PDA

View Full Version : 5.7x28 fanboys are irritating



Pages : 1 [2]

BufordTJustice
02-05-13, 23:56
Its much closer to a .177 BB gun than a death ray.
Pat

+1

I saw a guy try a 5/7 upper on his AR lower for some FL hogs. Didn't work out too well. ;) Lots of cursing from him...and laughing from me.

Even with the heavier bullet weights...and his barrel is nearly twice the length (16") of a std P90 (NFA item- original design). His shots were under 40 yards.

While my 14.5" BCM middy drops even large hogs with boring regularity...past 150 yards with Federal Fusion 62gr or GDSP 64gr or Federal TBBC 62gr. BORING regularity.

One of the hogs that my buddy shot was MAYBE 35-40lbs. Maybe. That bitch made a rude noise and kept running. We saw blood, but never found the carcass.

I've seen my G26 kill a hog better using 124gr +P GD's, for crying out loud.

The 5.7x28mm is simply NOT a good defensive round. Especially when it is compared with the 5.56x45mm using modern bonded soft points.

BufordTJustice
02-05-13, 23:58
I'll add that the 5.7 will NOT do this to a 160lb hog. Period.

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=122331

WillBrink
02-06-13, 00:40
coming from the same guy who thinks they should be banned

Where did he say that?



because they will pierce his level IIIA vest, but somehow are equated to a .177bb. ;)

Maybe you don't understand the terminal characteristics of the 5.7 so well? :rolleyes:

WillBrink
02-06-13, 00:44
+1

I saw a guy try a 5/7 upper on his AR lower for some FL hogs. Didn't work out too well. ;) Lots of cursing from him...and laughing from me.

Even with the heavier bullet weights...and his barrel is nearly twice the length (16") of a std P90 (NFA item- original design). His shots were under 40 yards.

While my 14.5" BCM middy drops even large hogs with boring regularity...past 150 yards with Federal Fusion 62gr or GDSP 64gr or Federal TBBC 62gr. BORING regularity.

One of the hogs that my buddy shot was MAYBE 35-40lbs. Maybe. That bitch made a rude noise and kept running. We saw blood, but never found the carcass.

I've seen my G26 kill a hog better using 124gr +P GD's, for crying out loud.

The 5.7x28mm is simply NOT a good defensive round. Especially when it is compared with the 5.56x45mm using modern bonded soft points.

It's a POS when you consider what options exist and the costs, etc. A number of SWAT teams were early adopters and after very poor performance in the field, dropped it fast. Dr GR has some similar intel on that also.

zmortis
02-06-13, 07:39
BufordTJustice,

I don't doubt at all that the terminal performance of any bullet weighing 50% to 300% more than a 40 grain 5.7 round would be greater than the 5.7on a hit to hit basis. Franky speaking the 5.7 in the P90 submachinegun gets any lethality from a combination of light body armor piercing capabilities of the Mil/LE rounds, and the volumetric fire rate resulting in multiple hits into the same target within a short time frame.

Any AR platform on a shot to shot basis is going to favor the heavier round for lethality given proper shot placement of both round types, and using the rounds within their optimal performance distance. It can be argued by the guys running ARs with 300 Blackout that the 5.56 NATO is a sub-standard round on a shot to shot performance basis as well. Frankly speaking overall bigger rounds make bigger holes which cause faster loss on the hydraulic system keeping any animal running (barring the various arguments about penetration depth, permanent cavity, and temporary cavity causing capabilities of various bullet configurations).

However, without a shot which disables the brain/spinal column even a fatally wounded animal can still operate for a period of time. The question is what that animal does in the period of time remaining to them. In your example it seems very likely when hit with the heavier round the animal is so disrupted by the shock of the properly placed hit it chooses to drop and bleed out. In the case of your buddy, the animal feels stung, and chooses to flee from its attacker to maybe bleed out, or to maybe heal up if the shot wasn't in a terminal location.

The lesson learned here should be that the 5.7x28 civilian load should not be used beyond varment hunting.

slvrwrx
02-06-13, 10:01
I'll add that the 5.7 will NOT do this to a 160lb hog. Period.

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=122331


Last I checked there have been quite a few people who have taken hogs with the Five-seveN pistol with single shots even with SS197SR, which is the second slowest of all rounds.


shot a hog today with my 5.7 dropped her in 1 shot, my friends didnt think the 5.7x28 round is a good round so i proved them wrong by cutting the head open and finding the round, and showing them the cavity that the ss197 left. im thoroughly pleased with the damage this did, i really cant wait to try some elite ammo. the shot was taken from 20-25yrds. here are the photos, please excuse how nasty they are, the round penetrated the skull, and shattered the jaw bone.

http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff4/darksidemxer/guns/DSC_0032-1.jpg

http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff4/darksidemxer/guns/DSC_0033.jpg



The 160-pound hog in the first two pictures was dropped with one round of SS197SR (not sure about the hog in the third picture).

The 182-pound deer in the last picture was dropped from 70 meters with one round of SS197SR through the lungs/heart.


http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n314/sylvester1498/Hog%20Dec%202010/2010-12-02_12-47

http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/4278/newimagesk.jpg

AR15.com thread has a guy hunting little 30lb piglets dropping them single shots where they stood.

slvrwrx
02-06-13, 10:20
Where did he say that?



Maybe you don't understand the terminal characteristics of the 5.7 so well? :rolleyes:

I cleaned up one of Pat's previous references. He said he was glad certain 5.7 rounds were illegal because they could be fired from pistol, and pierce his level IIIA vest. It sounds like in all his previous replies that he equates this rounds effectiveness to that of less than .22lr/.22mag, yet seems concerned that it will penetrate his vest. (which .22lr or .22mag will do not do from pistols)


I understand what the BALL SS190 round does. It penetrates, and does not deform from what I've seen tested, unless against very hard (harder than bone) targets. It maintains it's shape very well, and relies heavily on it to yaw to do any damage. Given that, it will penetrate at least 3, level IIIA panels and well into the media behind it. Again from the PISTOL.

Then again that's the ball round. SS198, seems to have better performance. While it will inconsistently penetrate IIIA vests, it does deform and fragment easier than SS190, and will yaw as well.


I've seen SS197SR destroy bone very well, where as 9mm HST just glance off from it. I've never been in the position that this round is somehow better than other service calibers (except in soft armor penetration), but it boggles the mind that some still cite it as somehow equal to or less than .22lr/.22magnum.

Zhurdan
02-06-13, 10:24
Yes, yes, yes... but who's pee when farther?
;)

WillBrink
02-06-13, 10:53
I cleaned up one of Pat's previous references. He said he was glad certain 5.7 rounds were illegal because they could be fired from pistol, and pierce his level IIIA vest. It sounds like in all his previous replies that he equates this rounds effectiveness to that of less than .22lr/.22mag, yet seems concerned that it will penetrate his vest.

The two are not incompatible. Hence my comment regarding of its terminal ballistics and characteristics and what appears to me agreement on your end via bold text below, or am I misreading it?

The basic "ice pick" effect.



I understand what the BALL SS190 round does. It penetrates, and does not deform from what I've seen tested, unless against very hard (harder than bone) targets. It maintains it's shape very well, and relies heavily on it to yaw to do any damage. Given that, it will penetrate at least 3, level IIIA panels and well into the media behind it. Again from the PISTOL.

Then again that's the ball round. SS198, seems to have better performance. While it will inconsistently penetrate IIIA vests, it does deform and fragment easier than SS190, and will yaw as well.

I've seen SS197SR destroy bone very well, where as 9mm HST just glance off from it. I've never been in the position that this round is somehow better than other service calibers (except in soft armor penetration), but it boggles the mind that some still cite it as somehow equal to or less than .22lr/.22magnum.

I think those comparing it to .22L and or .22 mag are essentially exaggerating the point of its poor terminal ballistics, but it's not far off from something like the .22 Hornet I understand.

Regardless, both objective testing (see DocGR posting on 5.7) and "real world" experience by early adopting tac LE/SWAT shows it to be a seriously sub par rnd for SD and various other uses outside it's very narrow envelope of intended uses.

I'm not an expert on this topic, but I do my best to follow closely those who are, and I have yet to find one who'd recommend the 5.7 above other choices for most uses.

your mileage may vary sir.

slvrwrx
02-06-13, 11:54
The two are not incompatible. Hence my comment regarding of its terminal ballistics and characteristics and what appears to me agreement on your end via bold text below, or am I misreading it?

The basic "ice pick" effect.



I think those comparing it to .22L and or .22 mag are essentially exaggerating the point of its poor terminal ballistics, but it's not far off from something like the .22 Hornet I understand.

Regardless, both objective testing (see DocGR posting on 5.7) and "real world" experience by early adopting tac LE/SWAT shows it to be a seriously sub par rnd for SD and various other uses outside it's very narrow envelope of intended uses.

I'm not an expert on this topic, but I do my best to follow closely those who are, and I have yet to find one who'd recommend the 5.7 above other choices for most uses.

your mileage may vary sir.

Nope you're not misreading at all. The SS190 pokes holes in things. It is as designed a ball round. I've read DGR posts, and most are centered around the SS190, and discontinued SS90 round. To my knowledge he has not tested any other FN available 5.7 ammo.

In the end, either side can cite failed 5.7 stops, just as people can cite all 9/40/45 failed stops as well. I personally don't want to get shot with anything....

WillBrink
02-06-13, 12:23
Nope you're not misreading at all. The SS190 pokes holes in things. It is as designed a ball round. I've read DGR posts, and most are centered around the SS190, and discontinued SS90 round. To my knowledge he has not tested any other FN available 5.7 ammo.

In the end, either side can cite failed 5.7 stops, just as people can cite all 9/40/45 failed stops as well. I personally don't want to get shot with anything....

Conclusions being:

Better than throwing rocks? Absolutely.

Replace other existing options with 5.7?

No. What else is there to really say about it?

What got this thread going is, there are a number of people who will tell you 5.7 is best thing since invention of gun powder and a good choice over other existing options, and that's simply not the case according to those who know far more about the topic than I do.

I think that's pretty much all the comments/thread is about if summarized. :cool:

BufordTJustice
02-06-13, 13:37
Last I checked there have been quite a few people who have taken hogs with the Five-seveN pistol with single shots even with SS197SR, which is the second slowest of all rounds.



http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff4/darksidemxer/guns/DSC_0032-1.jpg

http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff4/darksidemxer/guns/DSC_0033.jpg



http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n314/sylvester1498/Hog%20Dec%202010/2010-12-02_12-47

http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/4278/newimagesk.jpg

AR15.com thread has a guy hunting little 30lb piglets dropping them single shots where they stood.

I've seen people kill a hog with a .22lr.

Doesn't invalidate my experience...which was humiliating for my buddy. It doesn't penetrate deep enough to punch through the cartiladge plate covering the shoulder, the shoulder blade itself, through the heart/lungs, and then through the opposing scapula and plate so a blood trail can be left.

If anything, it's less than ethical to sue the 5.7x28mm.

If it has trouble stopping an angry 160lb hog (hell, a ~40lb hog), it will have trouble stopping an adult male.

Also, my entire point twas that my buddy was only getting one shot per hog since they were RUNNING and it was dark. Sometimes you only get one shot. Even if he had select fire, it would not have helped his performance.

I have some crazy-ass redneck friends who hunt hog with a KNIFE. Doesn't mean I'm going to follow suit. :rolleyes:

BufordTJustice
02-06-13, 13:42
slvrwrx, I think you need to take some perspective and listen to what Doc Gary K. Roberts has said (one of the leading living wound ballistics researchers, AND a trauma surgeon) on the subject.

He says that the round you are defending is woefully inadequate...especially through barriers. It is a bad people killer. It is sometimes even worse than 9mm.

I think you need to take some time to digest that. He shitted-out more knowledge about wound ballistics this morning BY ACCIDENT into his low flow toilet than most people will ever know. When he makes a studied observation of a particular round's performance, we take note here in this forum. If that's not your thing, or if you have an agenda of "It's not THAT bad", maybe this isn't the place for you....no disrespect intended.

EDIT: Quotes from Doc added:

"As Todd mentioned, 5.7 mm has a very narrow niche use when used in the full auto P90. If 5.7mm floats your boat, great; however, I have seen and been briefed on way too many failures to trust 5.7mm for general use or self-defense when other better options exist for semi-auto weapons. "

From arfcom:

"
You seem to have some confusion regarding our testing of the FN 5.7x28 mm P90. As I have written previously, and as witnessed by both FN reps, agency, and other test personnel, I have personally fired the P90 several times into ordnance gel while doing research at the California Highway Patrol Academy. I again reviewed the 5.7x28 mm in August of 2001 while on assignment for the USMC SOTG at Camp Pendleton. In every case, the 5.7x28 mm displayed very poor terminal performance in both bare gel and through intermediate barriers. The FBI BRF data (that is readily available to both LE and military organziations) demonstrated the same findings. Likewise, Jacksonville, FL SWAT had mutiple OIS incidents with the FN P90 and their AAR's have indicated substandard terminal performance with the 5.7x28mm. These are all verifiable facts. The picture shown above is actually not new and is in fact is from a USG report done in 2001. FWIW, we have never tested any products from Elite Ammunition.

As one of the posts above states, my background and qualifications are well known––in fact they been published by the DOD, for example on page 2 of the open source, public briefing I presented at NDIA last year that was made available via DTIC: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf You seem to take issue with my having a D.D.S. degree; why is that a problem? Who do you think treats GSW's to the maxillofacial area? With the advent of effective body armor and helmets, what areas of the body are unprotected and are often hit by fragments and firearms projectiles in current combat? Of course if someone was truly concerned about my wound ballistic knowledge, they could easily directly contact the FBI BRF and inquire about my credentials... For that matter, you could call Rick Adams at FN. Heck, if you had any questions, you could also have called me directly.

Like you, I have served our Nation for over 20 years––for the past 22 years of my assigned duties have included performing wound ballistic testing for various military and LE organizations. I have NO financial or other interest in any other product, company, or commercial entity involved in any weapon or ammunition program, nor do I write for commercial gun rags and media sources that are dependent on advertising revenue from firearms and ammo vendors. My SOLE interest in wound ballistics is ensuring the safety of LE officers and that our Nation's military personnel have the best possible body armor and munitions that meet current law of war legal requirements. It seems strange that you would take issue with that..."

&

""A Jacksonville SWAT officer that I know has publicly stated:

*******************************************
"We have been using 30 P90's for five years now. There have been three BG's shot with them. We will not be buying more."

and

"To add to the 5.7x28 fire one of our guys shot a gunman the other day with the P90 at about 7 yards. One round failed to penetrate the rib. Thats right, the SS190 AP round stuck into the rib just under the skin."

An officer from another agency remarked about a 5.7 mm shooting:

"The other guy was shot 10-12 times before he told the officers "stop shooting me" and gave up. He lived as well."

Followed by the Jacksonville SWAT officer stating:

We have had a VERY similar experience on one of our shoots.""

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_16/444185_.html&page=4

WillBrink
02-06-13, 14:59
I've seen people kill a hog with a .22lr.
:

Hog hunting with a Gamo air rifle:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugyO7dcF1n8

BufordTJustice
02-06-13, 16:07
Hog hunting with a Gamo air rifle:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugyO7dcF1n8

Impressive air rifle. Those Pba pellets go deep.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

slvrwrx
02-06-13, 16:19
I've seen people kill a hog with a .22lr.

Doesn't invalidate my experience...which was humiliating for my buddy. It doesn't penetrate deep enough to punch through the cartiladge plate covering the shoulder, the shoulder blade itself, through the heart/lungs, and then through the opposing scapula and plate so a blood trail can be left.

If anything, it's less than ethical to sue the 5.7x28mm.

If it has trouble stopping an angry 160lb hog (hell, a ~40lb hog), it will have trouble stopping an adult male.

Also, my entire point twas that my buddy was only getting one shot per hog since they were RUNNING and it was dark. Sometimes you only get one shot. Even if he had select fire, it would not have helped his performance.



Certainly wasn't meant to invalidate your experience. I only wanted to share that people have, and actively do take little hogs, medium size hogs (I would call 160lbs medium), and deer with the 5.7 round. Perhaps because the pistol offers a lower velocity over the PS90, you're not going to get that violent vmax fragmentation, therefore deeper penetration. (which is what I'm assuming he was using for ammo)

My dad used to take deer with .22 magnum head shots. Shot placement..

BufordTJustice
02-06-13, 17:20
Certainly wasn't meant to invalidate your experience. I only wanted to share that people have, and actively do take little hogs, medium size hogs (I would call 160lbs medium), and deer with the 5.7 round. Perhaps because the pistol offers a lower velocity over the PS90, you're not going to get that violent vmax fragmentation, therefore deeper penetration. (which is what I'm assuming he was using for ammo)

My dad used to take deer with .22 magnum head shots. Shot placement..

Thing 1: if somebody is shooting a hog with ANY VMAX round in any bullet weight aside from a .338 lapua.....they are doing it wrong.

Thing 2: shot placement for a head shot is a luxury that you do NOT have in a gunfight. This makes it a poor SD/HD selection.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

slvrwrx
02-06-13, 17:22
He says that the round you are defending is woefully inadequate...especially through barriers. It is a bad people killer. It is sometimes even worse than 9mm.


If I remember correctly one of the reports written said the SS190 round gave adequate penetration, but due to it being ball left those lovely ice pick wounds. Flip side of the coin, I've seen this adequate penetration in gel test of ss190 turn into 14.5-15" in bare gel. Quite a bit more than the 10" figure some have reported.


I think you need to take some time to digest that. I know who he is and his full qualifications.





"To add to the 5.7x28 fire one of our guys shot a gunman the other day with the P90 at about 7 yards. One round failed to penetrate the rib. Thats right, the SS190 AP round stuck into the rib just under the skin."

Much of what I find issues of are quotes like this. Where is the official report of this IOS? IIRC RCMP did a test with simulated bone in gel tests and found in most cases 10-17% reduction in penetration, and in some cases increased penetration. A bullet of adequate penetration should have no issues penetration ribs. But as suggested there are many variables. I believe there's an incident that a .45 round failed to penetrate facial bone after passing through windshield.



"The other guy was shot 10-12 times before he told the officers "stop shooting me" and gave up. He lived as well."

This particular IOS report was released not to long ago. It was one P90 burst and the BG was dead on the spot..

I'd like to see some of DGR's gel tests of SS190, and would like to see him test the 28gr JHP from FN, along with other variations available.

slvrwrx
02-06-13, 17:31
Thing 1: if somebody is shooting a hog with ANY VMAX round in any bullet weight aside from a .338 lapua.....they are doing it wrong.

Thing 2: shot placement for a head shot is a luxury that you do NOT have in a gunfight. This makes it a poor SD/HD selection.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

1.The Vmax round is the standard available hunting round for the 5.7x28mm platform. It uses a 40gr Vmax projectile. Most of what you'll find shooters carrying because it's the "sporting" round, and they have no knowledge of other available 5.7 ammo (SS195LF for example). It's what was used to take hog and deer pictured above.

2. The .22 magnum reference was more or less in regards to "being unethical using such a small caliber" to shoot animals, not any recommendations for SD/HD involvments

BufordTJustice
02-06-13, 18:01
1.The Vmax round is the standard available hunting round for the 5.7x28mm platform. It uses a 40gr Vmax projectile. Most of what you'll find shooters carrying because it's the "sporting" round, and they have no knowledge of other available 5.7 ammo (SS195LF for example). It's what was used to take hog and deer pictured above.

2. The .22 magnum reference was more or less in regards to "being unethical using such a small caliber" to shoot animals, not any recommendations for SD/HD involvments

I don't think that one can take a 27gr dpx copy, drive it ~700 fps slower than a 62gr 5.56 equivalent, and have any reasonable expectation that the results will be similar.



Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

slvrwrx
02-06-13, 18:22
I don't think that one can take a 27gr dpx copy, drive it ~700 fps slower than a 62gr 5.56 equivalent, and have any reasonable expectation that the results will be similar.



Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

I'm merely answering your questions, I'm not making any comparisons to 5.56. The 27gr 5.7 round is not a anything related to or a copy of any DPX bullet.

BufordTJustice
02-06-13, 18:32
I'm merely answering your questions, I'm not making any comparisons to 5.56. The 27gr 5.7 round is not a anything related to or a copy of any DPX bullet.

And what I say is that the cartridge, regardless of bullet type used, is sub optimal even for hog hunting or deer hunting. It is of limited utility for killing anything exceeding the size of a dog or raccoon with any degree of hunter ethic unless a head shot is taken.

This places it squarely in .22lr territory with regard to terminal performance, especially considering the recently improved cci loadings that offer increased velocity.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

BufordTJustice
02-06-13, 18:54
At best, the 5.7 has displayed upper end 9mm HP performance. It makes no sense to discuss it's performance in any other performance strata.

That is akin to involving the 5.56 in an elk hunting discussion. The 5.56 would be out of it's lane.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2