Tell me about the 5.7 rd...please
- Thread starter IMTHDUKE
- Start date
- Status
Where are you getting this information? All the lab testing I have found documents incredibly dismal terminal ballistics in soft tissue, inferior even to 9mm ball.
No, offense, but reading you claims I have call some serious BS.
Sorry, but that is simply not believable or even realistic. The laws of physics do not change because you're shooting a different round.
What kind of magic? Fairy dust? Unicorn blood? Hope and change? The bullets the 5.7 are nothing special, FMJ or V-max bullets that are available in other cartridges.
Except for the fact that temporary cavitation is largely insignificant as far as wounding potential and incapacitation, permanent cavity is what maters.
It's an alloy/polomer blowback pistol. Hi-Point has been doing that for years. Yes it has far better ergonomics and has a far better procedure for field stripping, but at the end of the day it uses the same construction methods that pistols have been doing for years.
I'm sure it will make a great war trophy.
Those targets will engage you far more effectively before you're gotten through your first magazine.
No you don't. Not unless you have some good sources or a ton of money for the AP ammo that remains in the system. Though I suppose if your "going to war" then you are presuming a supply of ammo?
Because she was lucky. You cherry-pick ONE example where someone survives such a wound and ignore all the other times such a wound was fatal.
Again, where are you getting this? Because you shot some pigs? It's well established that it has quite terminal dismal performance as shown in the link posted above against even 9mm ball. It's only virtue is soft armor penetration, but has been rendered obsolete by modern AP pistol ammo for conventional calibers.
so crosshair, you have anything positive to say? Seems like your objective is to shun everyone else, yet not provide anything to back up your claims. You can't refute that the 5.7 round isn't effective, just because you don't like it doesn't make it any less.
I shoot the .45GAP so I'm used to nonsense being said about any round other than a 9mm or .45ACP. I've personally seen wounds from every major handgun caliber and its ALL about placement no matter what you're shooting even if its .380. Personally seeing wounds and the aftermath doesn't compare to ballistic charts.
I shoot the .45GAP so I'm used to nonsense being said about any round other than a 9mm or .45ACP. I've personally seen wounds from every major handgun caliber and its ALL about placement no matter what you're shooting even if its .380. Personally seeing wounds and the aftermath doesn't compare to ballistic charts.couldbeanyone
New member
Crosshair, calling b.s. is really productive
, not to mention rather juvenile. Maybe if you had read the entire link you referred to, you would have seen that at the end of it, they said the 5.7 was a very reasonable choice for civilian self defense.
I don't have a horse in the race as I could care less about the 5.7, but I am sick of some jerk calling b.s. at the drop of the hat. I guess I should be civil, but apparently you can't be, so tough.
, not to mention rather juvenile. Maybe if you had read the entire link you referred to, you would have seen that at the end of it, they said the 5.7 was a very reasonable choice for civilian self defense. I don't have a horse in the race as I could care less about the 5.7, but I am sick of some jerk calling b.s. at the drop of the hat. I guess I should be civil, but apparently you can't be, so tough.
StrongSideArmsInc
New member
Mr. Crosshair,
Another person copying and pasting quotes from Mr. Facklers reports from FBI testing done in the early 90s.
Please note that all testing done on the 5.7x28mm cartridge was done between 1987-1998 using FMJ ammo that has not been made since 1998.
Here we go, sharpen your pencil.
First, we will talk about "Dwell Time".
Dwell Time was discovered in the 1950s, and added another variable to cavitation testing. Simply put, its the amount of time the projectile spends in the media that it is fired into. An example is, two bullets of the same weight fired though balistic gel. One bullet is goes through the entire block .2 of a second, the second bullet goes through the same block and it takes a full second. It was discovered the second bullet will cause more trama and cativitation because the slower the round, the more time it has a chance to react to the tissue. John Browning found this out as he was shooting human cadevours and sides of beef during the testing of the 45ACP. The 45acp was shot with velocitys ranging from 600fps to 1000fps, the perfect blend was around 850fps. Now the designers of 5.7 knew that increased velocity adds ft lbs of energy, but the design they incorparated into the 5.7 allowed the bullet to stop instead of going strait through. This created an extremely fast bullet that would dump its retain energy fully into the target.
Not magic, just outside of the box. I will explain.
Bullet construction of all modern 5.7 round includes a hollow front cativity with bulk of the weight being placed in the boattail. This design was taken from the construction of the 5.45x39mm projectile designed by the Ruskies.
The bullet sole purpose was to tumble and take indirect paths which cause multiple layers of trama. The designers of the 5.7 round found that if they could take an extremely fast bullet and get it slow rapidly or stop in less than 12 inches, it would be most effective.
Scientific Theory and Test.
I throw an ice pick at you and add enough velocity to have it go strait through you. Take the same ice pick and add the weight to the rear of it, and when I throw it at you at twice the speed, I get it to turn sideways and go through you. Which causes more damage?
5.7 bullet construction #1
Second to note, is if the bullet begins to fragment and go through sideways, it acts like a parachute on a drag car. the rapid slowing of the bullet allows it to stay in tissue longer, and "dump" all of the stored energy from flight into the target.
5.7 bullet construction #2
Ballistic gel blocks with animal bones placed into them were used as the lastest test subjects for the 5.7 round. It was noted that bones placed more than 8 inches away from the bullet entry hole wear broken as high speed photography showed the shock wave moving through the gel. This is directly related in the effectiveness of the bullet to take 90% of its energy and "dump" it into the target. It is intresting to note that the pressure sensors located in the ballistic gel were reading numbers simular to that of rifle rounds. A 9mm FMJ 124gr bullet that is stopped by a level 2 vest, is about the same as being hit by a 96mph fast ball. The 5.7 readings are triple that.
5.7 Bullet construction #3
Mr. Fackler was simply taking a ruler and measuring the wound opening between the two bullets. 9mm FMJ and 5.7 FMJ. This is only part of the science.
Under this premise, what your saying is if a stick a 6 inch diameter steel rod through you, as compared to shooting you with a 9mm bullet(.355), the rod is more deadly? With this theory. the rod is 18 times more deadlly than the 9mm bullet fired out a gun. .355x18= 6.39 Even though the rod is 18 times bigger, wound caivity alone is not suffecient to conclude effectiveness. We all know your better off being stabbed then shot.
Lastly, I want to stress two things. One, I was a non-believer in the round at first, because I read alot of the same things you copied to your post. Once I obtained the weapon, I tried to prove my bias correct, in which I turn out a new found love. Second, its not the round or the gun, its the combination of the two thats lethal.
Pros:
Cheap to shoot.
No recoil, fast trigger reset.
Very little, to no sight compensation for targets out to 150 yards.
Simple, very little moving parts.
20 rounds a mag, weight load is less than most unloaded.
With the right ammo, Armor Penetration.
Cons:
Fighting Haters on TFL Forums
Ammo goes through it so quick.
Expensive
As a Sworn LEO, I have plenty of the AP, second, a little JB weld in the 27 Gr lead free HP showed it would consistantly penetrate level 2 and 2A vest.
Another person copying and pasting quotes from Mr. Facklers reports from FBI testing done in the early 90s.
Please note that all testing done on the 5.7x28mm cartridge was done between 1987-1998 using FMJ ammo that has not been made since 1998.
Here we go, sharpen your pencil.
First, we will talk about "Dwell Time".
Dwell Time was discovered in the 1950s, and added another variable to cavitation testing. Simply put, its the amount of time the projectile spends in the media that it is fired into. An example is, two bullets of the same weight fired though balistic gel. One bullet is goes through the entire block .2 of a second, the second bullet goes through the same block and it takes a full second. It was discovered the second bullet will cause more trama and cativitation because the slower the round, the more time it has a chance to react to the tissue. John Browning found this out as he was shooting human cadevours and sides of beef during the testing of the 45ACP. The 45acp was shot with velocitys ranging from 600fps to 1000fps, the perfect blend was around 850fps. Now the designers of 5.7 knew that increased velocity adds ft lbs of energy, but the design they incorparated into the 5.7 allowed the bullet to stop instead of going strait through. This created an extremely fast bullet that would dump its retain energy fully into the target.
Not magic, just outside of the box. I will explain.
Bullet construction of all modern 5.7 round includes a hollow front cativity with bulk of the weight being placed in the boattail. This design was taken from the construction of the 5.45x39mm projectile designed by the Ruskies.
The bullet sole purpose was to tumble and take indirect paths which cause multiple layers of trama. The designers of the 5.7 round found that if they could take an extremely fast bullet and get it slow rapidly or stop in less than 12 inches, it would be most effective.
Scientific Theory and Test.
I throw an ice pick at you and add enough velocity to have it go strait through you. Take the same ice pick and add the weight to the rear of it, and when I throw it at you at twice the speed, I get it to turn sideways and go through you. Which causes more damage?
5.7 bullet construction #1
Second to note, is if the bullet begins to fragment and go through sideways, it acts like a parachute on a drag car. the rapid slowing of the bullet allows it to stay in tissue longer, and "dump" all of the stored energy from flight into the target.
5.7 bullet construction #2
Ballistic gel blocks with animal bones placed into them were used as the lastest test subjects for the 5.7 round. It was noted that bones placed more than 8 inches away from the bullet entry hole wear broken as high speed photography showed the shock wave moving through the gel. This is directly related in the effectiveness of the bullet to take 90% of its energy and "dump" it into the target. It is intresting to note that the pressure sensors located in the ballistic gel were reading numbers simular to that of rifle rounds. A 9mm FMJ 124gr bullet that is stopped by a level 2 vest, is about the same as being hit by a 96mph fast ball. The 5.7 readings are triple that.
5.7 Bullet construction #3
Mr. Fackler was simply taking a ruler and measuring the wound opening between the two bullets. 9mm FMJ and 5.7 FMJ. This is only part of the science.
Under this premise, what your saying is if a stick a 6 inch diameter steel rod through you, as compared to shooting you with a 9mm bullet(.355), the rod is more deadly? With this theory. the rod is 18 times more deadlly than the 9mm bullet fired out a gun. .355x18= 6.39 Even though the rod is 18 times bigger, wound caivity alone is not suffecient to conclude effectiveness. We all know your better off being stabbed then shot.
Lastly, I want to stress two things. One, I was a non-believer in the round at first, because I read alot of the same things you copied to your post. Once I obtained the weapon, I tried to prove my bias correct, in which I turn out a new found love. Second, its not the round or the gun, its the combination of the two thats lethal.
Pros:
Cheap to shoot.
No recoil, fast trigger reset.
Very little, to no sight compensation for targets out to 150 yards.
Simple, very little moving parts.
20 rounds a mag, weight load is less than most unloaded.
With the right ammo, Armor Penetration.
Cons:
Fighting Haters on TFL Forums
Ammo goes through it so quick.
Expensive
As a Sworn LEO, I have plenty of the AP, second, a little JB weld in the 27 Gr lead free HP showed it would consistantly penetrate level 2 and 2A vest.
Last edited:
Math
StrongSideArm: I am a believer and agree with your argument. One part of it,
the steel rod analogy, doesn't work. A six inch diameter rod would certainly be
more deadly - it is not 18 times larger than a 9pm; it is about 285 times larger
if you compare surface area (28 sq.in vs 0.10 sq.in.) So getting stabbed with something that big is going to hurt.
Your info is impressive and experiential. It does go to show that, when someone does not wish to believe, all the evidence you may have doesn't mean a thing. Lots of people quote Fackler's outdated study, ignoring developments since.
Btw - last time that I bought Elite ammo, it was $40 for 50 rounds, not twenty rounds.
Pete
StrongSideArm: I am a believer and agree with your argument. One part of it,
the steel rod analogy, doesn't work. A six inch diameter rod would certainly be
more deadly - it is not 18 times larger than a 9pm; it is about 285 times larger
if you compare surface area (28 sq.in vs 0.10 sq.in.) So getting stabbed with something that big is going to hurt.
Your info is impressive and experiential. It does go to show that, when someone does not wish to believe, all the evidence you may have doesn't mean a thing. Lots of people quote Fackler's outdated study, ignoring developments since.
Btw - last time that I bought Elite ammo, it was $40 for 50 rounds, not twenty rounds.
Pete
Last edited:
The individual in question has not tested any of the 5.7x28mm ammo types designed since SS190 was introduced in 1993. About 18 years ago his post might have been relevant to this topic. And even if it were relevant, nothing in the post is substantiated; rather, many of the claims in the post were drawn from other anonymous internet posts. As for the actual articles he cites, they are ancient and you likely have not even read any of them.
Civilians have access to 5.7x28mm ammunition (from EA) that outperforms the SS190 in all aspects.
EA's 5.7x28mm loads have been independently chronographed at significantly higher velocities out of the pistol barrel than SS190 out of the P90 barrel. Educate yourself, please.
At least two of the victims attempted to charge the Fort Hood shooter (one soldier and one civilian), and both of them were killed. Kimberly Munley was armed and returned fire, and nearly died of her subsequent leg wound. The wounds caused by a bullet are the same regardless of the motivations of the shooter or the innocence of the victims. Even still, everyone involved in the incident was intensely motivated to survive and help others survive.
At this point, it's already quite obvious you are simply regurgitating what you have heard at the M4carbine.net forums.
No, she didn't. You're repeating misinformation. Kimberly Munley returned fire before being hit, but she did not hit the killer. Her wrist was hit by shrapnel from a rain gutter. She was hit with bullets a total of two times -- once in the thigh and then once in the femur. This is not to demean her efforts in stopping the killer, but she was actually lying on the ground badly wounded when a second police officer, Sgt. Mark Todd, stopped the killer. She was already fading out of consciousness when medics reached her. The killer was eventually hit 5 times with 9x19mm, by the way, and he survived.
The 5.7x28mm bullet that hit Munley's femur knocked her to the ground, and the killer walked up to her and knocked her pistol out of reach. The bullet shattered her femur into "hundreds of bone fragments" according to her comments. All of this information is corroborated by a number of witnesses including Munley herself, on both her blog and in her trial testimony. Munley underwent a knee replacement operation and she won't be able to do patrol work anymore.
The circumstances were not similar at all. For example, shooting a little child is not similar to shooting soldiers. Regardless, one of the wounded victims at Tucson was shot straight through the brain and lived. The Tucson killer was stopped by an unarmed 74-year-old man who had already been shot in the head.
The "dead to wounded ratio" is irrelevant. The vast majority of victims in the Oklahoma City bombing survived -- over 680 people. That does not mean a bomb is an ineffective means of killing someone.
Medical response in the Fort Hood shooting was extremely quick; much moreso than in the Tucson shooting or any of the other mass shootings in modern history. Victims were receiving treatment even as the shooting continued outdoors.
31 of the 33 deceased at Virginia Tech (including the killer) were shot in the head at close range.
Last edited:
StrongSideArmsInc
New member
10-4 I was using simple math. I firgured three 9mm bullets @ .355 of an inch, it would take 3 of them to make just over an inch. 3 x 6= 18. I still believe I would rather someone stick me with a rod, then be shot w/ 9mm. The velocity is going to cause alot more trama.
Yes, I will half to get my old computer out and look for them. Would it be a policy violation to put them on TFL?
Not sure.
DmL5, you got it right, hats off to you for your studies. Its funny, I was strait D student. In armors school in the Army, I made all As.
The debate will go on, I just wish some of the nay people would go out and shoot one. I currently have a M1 .30 carbine converted to the 5.7x28 and I am working on getting the 5.7USG mags to work in it. I'll post some pics as soon as I get the bugs worked out.
Yes, you can. Civilians have access to 5.7x28mm ammunition (from EA) that outperforms the SS190 in all aspects.
If you would read his post, he is getting his information from his own experience shooting animals with 5.7x28mm. What is your personal experience with 5.7x28mm?
A spare 30-round Five-seveN magazine can be carried for less weight than a spare 17-round Glock magazine. A Five-seveN pistol loaded with 20 rounds weighs the same as an empty Glock 17 or Glock 19 pistol. The Five-seveN also has a higher magazine capacity, shoots flatter, recoils less, and with EA's ammunition has the ability to penetrate virtually any type of body armor. So yes, the Five-seveN pistol itself is a far superior platform, as was stated earlier.
Yes, he does. Civilians have access to 5.7x28mm ammunition (from EA) that outperforms the SS190 in all aspects. Educate yourself, please.
Testing on prototype ammunition that was discontinued 18 years ago does not conclusively "show" anything. If anything is "dismal," your source is.
I can't speak for StrongSideArm, but here is one that a Five-seveN Forum member recently took with one round of SS197SR:
"I was finally able to shoot a hog (160 lbs) today with my 57 pistol and factory ammo. Hit him behind the ear dropped him like a rock, very clean kill. The round stayed in his head turning his brain to mush."
Last edited:
StrongSideArmsInc
New member
Simply Erotic.
Crosshair, join the brotherhood!!
DML got his act together.
Crosshair, join the brotherhood!!
DML got his act together.
StrongSideArmsInc said:
What kind of lopsided comparison is this?
I'd much rather get shot by the puny bullet, all else being equal.StrongSideArmsInc said:
The hole that the 6" rod would make is 286 times bigger. While this doesn't mean that it is 286 times deadlier (that's not how things work), it's still a lot deadlier.
StrongSideArmsInc said:
It's pretty close when low-energy pistol bullets are involved, though.
StrongSideArmsInc said:
Getting stabbed by a thin blade is different from getting eviscerated by a water main, which is closer to what you're describing.
there are other cartridge providers besides ea. the cartridges i use run just over 2,300 fps with a 30 grain, hollow point bullet. the wound channel's are devestating and the energy transfer incredible. afterall, ultimately it is all about energy transfer.
the pistol and its cartridges were intended for "close" work; room to room, house to house. the cartridges were desgned to penetrate 10" to 12" and expend all their energy in that distance. thus little over-penetration concern.
pistol shot's flat. shots to the same point at 10 yds. and plus 100 yds.
light, high capacity.
i have a .22 mag revolver and a .22 mag rifle. they have no valid comparison to the 57. anyone who trys to make this comparison couldn't finf their wazoo with both hands and a flashlight. mcole
the pistol and its cartridges were intended for "close" work; room to room, house to house. the cartridges were desgned to penetrate 10" to 12" and expend all their energy in that distance. thus little over-penetration concern.
pistol shot's flat. shots to the same point at 10 yds. and plus 100 yds.
light, high capacity.
i have a .22 mag revolver and a .22 mag rifle. they have no valid comparison to the 57. anyone who trys to make this comparison couldn't finf their wazoo with both hands and a flashlight. mcole
Magnum Wheel Man
New member
Wow... lots of interesting info here...
Hi.... I'm MAG, & I own a 5-seven... or 2
I started handloading almost before reloading components became available... I posted about my struggles reloading 1,000 once fired cases I bought back when you couldn't find them...
I had a custom 10" Contender barrel made, & while I love the FN ( which was, BTW, my 1st plastic gun ) the blow back design is so hard on cases, from a reloading stand point, & I hate picking up brass, so while the mags are loaded & the gun available in my night stand... the single shot 10" barrel Contender is mostly what I "play" with....
as a big time reloader, I've tried alot of different powders, & alot of different bullets... & while I'd hate to get shot with any of them... if you want to see some wicked penitration results, try useing Barnes Solids in the 5-seven... had some go through my ailing pistol backstop on my range... one fully penitrating a solid green treated 6" X 6" used to bolt my dirt filled barrels together
http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/default.aspx?productNumber=918837
Hi.... I'm MAG, & I own a 5-seven... or 2
I started handloading almost before reloading components became available... I posted about my struggles reloading 1,000 once fired cases I bought back when you couldn't find them...
I had a custom 10" Contender barrel made, & while I love the FN ( which was, BTW, my 1st plastic gun ) the blow back design is so hard on cases, from a reloading stand point, & I hate picking up brass, so while the mags are loaded & the gun available in my night stand... the single shot 10" barrel Contender is mostly what I "play" with....
as a big time reloader, I've tried alot of different powders, & alot of different bullets... & while I'd hate to get shot with any of them... if you want to see some wicked penitration results, try useing Barnes Solids in the 5-seven... had some go through my ailing pistol backstop on my range... one fully penitrating a solid green treated 6" X 6" used to bolt my dirt filled barrels together
http://www.midwayusa.com/viewProduct/default.aspx?productNumber=918837
kinoons said:
I checked out the EA website, and their loads all seem low-energy to me at 356-411 ft-lb out of a Five-seveN.
mcole said:
Not when the amount of energy involved is only enough to raise the temperature of about 3 oz of water by a couple of degrees, hence the need for a small chunk of metal to do something useful with it.
mcole said:
100+ yards makes for a pretty big house, I'd say. I'm sure that those who use larger pistol calibers are always concerned about their bullets dropping to the ground before they reach their targets in CQB.
mcole said:
It seems that 5.7x28mm out of a pistol and .22 Magnum out of a rifle compare pretty closely, though. Obviously that's not a level comparison regarding the two calibers per se, but it gives some idea of what to expect based on existing experience that people have with the latter.
I'm not trying to put down 5.7x28mm, by the way, as I think it is effective for personal defense and has its applications. In fact, I think that it should be in far more widespread use than it currently is. However, I do think that the notion of energy transfer is taken a bit too far at times. Even its "big brother" the far more energetic 5.56x45mm ceases to have the expected effect of a rifle round below a certain energy threshold, behaving a lot more like a pistol round, and that threshold is still much higher than what 5.7x28mm can achieve at the muzzle (even out of a P90/PS90).
In terms a common man can understand.
45ACP = 1965 Pontiac GTO
=
5.7x28mm = Kawasaki Ninja ZX14R
=
The classics will always work with efficiency and style. And they won't ever go anywhere. But the 5.7x28 is really the newest example of just how far projectile design, fine tuning, and applied science can take handheld ballistics.
It is much easier to find outdated, inaccurate, and biased data on the Five-seveN than it is to find accurate data on contemporary ammunition and it's effectiveness.
I generally scoff openly at items labeled the "next greatest thing" or "archetypal design", etc... (like how some have marketed the Taurus Judge as the end all-be all self defense weapon), but I don't think this applies to the 5.7 round or either high-production platform it's available for. It's just an advent of where we're headed and how much influence bullet design can have on terminal performance.
~LT
45ACP = 1965 Pontiac GTO
5.7x28mm = Kawasaki Ninja ZX14R
The classics will always work with efficiency and style. And they won't ever go anywhere. But the 5.7x28 is really the newest example of just how far projectile design, fine tuning, and applied science can take handheld ballistics.
It is much easier to find outdated, inaccurate, and biased data on the Five-seveN than it is to find accurate data on contemporary ammunition and it's effectiveness.
I generally scoff openly at items labeled the "next greatest thing" or "archetypal design", etc... (like how some have marketed the Taurus Judge as the end all-be all self defense weapon), but I don't think this applies to the 5.7 round or either high-production platform it's available for. It's just an advent of where we're headed and how much influence bullet design can have on terminal performance.
~LT
- Status