5.7x28 for hunting?

I guess BC might be important out beyond 300, but inside? What difference does it make?
Click to expand...
It makes a measurable difference.

For scientific purposes I will use the same weight bullet and MV with an imaginary BC, for each.

Lets just say we're firing a 70grain .224 diameter bullet @ 3000fps.
@100 yards a bullet with a G1 BC of .2 will have slowed to 2523fps, from 3000fps. This yields about 989ft/lbs of energy with about 2 inches of wind drift in a 10mph crosswind, with 2.39 inches of drop from the muzzle. Temperature 65 degrees F, at sea level.
Keeping EVERYTHING else the same and giving the bullet an imaginary BC of .65
@100 yards the bullet has slowed to about 2849fps yielding 1262ft/lbs of energy. With only .88 inches of wind drift and 2.21 inches of drop.

Increase the range to 200 yards and the difference grows even further.
BC .2 = 2107fps, 690ft/lbs 10.31'' drop 7.14'' drift
BC .65 = 2707fps, 1139ft/lbs 8.73'' drop. 2.25'' drift
 
I can't imagine a 5.7 not doing the job with decent placement. Maybe not a lot of hydrostatic shock, but plenty of penetration to hit lung and heart I think.
 
and where exactly have you seen a 70 grain bullet of any caliber that had a BC of 650?
a 90 gr speer deep curl in 6mm only has a BC of .365

a 140gr Amax in 6.5mm only has a BC of .585

a 180 grain speer deep curl in 308 only has .483

a 325gr hornady FTX in 458 is only .230

where exactly have you seen such a bullet with such a BC? all of those are high quality bullet designs and all are considered to have decent, if not outstanding BCs.
 
It makes a measurable difference.

For scientific purposes I will use the same weight bullet and MV with an imaginary BC, for each.

Lets just say we're firing a 70grain .224 diameter bullet @ 3000fps.
@100 yards a bullet with a G1 BC of .2 will have slowed to 2523fps, from 3000fps. This yields about 989ft/lbs of energy with about 2 inches of wind drift in a 10mph crosswind, with 2.39 inches of drop from the muzzle. Temperature 65 degrees F, at sea level.
Keeping EVERYTHING else the same and giving the bullet an imaginary BC of .65@100 yards the bullet has slowed to about 2849fps yielding 1262ft/lbs of energy. With only .88 inches of wind drift and 2.21 inches of drop.

Increase the range to 200 yards and the difference grows even further.
BC .2 = 2107fps, 690ft/lbs 10.31'' drop 7.14'' drift
BC .65 = 2707fps, 1139ft/lbs 8.73'' drop. 2.25'' drift
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
 
you can imagine a big blue ox but that doesn't mean that they are real and you are making a very overblown argument. it is outside the realm of physics to have two bullets of the same caliber and weight to have such a wide difference in ballistic coefficient so all that data you provided is worthless.

I am ready to leave this one be. I've made my case for the 5.7 and 22 caliber bullets in general for hunting application and you have done your best to argu against... I think...

6 to 1 ballistic coefficient comparisons with the same bullet weights are confusing me. have a good weekend.
 
I fail to attach importance to the difference between 2.39 inches of drop and 2.21 inches of drop. Or between 7.14 and 8.73.

Drop? Wind? A shooter is supposed to have a clue about the performance of whatever load is being used.
 
not really... If you want 'real' BC's Compare the .277 diameter 150 grain Nosler Accubond 'Long range' with a listed G1 BC of .625 and a round nose of the same weight with a BC closer to .25
So my 'imaginary' BC's are not very unrealistic. If you cast a completely flat faced bullet in .277 @ 150 grains it'd likely have a BC closer to the .2 I listed. Those numbers weren't that un-realistic (Albeit it was for the caliber and weight I used as an example)
You get fairly similar results even with "real world" BC's

Or between 7.14 and 8.73.
Click to expand...
You've got the numbers scrambled a bit.
7.14'' drift with the .2BC
2.25'' drift with .65 BC
Both @ 200 yards.
The drop doesn't matter much, at those ranges, but the wind drift and velocity difference is fairly significant.

Do the calculations for the Accubond "long range" and the Round Nosed soft point at 3000fps, a completely reasonable velocity for those bullets.. and you'll still see significant difference in Velocity/Energy and wind drift.
 
I would just like to start by saying that I have never seen a single person that used a round nosed bullet in a 7mm. not saying they don't exist but they are highly impractical exactly because there are bullets of better design with better BC in the same weight class.

with that said. round nose bullets have a completely different level of application than spire point bullets. spire points are designed to give you your best performance over range while round nose are generally better suited to punching through thick hide and heavy muscle to get to vitals.

if I were shooting a bison with both of those bullets listed I would rather have the round nose than the accubond. the spitzer would be very likely to tumble and deflect, the round nose would be much less likely to do that.
 
JD0x0 said:
not really... If you want 'real' BC's Compare the .277 diameter 150 grain Nosler Accubond 'Long range' with a listed G1 BC of .625 and a round nose of the same weight with a BC closer to .25
So my 'imaginary' BC's are not very unrealistic. If you cast a completely flat faced bullet in .277 @ 150 grains it'd likely have a BC closer to the .2 I listed. Those numbers weren't that un-realistic (Albeit it was for the caliber and weight I used as an example)
Click to expand...

So if you intentionally created a bullet to have a really bad BC, you could use it to prove that two bullet of the same weight and caliber can have drastically different BCs.

Who in god's name is going to cast a flat nose .277 bullet and use it for the purposes that are required for your "proof". Google "Reification Fallacy" or Reductio Ad Absurdum

The bullets and BCs that you list as "proof" essentially do not exist in .223/4 caliber. The highest BC I've ever seen for a .224 bullet is around 0.580 and that's a 90gr which wouldn't work in 95% of the worlds .223Rem and probably not a single FN5.7.
 
Wow!!! Lots of really bad/misinformation on this thread.

The 5.7 x 28mm FN was produced as an easy to handle, lightweight, close quarters weapon, that had the ability to defeat body armor without the concern of over-penetration (that can happen with the 5.56NATO)

My reloading manual lists a 45gr Sierra sp, -max load- as having a muzzle velocity of less than 1600fps. That's LESS THAN HALF THE VELOCITY OF A COMPARABLE .223 load. Regardless of BC. The fn simply does not have the powder capacity, it's a tiny little 22cal cartridge, by any measure.

Sure a well placed shot with any gun at close enough range will take down game, but should you really recommend that sort of thing?
 
I have an FN Herstal pistol. I figure that it's a good social gun for up close and personal efforts. Fort Hood, remember?

But it's still somewhere in the general vicinity of the .22 Mag, the .17 HMr or a .22 Hornet, overall. For honest work I'd call it a varmint load. In a rifle, IMO, it would be fine for deer poachers. Ethical folks? Coyotes and smaller.
 
Wow!!! Lots of really bad/misinformation on this thread.

The 5.7 x 28mm FN was produced as an easy to handle, lightweight, close quarters weapon, that had the ability to defeat body armor without the concern of over-penetration (that can happen with the 5.56NATO)

My reloading manual lists a 45gr Sierra sp, -max load- as having a muzzle velocity of less than 1600fps. That's LESS THAN HALF THE VELOCITY OF A COMPARABLE .223 load. Regardless of BC. The fn simply does not have the powder capacity, it's a tiny little 22cal cartridge, by any measure.

Sure a well placed shot with any gun at close enough range will take down game, but should you really recommend that sort of thing?
Click to expand...

sierra, is that out of a 4.5 inch test barrel or a 16 inch test barrel? you'd be surprised how slow 223 is coming out of a pistol length barrel. there are lots of carbine length rifles that increase the velocity a great deal. federal premium lists the same 5.7 bullet in both rifle and pistol velocity. the pistol gets very close to that you stated. the rifle gets over 600FPS faster. no mis information, just misreading.
 
4.75in FN Five-seveN was the test gun.

Pertaining to the original question: Even with an additional 600-700fps it still comes in well under 22cal cartridges generally accepted for hunting (.223rem, 22-250, 220swift, etc). Unless you are active duty special forces, the 5.7 is really just a novelty.

Since we're debating basic reading in reloading manuals; assuming the same bullets are used: How does 4-8grs of powder produce velocities (or muzzle energies) equal to 22-48grs of powder?
 
A guy killed a hog with a .177 pellet a while back... a perfect shot through the eye into the brain. So, it CAN be done but that doesn't mean YOU should try it :)
 
Hunting with a 5.7? Yep bunnies, groundhogs, and maybe a coyote.
With many years of hunting experience(and many dead deer), I'll say I "can" kill a deer with a 22lr or 22 mag. Do I hunt during deer season with a pipsqueak round? Absolutely not!!!!!!!!!!!! The lowest energy cartridge I normally use is 257 Roberts simply because I refuse to risk losing an animal in an effort to bolster my ego. Sure I've seen deer killed effectively with stuff like the 223 but I still don't recommend such use by "Joe Average" deer hunters.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top