5.56 has been chosen by many CQB teams BECAUSE overpenetration at close range is actually less than most 9mm SMG's.
Even if that is correct, less overpenetration than a 9mm doesn't mean its no longer a concern.
Wow...Gun World apparently understands statistics and the scientific method
We aren't talking about 1-3 shootings. 15 shootings can be viewed as a large enough sample to prove or disprove a weapon's wounding ability.
And unlike DML they don't appear to have an agenda
I'm willing to argue this subject with you, but keep the bashing to yourself. Its what always happens. When one runs out of supporting data, they simply turn to bashing.
I believe the 22mag comparison was a comparison in straight ballistics
Its still false.
Advocates seem to jockey back and forth between rifle/pistol comparisons in whatever order supports their theory best.
When analyzing a pistol round for its terminal effects, one
does not compare it to a rifle round fired from a rifle.
It is a niche round in a niche weapon
Actually, it is the opposite of a niche weapon. It works versus both armored and unarmored opponents. This weapon is in use in over 30 countries in a wide variety of roles and its filling those role quite well. It is not a niche weapon.
Most of the people I know that go in harms way are skeptical of it
People that go into harm's way
with the P90? I have heard from people that actually operate with the weapon on a daily basis and have extensively tested it.
"The current 31 gr SS-190 FMJ bullet has nearly adequate penetration
I've already addressed this. You don't need more than a 8-10" (let alone the P-90's 12"+) penetrating bullet when engaging a target 9.4" thick, regardless of a 1-2" thick wrist in the way. Also note that Doc GKR doesn't cite the specific penetration number of the round. Maybe because it would undermine his statement?
the wound resulting from this projectile has a relatively small permanent crush cavity
Already addressed this. The bullet is .850-inch in length and turns point upward after two inches of wound travel, and continues travelling in this manner for much of the travel.
as well as an insignificant temporary stretch cavity.
He seems to be ignoring the fact that
all pistol rounds create insignificant TC's. So it sounds like he's comparing it to rifle rounds again.
wounding potential is at best like a .22 LR or .22 Magnum
This one shows that Doc GKR has not given this subject much thought. Comparable to a .22 Mag? Given more thought one will realize this is an absurd claim. Comparable "
at best" to a .22LR? A claim absurd beyond belief.
I'll take this even further and discuss another quote of Doc GKR's:
"Use of the 5.7 x 28 mm is a good way to ensure mission failure."
This one is also completely false. This round has been in general use dating back to 1991 with hundreds of operators in dozens of PD's and SF/CT units in over 30 countries. Not once has any operator been killed or even injured due to insufficient performance, let alone has it caused a "mission failure".
The above alone shows that Mr. Difabio has not given the subject much thought either. "Doc" only covered it well if you want absurd claims without solid evidence to back them up.
We have also run LE only tests with the 5.7 pistol and the P90 carbine. Both were very disappointing
I will point out to you that its worthless to simply hear him say "they did bad" but not have it backed up. This info you're providing (which I have read many times in the past and said so from the start) consists only of opinions without any data whatsoever.
I have shared on several occassions that the development and attempted marketing of these cartridges toward the standard LE agency has for the most part been irreponsible IMHO.
#1. These weapons were not developed toward LE like he says.
#2. These weapons are in use with dozens of PD's and have been for some time. They are pleased with them. They work very well for them. So the weapon is not ill-suited for LE work.
This cartridge offers nothing to the patrol officer in terms of increased terminal ballsitics over the standard G22/40 cal serive pistol
Yet again, I must ask:
what is up. The point of this cartridge is not to offer "increased terminal ballsitics over the 40 cal serive pistol". Definitely the weapon will be disappointing if your pre-evaluation views are that bizarre. Once again, these quotes would prove nothing even if the weapon hadn't given the performance it has. So if you've seen "smear campaigns" launched against these ballisticians in response to this "data", its no surprise.
-DmL
and the S&W has a heck of a lot better trigger pull and sights! 