/index_files/Page2548.htm
http://www.firearmstactical.com/ammo_data/9mm.htm

For comparison, EA's 5.7x28mm loads out of the Five-seveN pistol are pushing heavier bullets at higher velocities than the .22 WMR load linked above.

Sectional Density-.08-----------.130-----Large Advantage 9mm

Completely irrelevant because, again, if penetration is your thing, there are numerous 5.7x28mm loads that expand and penetrate 12+ inches in ballistic gelatin.

Even the most hardcore 5.7 fan should understand why I am so skeptical of it's "advantages" over conventional handgun rounds.

Compared to a conventional full-size handgun the Five-seveN is much lighter, has a larger magazine capacity, shoots flatter, recoils less, and with the right ammunition penetrates any type of soft body armor.

The argument about wound ballistics is an irrelevant tangent. They all make relatively small permanent wound cavities and they are all dependent on shot placement. Reality (in actual verifiable shootings) has shown that the 5.7x28mm is as effective as any of the common pistol calibers, even with FN's watered down ammunition.

Don't obsess over wound ballistics. We're discussing a handgun, and handguns are highly dependent on shot placement anyway. The thing is, the Five-seveN carries more rounds than a comparable pistol and can place those rounds on target more quickly/accurately. In the end, that's really all that matters.

 

[Jath]

Energy dump theory is bogus. Want proof of that ask anyone that used the lightweight bullets in their 243s and 6mm rems when they first came out. They had a reputation for blowing up in the shoulder without doing substantal damage to the vitals. The 243 is still trying to get past the bad rep it got back then. Consistant wound tracts though the vital organs with adaquate penatration are vastly superior to a bullet that blows up at one narrow point even if the consistant bullet expends some of it's energy on the far side of the target.. Don't be fooled by advertisments telling you otherwise. I never load deer hunting bullets that don't have a reputation for through and through performance, and my recovery record is as good as it gets.
"5.7 is effective. period." never said it was not, just not superior to other proven rounds. I am still waiting for an anwser to the magic energy that we cannot messure.
Edit. Here is what I am talking about with energy dump. Let's compare the performance of a bonded bullet out of a 44 mag vs a more powerful 500 S&W with a bullet that comes apart and "dumps" into the first few inches.
500 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZCqQWJhjtY&feature=related
44 mag http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXhCHhFFIFc&feature=related
The less powerful 44 is clearly the more effective round in this case, had the 500 been loaded with a properly designed bullet it would have blown it away no doubt about it. That is about as clear as a comparison can be, anyone care to debate my conclusion?

I'm gona go ahead and bring up something that I mentioned earlier, that you are wrong. Again. The above quoted post proves it. This is the one on page 3 I think that you claim that the .44 magnum is more effective than the .500 Nitro Express because the nitro express uses ammo that energy dumps and relies on TWC.

If you recall, you were wrong. You lost your credibility. I'm gona keep reminding you of that. You keep stating wrong "facts" cherry picking the worst information, claiming that the TWC has no effect at all. When I compare two rounds, I don't choose my favorite round and make that one look the best, I choose the best I can find from all the rounds.

I don't know what these imaginary studies you keep reading are that agree with everything you think you know, but there's plenty of studies I've read that disagree with everything you're claiming.


To everyone but Kachum, (do not read the below, it's too advanced for you Kachum)
TWC is temporary only in that the size of the wound is temporarily at a certain size. The damage from the stretching and energy waves transferred is not so temporary. Yes, there may not be a cavity there any more, but if (and when I say if, I mean when) there are any blood vessels or vital organs in the radius of the TWC, they will be ripped and torn. They will bleed. The blood will leak down the cracks into the Permanent cavity.
something that will also be ripped is nerves.

Some guy here said that the TWC was like the waves that go through your belly when you tap it. That's not exactly true. It works on the same principle, but the truth is that the TWC acts more like a meat tenderizer. It smashes it without necessarily ripping or cutting it (although it can do both). The flesh is bruised heavily.

Lets imagine for a moment that you get a temporary wound cavity created by something other than a bullet, like say a sledge hammer. If someone hit you with a sledge hammer, it is going to create a deep temporary wound cavity roughly the same shape and size as the hammer head. After the hammer is no longer contacting your body, the flesh rebounds to its original location. Based on what some people have been saying here, because TWC is not important, this hammer shouldn't phase you at all. Reality is, it just crushed bones, organs, and tissue. A bullet such as a .45 or .357 magnum actually creates a much wider, deeper TWC than that of a sledge hammer.

Bottom line, .357 mag is better than a .45 ACP because it's temporary wound cavity is twice the size of a .45's, and its permanent wound cavity is the same size or bigger as well. There are exceptions in some ammo types, (better .45s, slower .357s) but that is generally the case.

Now, the only way to really test this is to shoot both rounds at LIVE animals or people in the same rough spot, with many individual trials. Only then will we know for sure. Until then we can use our data, either the data interpreted by the people who first started ballistic testing and didn't really understand it, made faulty assumptions, and incorrect analysis, or the data interpreted people who have gotten MBAs, PHDs, and are, or work with, medical doctors who see real cases of gunshot victims all the time.

 

[Kachok]

Oh DmL5 so much junk to debunk and so little time.
OK 1st I did not cherry pick that load, it just happen to provide a very defined yaw in it's ballistic test for me to highlight the expansion of the PWC at high speed. Besides it mimics the real world performance of your hotrod loads in pistol length barrels.
2nd the TSX load is experemental and in case you did not notice the PWC was very very small. Not exactly the dramatic effect that everyone like everyone has been talking about.
3rd I know TWC is a real secondary wounding effect, if you actualy READ what I have been wrighting you would know that. I addresed that on several occasions already.
4th Sure soft tissue closes up some behind any given porjectile as it slows down, and yet the 45ACP has been recorded making more PWC volume then any 9mm, 40, or 357 mag and a whole heck of alot more then any 5.7 that has ever been tested.
5th Really? Where are your numbers to support your claim that the bufflao bore makes a smaller TWC then any given 5.7 round? Other tests have 9mm projectiles making larger TWC then the uber fast 5.7 so where is your data? and who the heck are you to say that the energy does not matter? What magic or voodoo makes the 5.7s energy better despite the fact that there is less of it?
6th Momentum does not matter? Where the heck did you go to school? Your teacher needs to be fired, momentum makes a huge difference, it is absoluty vital to the performance of bullets, go tell a vetren big game hunter that he should replace his 400gr bullets in his 416 with 120gr bullets in a 7mm mag and watch him laugh at you. Video tape it when you tell him all about your energy theories and send me a copy, that would be histarical!
7th if the 28gr 5.7 expanded to .55-.65" like the 9mm it would stop on a dime and be flat as one as well, bullet caliber has been and will remain a fundimental aspect of terminal performance, that is not even in debate in any ballistics labs that I know of.
8th Sure, you very well might hit the 12" minimum with a couple of loads, but the 9mm can go as deep as 40" high SD allows greater versitility, reserch bullet construction.
9th We are not comparing armor piercing capability, but if we were there are several 9mm rounds that also pierce Lv III body armor and one that will penatrate 8mm of rolled steel. (more then the AP 5.7x28)
10th Really much higher capasity? Exactly one more round then a compact XDm 9mm does not qualify as "much higher". Recoil energy in a 9mm is a non-event, I can accuratly shoot one as fast as I can a 22, so that is not really a real world advantage for semi auto firearms.
------------------------------------------
So let me now sum up what you are saying for the sake of all the people at home, energy does not matter, momentum does not matter, caliber does not matter, SD does not matter, and PWC does not matter. If it beats the 5.7 in ballistic gel tests the block must have been calibrated wrong, and everyone elses ballistic figures are all lies only FN tells the truth (yeah right) Does that sound objective or even remotly scientific to you? Think real hard about that. I have debated some very narrow minded people before, but with your statements you just took the cake Forget fans the 5.7 has a cult who follow it blindly like some kind of Pagan god.
------------------------------------------
Edit for Jath, first that was a 500 S&W not Nitro, read before you type, secondly I stand by me statment because the 44 passed throught the block with plenty of energy left over, you are assuming flush head on shots only, and every target haveing a slim torso, two clear logical errors. I never once said that TWC had no effect at all, now you are just outright lying in a sad attempt to discredit me. I understant the principles of the TWC better then most and a whole lot better then you, I am still waiting for this study of yours that shows TWC and PWC are directly related, you have said it over and over and I have asked as many times, seems to me like you really don't know what you are talking about, and have nothing to back it up......kinna sad.
I have seen the same theme with the 5.7 guys, alot of advertising hype about what it is supposed to do, but somehow the actual facts and mesurments are missing, when you ask for them they ignore you over and over again. I have brought my facts and figures to the table many times now, as well as information from well respected sources such as the FBIs ballistic resources, all I get in return is heresay, angry blaber, uneducated oppinions, and outright lies to attack my crediability. Now who is taking the more scientific approach and who is acting like a spoiled child throwing a temer tantrum?

 

[DmL5]

2nd the TSX load is experemental and in case you did not notice the PWC was very very small.

The permanent wound cavity created by the 5.7x28mm TSX load was indistinguishable from those created by the common pistol calibers that I also linked.

the 45ACP has been recorded making more PWC volume then any 9mm, 40, or 357 mag and a whole heck of alot more then any 5.7 that has ever been tested.

Absolutely not. Here is the comparison again:



Again, the tiny dark lines in the picture above are the permanent wound cavities. They are all miniscule. They have even been dyed for enhanced visibility, and they are still miniscule. Due to elasticity, the permanent cavities are not even nearly as large as the (already tiny) bullets that created them.

5th Really? Where are your numbers to support your claim that the bufflao bore makes a smaller TWC then any given 5.7 round?

Brassfetcher's extensive gelatin testing (with all different calibers) has shown that the temporary cavities of any of the 9mm loads are more or less identical to the temporary cavity of FN's 5.7x28mm SS197SR:

http://www.brassfetcher.com/index_files/Page1950.htm

The temporary cavities of EA's 5.7x28mm loads are larger still. Furthermore, other 115-grain 9mm loads like Magtech's 115-grain 9mm load (at about 1200 ft/s) make tiny temporary cavities and still barely meet (or fail to meet) the FBI penetration minimum:

http://www.brassfetcher.com/index_files/Page1910.htm

6th Momentum does not matter? Where the heck did you go to school?

You completely ignored and sidestepped what I said.

Regardless of the difference in momentum (and assuming the load actually achieves the velocity that Buffalo Bore claims), you can expect 5.7x28mm to perform very well on bone for the same reasons it performs very well on steel/titanium/misc panels, while the 9mm does not. Reality (in actual shootings with 5.7x28mm) has shown us that it does.

8th Sure, you very well might hit the 12" minimum with a couple of loads, but the 115gr 9mm can go as deep as 27" high SD allows greater versitility, reserch bullet construction.

27 inches of penetration is highly undesirable. It would do nothing to increase the bullet's effectiveness on the primary target, but it would make the bullet less safe in terms of potential collateral damage.

There are numerous 5.7x28mm loads that are capable of penetrating 12+ inches in ballistic gelatin. I already linked one that expanded, penetrated 14+ inches, and created a permanent wound cavity indistinguishable from that of a 9mm (or any of the common pistol calibers). Meanwhile, EA is pushing heavier bullets at higher velocities. There is no need for a penetration depth of greater than 12 inches, let alone 14 inches.

9th We are not comparing armor piercing capability, but if we were there are several 9mm rounds that also pierce Lv III body armor and one that will penatrate 8mm of rolled steel.

That is a dubious claim. Regardless, those loads are essentially unobtainable, and their projectiles do not expand at all anyway.

10th Really much higher capasity? Exactly one more round then a compact XDm 9mm does not qualify as "much higher".

Their heights are not equivalent.

The Five-seveN has a height of 5.4 inches, and the XDM has a height of 5.65 inches. Meanwhile, an extended 30-round magazine for the Five-seveN only adds about an inch or so to the weapon's height. The Five-seveN is then about an inch taller than the XDM and carries 50% more ammunition; it's still lighter, too, despite carrying much more ammunition.

energy does not matter

Correct, because the temporary cavities are similar, and the additional energy does not (in that case) directly contribute to anything except the (mediocre) temporary cavity. If anything, the 5.7x28mm produces a larger temporary cavity than the 9mm, as I demonstrated above. Furthermore, the 115-grain 9mm load you cited does not even meet the FBI penetration standard, so you might as well throw it out completely just like you have thrown out any 5.7x28mm load that doesn't meet said standard.

momentum does not matter

Correct, because the other aspects of the projectiles are not comparable. The 5.7x28mm performs much better than even 9mm FMJ on hard targets (such as steel/titanium/etc), and reality has shown us that 5.7x28mm (even with the watered down V-Max ammo) is extremely destructive on contact with bone.

caliber does not matter

Not when the permanent cavities are indistinguishable, no.

SD does not matter

Not when the bullets already meet and exceed the FBI's penetration standard, no.

and PWC does not matter

Again, the 5.7x28mm with the right projectile can achieve an average diameter very similar to a 9mm JHP. Actually, even .22 WMR out of a rifle can achieve an average diameter of .48 inches, which is virtually identical to that of a 115-grain 9mm hollowpoint (about .53 inches, depending on load). The .22 WMR's penetration depth in 10% ballistic gelatin is also identical to that of the 115-grain 9mm, at about 9.1 inches:

http://www.brassfetcher.com/index_files/Page2548.htm
http://www.firearmstactical.com/ammo_data/9mm.htm

For comparison, EA's 5.7x28mm loads out of the Five-seveN pistol are pushing heavier bullets at higher velocities than the .22 WMR load linked above.

If it beats the 5.7 in ballistic gel tests the block must have been calibrated wrong

Actually, that gelatin block you posted was not calibrated at all.

 

[Kachok]

Wrong and wrong and wrong some more, did you actualy check the volume of those wound tracts, or are you just eyeballing it?? Don't anwser that, I already know the anwser as does everyone else here. Was that block calibrated to spec? We have seen over and over again the PWCs that other sources have posted and they are very different. In the actual volume tests the larger calibers almost always come out on top at handgun speeds, that is alot more accurate then your bias guess. You simply cannot build a solid scientific argument if your foundation is flawed. You sir are blinded by bias, you have chosen to ignore any and all mesurments and facts and all you have to say is "it does not matter". You have clearly shown that you have no idea what you are talking about. I ask for facts and mesurments and all I get from you is blaber and wild speculation. You are not adding anything of use to this conversation, go do your homework and then come back and talk with the grownups. Goodnight.

 

[DmL5]

did you actualy check the volume of those wound tracts, or are you just eyeballing it??

You can see the permanent wound cavities for yourself (the thin, dark lines behind the bullets). It goes without saying that they are all miniscule, and if there is any difference between them it is incredibly minute.



Again, due to elasticity, the permanent cavities are not even nearly as large as the (already tiny) bullets that created them.

We have seen over and over again the PWCs that other sources have posted and they are very different.

Perhaps, but a bullet's performance in uncalibrated ballistic gelatin means nothing.

In the actual volume tests the larger calibers almost always come out on top at handgun speeds, that is alot more accurate then your bias guess.

They may come out "on top" but the difference between them is incredibly minute. The permanent wound cavities are indistinguishable. They are all miniscule. They can be dyed for enhanced visibility and they are still miniscule.

Again, don't obsess over the wounding potential of handgun bullets. They are all relatively ineffective and they are all highly dependent on shot placement.

 

[303tom]

I think we have beat this one to death, anyone else besides me think it is time to put this one to bed & agree to disagree ?

 

[Mike1234567]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[Kachok]

Yet again I ask, did you actualy messure the PWC or are you talking out your @$$ again? Tell you what to be 100% fair to the scientific method let's look at the exact same place where we saw such lackluster results from the 5.7. Same testing method, same 10% gel. http://www.brassfetcher.com/index_files/Page1834.htm Whats this? 12+ inches of penatration and oh no, a consistant wound tract with visiable outward fracturing of the block throughout. No PWC mesurments was given but it is obviously better then the 5.7, Stevie Wonder could see that. And since you ALWAYS fail to include details like that I am OK with omitong it for once There you go sir, an improvement over the 5.7 in every mesurable way, just like the ballistic stats go figure, now go do some more homework and come back to try again.
I don't think I am being unfair to you guys, I have asked for hard facts on so many occasions my fingers are starting to hurt, and you STILL keep ignoring that and jumping right back to the same garbage over and over, I have presented actual lab proven tests supporting my statmenemts, where are yours? How many more times do I have to ask? WIthout scientific evedence all you are doing is making misleading pointless bable, that does not impress me or anyone else here. Side stepping the questions only gets you so far.
DmL5s approach the the scientific method. Energy does not matter, momentum does not matter, caliber does not matter, ballistic reslults don't matter, only his uneducated opinion matters.

 

[DmL5]

oh no, a consistant wound tract with visiable outward fracturing of the block throughout.

In the test you just linked there is not "visible outward fracturing" or any such nonsense. There is a mediocre temporary cavity (which is dyed for enhanced visibility, by the way) and there is a tiny permanent cavity. Nothing more, nothing less.

No PWC mesurments was given but it is obviously better then the 5.7, Stevie Wonder could see that

The permanent cavity is actually not even visible in the test you linked because it is overshadowed by the dyed temporary cavity. The permanent cavities of two different 9mm loads are, however, visible in these tests.



The permanent wound cavities (manifested as thin, dark lines) created by all of the above loads are miniscule. When the 9mm's permanent cavity is not dyed, it actually looks like this:

http://www.brassfetcher.com/index_files/Page2449.htm

One word: miniscule.

 

[Kachok]

Oh so this test that you know absolutly nothing about except for it's red dye has to be more accurate then those performed in a labratory with standardised ballistic gel, and messured block temparature right? LMAO. Still waiting on your hard facts and figures and you are STILL sidesteping.
BTW the 124gr bullet that I posted the link to is more powerful then any of the 9mm loads your dye pack tested, so your little picture has no relevence to the issue at hand. Not to mention a completly different bullet then those tested.
I have never once in my life seen such a group in outright denial of factual studies, I mean we have all known a hardcore 9mm guy, or that guy who refuses to use anything but his 357, but these 5.7 guys top them all, they have really drunk the Cool-Aid at the cult party, I mean these guys are hardcore belevers in the face of overwelming evedence to the contrary. The whole while they cannot find even a shread of science to defend themselves with. I bet if we did a 12ga foster slug vs 5.7 they would blaber away forever about how the 5.7s speed makes it superior.
Important thing to remember the 5.7x28 FAILED several of the FBIs tests, including the bare block ballistics gel test. It also performed very poorly at engaging targets on the far side of barriers dispite it's natural armor penatrating abilty. WHY? Because it is designed to start destabalizing on impact which kills it's performance going through car doors, sheetrock, plywood and the sort. Lightweight high speed spritzers also deflect on car glass, simply not enough mass and momentum to keep then in a streight line. These are all common situations for LE officers and the 5.7 would fail them, and would fail you too. I am not paying twice as much for a pistol and three times as much for ammo to get sub standard performance in nearly every possable situation.

 

[45_auto]

So bottom line is that .45 ACP is better than .357 mag because temporary wound cavity size is irrelevent, and its penetration and permanent wound cavity are bigger. There are exceptions in some ammo types, (FMJ .45s vs HP .357s) but that is generally the case.

 

[Kachok]

I would not be one to badtalk the 357 magnum, while TWC is not the primary messure of terminal performance, it still is a real wounding effect, and the 357 loads that I have seen messured avrage about twice the TWC of the 45 loads, the 45 ACP avrages about 30% more PWC which seems to nicly offset that, I consider both of them as high performance man stoppers though I perfer the 45 as well, not because of ballistic gel performance but I would rather carry a 1911 then a 6" barrel revolver, the auto reloads faster, has greater capasity and I like to keep what little hearing I have left LOL.

 

[Skribs]

Well, Kachok, look who you're talking to. I wonder, between .45 and .357, which cartridge someone named 45_auto will favor.

While I agree, I'd rather have a .45 than a .357 (because personally, I'd rather have a 9mm than a .357, for reasons of capacity and recoil), you have to admit the name shows your bias

 

[Kachok]

Yeah that is kind of a given, what makes these 5.7 guys so blindly bias? I have never seen a caliber cult like that before, when they start making statemants like, caliber/momentum/energy don't matter, that makes them seem less like fans of the caliber and more like a crazy Pagan religion.

 

[Skribs]

I think its that the 5.7 is different than the others. There's not much difference between 9mm and .45 when you get down to it, but the 9mm and the 5.7 are two different workhorses. The 5.7 takes the PDW approach, trying to emulate a rifle round in a pistol.

 

[Kachok]

Yeah they tried to re-create rifle ballistics in a pistol but it is simply not the same, those 223s that are so deadly for their size are pushing a decent sectional density bullet at 3000fps, the 5.7 is using a bullet less then half the mass/sectional density at 500fps slower speed, you just cannot compare the two. The largest PWC that I have heard of for the 5.7 was a whopping 1.6 cubic inches in all fairness it is hard as heck to find reliable PWC data on the 5.7x28, and I have yet to find PWC data on the S4M I can only assume it is a littel better then that. In contrast the 9mm +P HP have reached as high as a confirmed 5.1 cubic inches. Not even a contest there for the civilian market, hence you don't see any other manufactures bargining for the rights to chamber the 5.7 in their pistols.
I like 9mms because they are cheap to shoot and are plenty adaquate for SD but my prefrence in a life or death situation is the 40 S&W, hits harder then the 9mm with a much larger TWC and makes almost as much PWC as the 45 with plenty of mag capasity, and unlike the 5.7 it passed all of the FBIs criteria with flying colors. The 9mm only failed one of the FBIs criteria and that was the amount of deflection through auto glass.

 

[Loosedhorse]

the 40 S&W, hits harder then the 9mm and makes almost as much PWC as the 45 with plenty of mag capasity.

I have lost track of how many different things either don't matter, don't exist, or are essentially the same for all pistol cailbers, so if you'll excuse me...

What is meant by the term, "Hits harder?" Is this meant to describe momentum only?

Also, you imply a trade-off between magazine capacity and "hard-hittingness." The .45 doesn't apparently have enough capacity (although capacities up to 14 are fairly easy go get), the 9 doesn't hit hard enough; but the .40 is like Baby Bear's porridge. Also: saying that the .40's PWC is "almost the same" as the .45's--doesn't that take a fairly subjective judgment about what qualifies as "almost," as well as when "almost" is good enough?

If I didn't know any better, I'd say that after all this turbulence about terminal balistics, the final choice of caliber still comes down to...

Personal preference?