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)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~