FN 5.7mm P-90 Ballistics?

[Stiletto]

^^^

I think your second-to-last quote shows a sort of anti-bias, either way.

He suggests that even if it really is as ineffective as everyone likes to say it is, he'd still rather have it, simply because it's putting out so many bullets and getting them through the opponent's armor.

Guys, I know it isn't very sexy to think of your prized toy as being designed for truck drivers, mechanics, and clerks. But it was.

Yeah, we know. A lot of people seem to enjoy arguing that it's a bad weapon because it's poorly suited (?) to use as a primary assault weapon.

As for FN's 5.7mm system being chosen over HK's 4.6mm system, well, I'd like to see a source. In terms of straight ballistics numbers, the 4.6 comes out slightly ahead on energy delivery (if HKPro's numbers are to be trusted), although it seems like the P90 is a more ergonomic setup than the MP7. Also, it would make sense for Germany to not adopt the P90 for its general-issue PDW if they have the homemade MP7.

 

[smince]

Whether Fortier used any of your posts for info, I do not know. How long have you been posting on the 5.7? As someone who has had articles published for "entertainment", I know that sometimes articles languish in the editor's hands for quite a while, and sometimes they barely squeek past the deadline. I really have no idea when he wrote the article. It was published in the Guns & Ammo "Combat Arms" special edition last month. He could have written it a few weeks or several months ago.

then he also left out details on the Lima shooting. He merely said the P90 was "used" in it. Three suspects were hit through IIIA soft armor and they died before they hit the ground.

No, he stated that the the terrorist leader was shot through the vest and killed by a suppressed P90. I left that out. I was just hitting the high spots. I didn't want to type the whole article. Nothing about three kills, though.

I ask again, with 30 coutries and more than a decade in service, why all the trouble finding documented shooting reports on this cartridge? It would be roughly the same age as .40S&W and there are numerous actual shootings on record with this round.

Just a thought, but because you let something "slip" on the internet, doesn't mean you are the only one with such info, and it wasn't told elsewhere. Myself, I've become jaded by most gunwriters. But there are still some who are generally reliable and tell the truth. Mr. Fortier seems to be accurate on the details of the weapons systems and operations he writes about.

 

[DmL5]

I think your second-to-last quote shows a sort of anti-bias, either way.

He suggests that even if it really is as ineffective as everyone likes to say it is, he'd still rather have it, simply because it's putting out so many bullets and getting them through the opponent's armor.

I meant it showed a bias towards the round, not overall package. It seemed like a bias toward the round because he seemed to accept it being a poor performer just because that is the public's general view. I guess you could take it either way.

As for FN's 5.7mm system being chosen over HK's 4.6mm system, well, I'd like to see a source.

HK's 4.6 only gives better energy delivery through CRISAT armor at extended range. This is hardly the average target, so HKPro's number's aren't to be trusted. Versus unprotected targets the 5.7 does nearly 30% better than the 4.6 and versus protected (CRISAT) targets it does 11% better. I can provide the actual NATO QRT report on 5.7 vs 4.6 if you want it.

How long have you been posting on the 5.7?

Whenever the subject comes up, I defend the weapon/round. The first argument of this sort took place at least a year ago, and has happened every month or two.

No, he stated that the the ist leader was shot through the vest and killed by a suppressed P90.

This seems to strengthen my suspicion, because the above is what I posted. I didn't know there were three kills until recently. The leader was the only one I posted.

I ask again, with 30 coutries and more than a decade in service, why all the trouble finding documented shooting reports on this cartridge?

Thats the problem. It isn't that there haven't been shootings, its that the info is hard to find. I know of many shootings not posted here because the details were too sketchy and some of them were insignificant. (Head/neck shots) FN isn't giving out info from shootings anymore. The Lima shooting results were confidential and somebody got in trouble for talking about it.

Just a thought, but because you let something "slip" on the internet, doesn't mean you are the only one with such info, and it wasn't told elsewhere.

The only other source could have been FN. I don't find it likely that he asked them, especially when the only shootings he mentioned were the only ones I posted. Also notice the similarity:

"Houston PD shot a subject who was firing at them with an AR-15"
"Houston PD SWAT responded to a man firing an AR15"

Quite a surprise for me, and I'm glad you posted it.

-DmL

 

[Stiletto]

I can provide the actual NATO QRT report on 5.7 vs 4.6 if you want it.

Yep. I like to look at raw statistics, I don't generally trust other people to interpret for me. (Nothing personal. )

I meant it showed a bias towards the round, not overall package. It seemed like a bias toward the round because he seemed to accept it being a poor performer just because that is the public's general view. I guess you could take it either way.

Syntax nitpick, you should say "against the round" if you want to say a negative bias. There's a reason that English majors exist; sadly, a lot of journalists aren't English majors. (FFS people, learn to know and use the language, don't just "speak it"! </rant>)

 

[smince]

Mr. Fortier wrote the article after a visit to FN-Herstal in Belgium, at the invitation of Phillipe Claessens, whom he identifies a the firm's general director.
After an extensive tour, where he got to watch P90 production and talk with the workers, he then got to watch the P90 put through its paces. Then he got some trigger time with the system himself.

Speculation on my part, but sometimes individuals share "inside" knowledge, especially with those who have the proper credentials. Mr. Fortiers' are easier to verify than anonymous internet posters.

 

[DmL5]

For Stiletto:

The following is the official NATO recommendation presented in June 2003 by Colonel Michael Padgett. He is the Quick Reaction Team (QRT) Chairman. The QRT consists of Canada, Romania, Sweden and Switzerland with US as the lead. Their mission is to establish unbiased, fair and meaningful PDW selection criteria and determine the best replacement for the current NATO 9mm ammunition. The H&K 4.6mm and the FN 5.7mm were being tested.

Lethality results:
- For assaulting unprotected target: 5.7mm is better than 4.6mm by 27%
- For assaulting protected target: 5.7mm is better than 4.6mm by 11%
- For the P(I/H)m unprotected target: 5.7mm is better than the 4.6mm by 26.7%
- For the P(I/H)m protected target: 5.7mm is better than the 4.6mm by 11.2%

P(I/H) measure is the Probability of Incapacitation assuming a successful Hit. The is the effectiveness measure as defined in the report

~~~~~~~~~~~
(U) = Unprotected target
(P) = Protected target

Gelatin block characterization for the 5.7mm:
Begins yawing (U): 2-8cm
Maximum Penetration (U): 26-27cm
Begins yawing (P): 3cm
Maximum Penetration (P): 12-16cm

Gelatin block characterization for the 4.6mm:
Begins yawing (U): 6-13cm
Maximum Penetration (U): 25-30+cm
Begins yawing (P): 6cm
Maximum Penetration (P): 22cm

The lethality of the 5.7mm is almost always better than the 4.6mm because the 5.7mm bullet begins to yaw earlier in the gelatin block and thus deposits its energy earlier.

The earlier the energy is deposited in the block, the higher the effective energy that is deposited in the block. This results in greater bullet efficiency.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Caliber Potential:

If the 4.6mm bullet were scaled up to 5.7mm, maintaining proportions, it would be expected that the penetration capabilities of the 5.7mm would exceed that of the 4.6mm due to the heavier projectile and longer steel core, given the same muzzle velocity.

If the 5.7mm design were reduced proportionally to 4.6mm, it would be reasonable to expect the lethality of the 4.6mm to increase over the current design, but not matching the 5.7mm bullet in lethality due to reduced mass, given the same muzzle velocity.

Thus the 5.7mm has the greater potential in terms of performance.

~~~~~~~~~~~
No barrel erosion issues noted after 5,000 round test

However: The 4.6 uses a copper plated steel projectile and a higher barrel erosion can be expected. The 5.7 uses a traditional copper jacket with dual core design (as 5.56 NATO ball). Both rounds scored equal (100%) based on the data presented.
~~~~~~~~~~~

The following is the evaluation factors used for the test. This section deals with effectiveness (which is 80% of the total test). It helps to define the P(I) factor as well as other variables that make up the 80%. Other factors include:
- Ammunition Cost (15%) - 4.6mm scored 87.1%. 5.7mm scored 93.5%
- Barrel Erosion (5%) - I’ve already stated the barrel erosion test results.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EFFECTIVENESS:

- Primarily driven by the Probability of Incapacitation P(I)
- Since the P(I) is a function of the systems hit probability P(H) and the Probability of Incapacitation given a hit P(I/H),
it will be used alone as the Effectiveness figure of merit
- It will be weighted as the fraction of times targets are found at various ranges and equally weighted between fully
protected and minimally protected targets.

Issue: How do we handle hit probability for calculation of effectiveness?

- The probability of Incapacitation measure will be evaluated for several target types at the ranges of interest for a PDW system. The required target types are:
* NATO Protected Man Standing erect with PASGT type Helmet and Winter Uniform
* NATO Protected Man Standing erect with PASGT type Helmet and Winter Uniform with CRISAT Ballistic vest protection

- P(I) will be determined for the types of Incapacitation defined in the NATO requirement for the PDW
* Rapid Incapacitation (as defined in the NATO requirement incapacitation in less than 5 seconds)

Issue: A Team of Experts (TOE) was chartered to develop a new procedure for calculating 5 second P(I). No consensus was reached.

- Rapid Incapacitation
* P(I) measure
-The Rapid Incapacitation Target (RIT) is a subset of the total area of the NATO Target, including high vulnerability areas of the body, parts of the head, spinal column, heart, etc, where a hit to this area will cause immediate incapacitation ordeath.
-Data output from the TOE suggests this is not true
-Army Research Laboratory (ARL) data shows that given a hit to this target, values are on the order of .25 to .5

- The NATO Requirements for the PDW also include a minimum acceptable P(H) of .9 at 50m and .5 at 100m. It is suggested that this be evaluated as a pass/fail requirement.

- The following tests provide a basis for the P(I) calculation include (from the DGA PDW Assessment Plan)
*Personnel Vulnerability (3.1)
*Velocity (3.7)
*Precision (3.10)
*Firing tables and crosswind sensitivity (Aerodynamic data for the rounds) (3.9)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[DmL5]

Speculation on my part, but sometimes individuals share "inside" knowledge, especially with those who have the proper credentials.

I find that hard to believe because:

1#. The only shootings he knew of were those I posted. If he asked FN they wouldn't have mentioned 2 shootings, when there have been well over a dozen in the US alone.

2#. Similarities in wording.

3#. The only shootings he mentioned were commonly-known ones, as he said. And I'm sure he didn't get the Iraq shooting info from FN.

-DmL