View Full Version : 5.7x28mm Elite Ammunition Tests -- Doc
AZ Five seveN
02-26-11, 15:47
I'm just wondering if DocGKR ever ran any tests on Elite Ammunitions 5.7x28mm loads.
If yes, could someone please link it? If no, are there any plans for the future?
I found this thread (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=51409), but I either missed the follow up, or it didn't happen.
Thanks.
Never received any ammo...
AZ Five seveN
02-27-11, 00:23
Never received any ammo...
I see, no problem. Thanks for the response.
Alaskapopo
02-27-11, 23:59
Never received any ammo...
That is not surprising. Sounds like they don't want independent testers with your credibility. I like the concept of the 5.7 but in my opinion its just not powerful enough. By concept I mean a pistol with near 5.56 ballistics and light recoil.
Pat
That is not surprising. Sounds like they don't want independent testers with your credibility. I like the concept of the 5.7 but in my opinion its just not powerful enough. By concept I mean a pistol with near 5.56 ballistics and light recoil.
Pat
Likewise, I like the concept of a carbine with near .50BMG ballistics and light recoil.
Neither one is going to happen anytime soon ... ;)
Regular Guy
09-01-11, 10:49
WE tested the 5.7 rds. Please see our testing here...
http://zombiehunters.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=110&t=82043&p=1814070#p1814070
Likewise, I like the concept of a carbine with near .50BMG ballistics and light recoil.
Neither one is going to happen anytime soon ... ;)
BRB, changing the laws of physics as we speak. Blended melded wonder bullet doing 9,000fps with no recoil that goes through 1ft of titanium but acts like a LAW rocket on soft tissue, coming soon. :cool:
Regular Guy--Congratulations, great to see folks testing things for themselves.
Regular Guy
09-01-11, 19:33
Regular Guy--Congratulations, great to see folks testing things for themselves.
Thank you sir! We had a great time doing it. Could you tell it was our first attempt. Things went right, some things went wrong but all in all we had a great time and got some valuable results.
We are doing another round of testing this October. WE are dubbing in it "Gel tests: Conventional Self Defense Pistol Loads". We are testing off the shelf stuff in what the 'experts' say are the best rds for self defense. 38 spl,. 380 ACP, 9mm, 40, 45 ACP and 10mm; mostly Speer, Winchester and Hornady.
We are using a 10% Bloom gelatin mix at 38* F. WE calibrate with a pellet gun and move on from there. Our blocks are going to be 6x6x16". Once our video guy gets everything compiled I'll post a link here.
We really enjoyed doing this and we have another gel test planned for the spring for rifle rds.
Anyway, glad you liked it.
If you have not done so, take a look here on some hints on how to interpret your test results: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=22323. Try back lighting your gel blocks and use a white background for better photos.
Regular Guy
09-01-11, 21:00
Yes, sir that is one of the things we discussed. Thanks for the input. We are going to work on better background and lighting. Our area is outdoors so that's a hurdle for us.
Outdoors can often provide better light, depending on shadows and sun position--use white cardboard to guide and reflect the light. A couple of bright Surfire LED's also help.
BufordTJustice
09-02-11, 01:22
Outdoors can often provide better light, depending on shadows and sun position--use white cardboard to guide and reflect the light. A couple of bright Surfire LED's also help.
OP: I've found that a fluorescent 'shop light' works well also (the one that uses an edison-style 2 or 3 prong cord). You just want to use cardboard or some other opaque object to block all the light on both ends of the block (and the top as well), so that the only light you see from the fixture is what is passing directly through the block.
Bottom line: There are many good ways to do it.
Outdoors can often provide better light, depending on shadows and sun position--use white cardboard to guide and reflect the light. A couple of bright Surfire LED's also help.
Doc, does the gel not need to be calibrated and at a specific temp following standardized/accepted protocols to have any validity in terms of interpreting the results beyond the cool factor of seeing gel blocks being shot?
Regular Guy
09-02-11, 08:36
Doc, does the gel not need to be calibrated and at a specific temp following standardized/accepted protocols to have any validity in terms of interpreting the results beyond the cool factor of seeing gel blocks being shot?
I'm not an expert but this is true. The blocks should be @ 38*F and each block should be calibrated with a pellet fired at 600FPS.
Some of our block were warm ~50*F and they were beginning to lose their elasticity. These blocks were not used for the 'formal' part of our testing.
For our next rd of testing we are going to have the block in coolers on ice so they retain the proper temperature. We made some mistakes with out initial rd of testing and we have stepped up our testing protocols. We are backyard, very part time enthusiasts. We hope to learn from our tests and to expand the body of evidence for shooters and sports men and women.
We really appreciate constructive criticism and valuable input.
I'm not an expert but this is true. The blocks should be @ 38*F and each block should be calibrated with a pellet fired at 600FPS.
Some of our block were warm ~50*F and they were beginning to lose their elasticity. These blocks were not used for the 'formal' part of our testing.
For our next rd of testing we are going to have the block in coolers on ice so they retain the proper temperature. We made some mistakes with out initial rd of testing and we have stepped up our testing protocols. We are backyard, very part time enthusiasts. We hope to learn from our tests and to expand the body of evidence for shooters and sports men and women.
We really appreciate constructive criticism and valuable input.
I'm unclear what you can add to the body of knowledge, as all major calibers have been tested under highly controlled protocols and published many times now. If not using the established accepted protocols (and a large part of why there's so much confusion out there is people fail to follow or even know they exist....), then it's fun to watch, but of little value in terms of adding to the science based body of knowledge on the topic using that medium.
Not trying to be a neg bag, but as you know, there's at least 8,934,263,817 squared vids of people shooting stuff on YT in un uncontrolled conditions, which although (some times) fun to watch, of little actual value.
Regular Guy
09-02-11, 10:56
I'm unclear what you can add to the body of knowledge, as all major calibers have been tested under highly controlled protocols and published many times now. If not using the established accepted protocols (and a large part of why there's so much confusion out there is people fail to follow or even know they exist....), then it's fun to watch, but of little value in terms of adding to the science based body of knowledge on the topic using that medium.
Not trying to be a neg bag, but as you know, there's at least 8,934,263,817 squared vids of people shooting stuff on YT in un uncontrolled conditions, which although (some times) fun to watch, of little actual value.
Well, if you don't think it's of value I have no way of convincing you that it does. We are trying and we are on a limited budget. I have had many folks thank us for our work. Sorry, we don't have the money or time for a full on super scientific lab coat test or facility.
Anyway, like I said, if you have something to add or correct us on, we welcome your input. I really don't see how we are that far off from any other tests out there. We had the correct temp, correct calibration and our results mimicked the results others got with with that specific ammo. In this specific test we did test ammo that had never been tested or that has a large body of evidence surrounding it.
I believe and have found there are some folks that are just detractors and only interject opinion to discourage us from continuing our testing.
Well, if you don't think it's of value I have no way of convincing you that it does. We are trying and we are on a limited budget. I have had many folks thank us for our work. Sorry, we don't have the money or time for a full on super scientific lab coat test or facility.
Anyway, like I said, if you have something to add or correct us on, we welcome your input. I really don't see how we are that far off from any other tests out there. We had the correct temp, correct calibration and our results mimicked the results others got with with that specific ammo. In this specific test we did test ammo that had never been tested or that has a large body of evidence surrounding it.
I believe and have found there are some folks that are just detractors and only interject opinion to discourage us from continuing our testing.
And there are "some folks" who take constructive criticism as "detractors"
Regardless, how you proceed from here (and Doc Roberts could be an invaluable source there...) will decide whether you all actually add to the body of valid knowledge/info on the topic, or just add yet more noise to the signal, the former being a rare commodity on the 'net.
I wish you good luck with your future ventures and enjoy seeing stuff get shot as much as the next guy, but valid science is always my first priority. ;)
Anyway, like I said, if you have something to add or correct us on, we welcome your input.
I appreciate your efforts. What you're doing is a lot of work.
If you would like to break some new ground perhaps this may be of some interest.
In the context of handgun ammunition, I have been trying to get a better grasp of this quality known as 'effectiveness'.
I would like to see tests of the older arms that were involved in the discussions of handgun effectiveness during the last century and compare them with the current body of thought on the subject.. The .36 and .44 cap and ball revolvers, .45 Colt and .38 Colt US Army Service cartridges used against the Moros. The .38 Special 158 and 200 gr Police loads, 9MM and .45 FMJ Military cartridges, etc.
It would be interesting to look at the old cartridges that were considered effective or ineffective and compare their performance with the current thought on effectiveness. As far as I know, no one has done this.....yet.
All of the historic loads you mentioned were tested by Dr. Fackler at LAIR in the late 1980's...
All of the historic loads you mentioned were tested by Dr. Fackler at LAIR in the late 1980's...
Interesting, are the test results available online?
I put quite a few of them online around 1999-2002, but don't know if they are still available.
Regular Guy
09-03-11, 14:31
I appreciate your efforts. What you're doing is a lot of work.
If you would like to break some new ground perhaps this may be of some interest.
In the context of handgun ammunition, I have been trying to get a better grasp of this quality known as 'effectiveness'.
I would like to see tests of the older arms that were involved in the discussions of handgun effectiveness during the last century and compare them with the current body of thought on the subject.. The .36 and .44 cap and ball revolvers, .45 Colt and .38 Colt US Army Service cartridges used against the Moros. The .38 Special 158 and 200 gr Police loads, 9MM and .45 FMJ Military cartridges, etc.
It would be interesting to look at the old cartridges that were considered effective or ineffective and compare their performance with the current thought on effectiveness. As far as I know, no one has done this.....yet.
Yes, it is a lot of work considering I have full time employment with the IRS and a family. I have folks traveling from 3 states to help me out which is a co-ordination nightmare considering they all have jobs as well.
Yes, one thing I'd personally like to test are those ol'timey calibers and loads. Not sure if I can get my other testers involved because they are interested in the modern stuff. As for myself, if it goes bang, I like it.
One of the testers sons is a Cowboy Action shooter and has all the cowboy gear. I'll get in touch with him next time they are here and see what he has.
Thanks for the suggestion.
This is some interesting info; does make one think again about 5.7.
Thanks for doing this.
Two guestions:
1. Since you've said this we made some mistakes with out initial rd of testing and we have stepped up our testing protocols, I can't decipher: did you correct initial mistakes as you went and you feel that your 5.7 data was collected according to standards of ballistic testing [or as close to them as possible], or you plan on re-testing it?
2. The best performer seems to be S4M. I went to Elite's website and didn't see it. Am I missing something, or is it a restricted load? Disregard this part, I found it there
Regular Guy
09-10-11, 21:07
The mistakes were in the video, coordination and some of the blocks lost too much elasticity. However, all the blocks in the video were of the proper temp. So the extra blocks were just used for fun.
I feel the tests we used and the tests of the rds was valid. While I'm not a firm believer in the 5.7 rd the S4m imo is a valid rd for self defense. Imo there are better but I wouldn't feel inadequately armed with that rd.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.