PDA

View Full Version : FN 5.7mm P-90 Ballistics?


DmL5
March 8, 2005, 01:00 PM
There has been a lot of debate on the stopping power of the 5.7mm, and I know some ballisticians don't like the round. (No need to post those as I have read them through several times)

But does anyone here know of any shootings with it other than the Lima, Peru raid?

-DmL

Rpn1984
March 25, 2005, 05:01 PM
i was wondering the same thing it seems like it would have about the same stopping power as a 22 magnum.. does anyone know??

IZinterrogator
March 25, 2005, 05:36 PM
futureforcewarrior22 used one in the sandbox that he picked up somewhere. He gives a description of his experience with it in this thread (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=161472).

smince
March 26, 2005, 06:08 AM
i was wondering the same thing it seems like it would have about the same stopping power as a 22 magnum.. does anyone know??

I agree with that, and have taken much flames on this and other boards for stating as much. Bullet design is way different, but ballistically, it is a .22 Magnum.

DmL5
March 26, 2005, 04:50 PM
Bullet design is way different, but ballistically, it is a .22 Magnum.

Even ballistically the two aren't similar.

Out of a 4-inch barrel, a 40-grain .22 Magnum gets 1450 fps. Out of the Five-seveN's 4.75-inch barrel, the 31-grain 5.7x28mm gets 2150 fps.

I know of several shootings with the 5.7 where it gave good performance, but I wanted to know if any here have heard of some shootings that I haven't. Thanks IZ for the interesting link.

-DmL

smince
March 26, 2005, 06:05 PM
Out of a 4-inch barrel, a 40-grain .22 Magnum gets 1450 fps. Out of the Five-seveN's 4.75-inch barrel, the 31-grain 5.7x28mm gets 2150 fps.

You phrased the question as "P90", not "FiveseveN". P90 ballistics are 31grn@2329 (9.5" barrel) for 370 ft/lbs. .22 Mag: 40grn@2020 (18" barrel) for 360 ft/lbs. Sure it has an edge because it reaches a higher velocity in a shorter barrel. But when used in firearms designed for that particular round, no real difference. .22 mag wouldn't be my first (or top 10) round for defense/offense. Neither would the 5.7. It is not likely I'll own one.

And I've read that Hornady's "civilian load" for the 5.7x28 only clocks at 1400fps. A centerfire Stinger.

DmL5
March 26, 2005, 07:45 PM
P90 ballistics are 31grn@2329 (9.5" barrel) for 370 ft/lbs. .22 Mag: 40grn@2020 (18" barrel) for 360 ft/lbs.


But its not fair to compare it to .22 Magnum fired out of a barrel of twice the length. Given a long enough barrel, 22 Mag could be made ballistically equal to almost any pistol caliber.

A fair comparison is the two rounds fired out of equal (or nearly equal) barrel lengths. When this is done (as posted earlier), the .22 Magnum isn't even close to the 5.7mm.

Regarding the new 40 gr. civilian round, it isn't known yet what the velocity will be. There have been figures of 1300 fps, 1650 fps, and 2000 fps. FN doesn't even know what it will be. The round will be arriving soon in the US and FN expect it to be just under 2000 fps. Regardless of whether the new round is 2000 fps or 1300 fps, there are plans by at least one major reloading company to produce a 30-grain round that will be similar ballistically to the old SS192.

But in spite of all this, I wasn't talking about the new V-max SS-196 round, or the old SS-192 JHP, or even the LE/Military FMJ SS-190. This topic pertains to the 5.7mm SS-190 round's performance in shootings.

-DmL

smince
March 26, 2005, 07:59 PM
Given a long enough barrel, 22 Mag could be made ballistically equal to almost any pistol caliber.

Not true. Drag would eventually cause diminishing returns. 5.7 wasn't a "pistol cartridge" anyway. A PDW/SMG round. Fact is, whether you get shot with an 18" .22 mag or a 9.5" 5.7, it'll sting the same. I understand that the recoil impulse is low enough that you can place a whole mag on target with one long burst. Thanks goodness!

Sorry, I just can't get excited about a centerfire round with rimfire ballistics.

Regarding the new 40 gr. civilian round, it isn't known yet what the velocity will be. There have been figures of 1300 fps, 1650 fps, and 2000 fps. FN doesn't even know what it will be.

I had been told that Hornady was producing this round and the figures were already known.

Since I helped this thread go astray, I'm out.

DmL5
March 26, 2005, 09:40 PM
Fact is, whether you get shot with an 18" .22 mag or a 9.5" 5.7, it'll sting the same.

#1. A 18" .22 Magnum rifle is by no means what is being discussed anyway. When one mentions that the .22 Magnum has been a poor performer in shootings, he is referring to a .22 Mag pistol, which has a drastic reduction in velocity from the rifle.

#2. We weren't talking terminal ballistics anyway. I have a lot more info in favor of the 5.7 if we want to talk terminal ballistics. But so far we're talking just ballistics, as in velocity and projectile weight. Terminal ballistics would favor the 5.7 because as you said, the two rounds fire very different projectiles. The 5.7 round is .850-inch long and it tumbles.

Anyway, your original statement was false. The 5.7 and .22Mag cartridges are by no means similar ballistically unless the latter is fired from a barrel of twice the length of the former. Even then, the 5.7 surprisingly has a slight edge in energy, giving 20 more ft. lbs (it actually generates 379 flb at muzzle).

Out of the same barrel length, the .22 Magnum is a long drop from the 5.7mm. I have heard the 5.7 compared many times to the .22 Magnum, but its not a legitimate comparison even if one does not take bullet design into account. Also its performance in shootings. But I will not get into that as my intention was to get new details, preferably from new shootings, not provide them.

-DmL

smince
March 27, 2005, 03:49 PM
A 55grn .22@2800+ has proven to be marginal in the sandbox. I sure wouldn't want to depend on a 31grn .22 going much slower. :rolleyes:

OBIWAN
March 27, 2005, 05:53 PM
Ah...but the 5.7 is magic! :eek:

smince
March 27, 2005, 06:08 PM
Oh yeah! Forgot about that. Can't badmouth the latest miracle cure.

Stiletto
March 27, 2005, 06:41 PM
Looking at what Futurewarrior posted, it seems like it does OK going by the P90's design philosophy: high ROF, high accuracy, high penetration.

Any one round isn't going to do much soft damage, but five or so to center torso sure will.

DmL5
March 27, 2005, 10:49 PM
A 55grn .22@2800+ has proven to be marginal in the sandbox. I sure wouldn't want to depend on a 31grn .22 going much slower.

Thats another argument brought against the 5.7, but it isn't legitimate either.

#1. You said "in the sandbox". Does the same marginal performance apply to the 5.56 round when used in a close quarters role? Close quarters is the intended use of the 5.7 weapons. The 5.56 performance issues you present are at extended range.

#2. Here is where we stop talking bullet weight and velocity. What ultimately matters is the wound, not the bullet characteristics. The 5.7 creates a larger permanent cavity than the 5.56 because the projectile has a longer length, leading to a larger wound during tumble. The 5.7 also tumbles earlier and stays in tumble longer than the 5.56mm. Take note I am NOT saying the 5.7 is superior or equal to 5.56mm. The 5.56 has the benefit of a much larger temporary cavity, whereas the TC of the 5.7 isn't large enough to aid its TE.

#3. A round only need penetrate a depth equal to the thickness of the target. The average thickness of a human torso is 9.4 inches. The penetration given by the 5.7 in the Five-seveN is 8-10 inches and 11 to 13 inches in the P-90. This is the most penetration you can get without overpenetration, and its also the most you will need in most scenarios. Therefore, the superior flesh penetration of the 5.56 doesn't help it in 90% of its applications and overpenetration is a concern. Reduced overpenetration was one of the design points of the 5.7 and one of the reasons why it is finding favor with so many protection units like the US Secret Service.

#4. That argument against the 5.7 is further disproved by its more-than-marginal performance in about fifteen shootings. No-one has survived a shot to the chest with a 5.7, whether wearing heavy winter clothing or high protection (IIIA) soft armor. 90% of the shootings involved one round and the others involved a couple rounds. You can argue against a round all you want, but I'm not believing you when the round is out there performing again and again.

#5. On top of this, the 5.7 weapons have been adopted by dozens of SF/CT units (including the French GIGN) after going through extensive ballistic testing. These units would not adopt a weapon for general use whose wound channel resembled a .22 Magnum. Most of these units are using the weapons for general use and many of them replaced their previously-used M4's and MP5's.

#6. The 5.7 round also has very low recoil and thus very high hit probability. Better shot placement means better wounding ability.

#7. The 5.7 weapons aren't restricted to a single shot anyway. The Five-seveN holds twenty rounds and the P-90 holds fifty.

A quote: "As one who has actually used the P90 for tactical operations I can say that it is a devastating round despite its small size. From our initial training, I recall the fact that no one has survived being shot by the P90."

My opinion on the wounding ability of the 5.7 is that it is on par with other pistol calibers. However, the weapons themselves offer many advantages: lightweight, low recoil, almost no overpenetration, high capacity, and still have reasonable ergonomics.

-DmL

BillCA
March 27, 2005, 11:27 PM
I hope y'all will forgive me, I'm late to this 5.7 hoopla party.


P90 ballistics are: 31grn@2329 (9.5" barrel) for 370 ft/lbs.
.22 Mag ballistics: 40grn@2020 (18" barrel) for 360 ft/lbs.

So why is the 5.7 supposed to be superior to, say, the 7.62x25 Tokarev?
7.62x25 Tokarev: 85gr@1647 for 511 ft/lbs. (Seller & Belloit)

I understand that the recoil impulse is low enough that you can place a whole mag on target with one long burst. Thanks goodness!
Indeed. From reading the threads it seems that the significant advantage for the 5.7 is that you can fire a "burst" into your enemy and down him. Perhaps what we need then is modernized shotgun with highspeed projectiles to do the same thing.

That argument against the 5.7 is further disproved by its more-than-marginal performance in about fifteen shootings. No-one has survived a shot to the chest with a 5.7, whether wearing heavy winter clothing or high protection (IIIA) soft armor. 90% of the shootings involved one round and the others involved a couple rounds. You can argue against a round all you want, but I'm not believing you when the round is out there performing again and again.
These 15 shootings are out of how many incidents? Not the total killed, but the total number of people hit with the 5.7? Very few people survive being hit in the chest by a 5.56 unless there is immediate triage & medical attention so I'm not swayed much yet.

A round that penetrates level IIIA soft armor (without the hard plates I assume) will no doubt delight the black hearts of lawyers the first time an innocent is hit with one of these, either through a miss or overpenetration. But I digress.

Maybe I'm missing something here. The Brits developed the .224 BOZ to do about the same thing as the 5.7 and designed it as a one-shot concept. Here we have the 5.7 with people appearing to claim 100% one-shot lethality from thoractic hits but saying it works best when firing bursts.

I'm just trying to get a grip on what the role of this gun should be and why its supposed to be superior to similar calibers.

Stiletto
March 28, 2005, 12:41 AM
So it's highly effective, AND allows for sustained fire?

Also, the disadvantage of a shotgun is that if you twitch and miss, it amounts to using a heavy-recoil, small-magazine, semiautomatic rifle.

P90, you can quite literally hose your targets down. And if you have good aim, you can put enough bullets (I would have said lead, except that they have enviro-friendly ammo...***, right?) into them to compensate for relatively light bullets.

And Lawyers would like to get rid of any and all firearms...it doesn't really matter what round is used, although the SS19x family does seem to be a pet peeve of clueless anti-gun people.

DmL5
March 28, 2005, 02:07 PM
So why is the 5.7 supposed to be superior to, say, the 7.62x25 Tokarev?

CZ-52? Ballistically, the 5.7 SS-190 pierces vests much better and the SS-192 pierces a little better, and yes, I'm talking about from a 5.7 pistol, not P90. Terminal ballistically, I'm not sure which of the two would be more effective. I do know that the 5.7 would create a larger permanent cavity due to the behavior mentioned earlier.

The CZ-52 also only has 40% of the Five-seveN's capacity (8 rds vs. 20 rds.) and its also heavier.

From reading the threads it seems that the significant advantage for the 5.7 is that you can fire a "burst" into your enemy and down him.

90% of the shootings involved one round and the others involved a couple rounds. So yes, bursts are possible, but not required to kill with it.

Not the total killed, but the total number of people hit with the 5.7?

The total number hit.

Very few people survive being hit in the chest by a 5.56

You're comparing a rifle round fired from a rifle to a sub-rifle round fired from a pistol. The terminal ballistics of the 5.7 were never meant (or said) to be better from a pistol than a rifle round from a rifle.

Here we have the 5.7 with people appearing to claim 100% one-shot lethality from thoractic hits but saying it works best when firing bursts.

Yes. 100% lethality according to a tactical operator. Those against the round say that bursts are the only way to achieve effectiveness with the 5.7mm. Real-life shootings so far have said otherwise. Those are the two sides you're hearing.

I'm just trying to get a grip on what the role of this gun should be and why its supposed to be superior to similar calibers.

Posted earlier: My opinion on the wounding ability of the 5.7 is that it is on par with other pistol calibers. However, the weapons themselves offer many advantages: lightweight, low recoil, almost no overpenetration, high capacity, and still have reasonable ergonomics.

-DmL

Stiletto
March 28, 2005, 03:37 PM
I'm just trying to get a grip on what the role of this gun should be and why its supposed to be superior to similar calibers. Think of it this way:

A requirement was posted for a very compact SMG for use by non-infantry personnel in combat zones (like tank crews).

They wanted armor penetration, high ROF, low recoil, and a nice flat trajectory.

FN designed the weapon first, then the round for the weapon, as opposed to designing a weapon to go with an existing round.

OBIWAN
March 28, 2005, 04:03 PM
Stiletto is correct

The P90 is a very ergonomic weapon by all accounts

The caliber/round is totally secondary (good thing)

It will never be the equal of the 5.56 at any range

It was meant to replace a handgun, or pistol caliber subgun...not a rifle/carbine...it is small and relatively light.

It relies on it's ability to easily put multiple rounds on target...quickly and accurately...and defeat body armor.

Head to head, the 5.7 x 28 round is slightly less impressive than the better 9mm loadings with regard to terminal ballistics.

It does not generally achieve adequate penetration.

Rounds that penetrate less than 13" have been shown to be less than satisfactory in the real world.

There is too much chance of having to shoot through an arm into the chest, or through the width of the chest.....the bad guys do not always stand still and face you head on in the real world.

Now...a burst of 5.7 x 28 is going to do much more damage than a single 9mm round...absolutely...very little doubt!

But the evidence of the 5.7 rounds "street effectiveness" is pretty thin...so far.

FirstFreedom
March 28, 2005, 05:34 PM
Said it before.....the P90 is essentially worthless for civis, and purt near worthless even on full auto, *relative to* other carbine choices. It's fun. It's cute. It's got 50 rounds if you're LEO. But...It's a .22 magnum. If you need a carbine, grab an M4.

The FiveseveN, on the other hand, fills a limited niche, I believe, by giving a *concealable*, SBA-piercing round (even the non-penetrator rounds will penetrate far better than any other handgun alternative).

DmL5
March 28, 2005, 06:40 PM
The caliber/round is totally secondary (good thing)

The 5.7 caliber is not secondary. Its the heart of the weapon. Without it you would lose these and others:

Low recoil
AP ability
Flat trajectory
High capacity

It will never be the equal of the 5.56 at any range

Nor will any other practical pistol round fired from a reasonably-sized pistol.

It relies on it's ability to easily put multiple rounds on target

It does not rely on that ability, although that ability is present. 90% of the shootings involved one round and the others involved a couple rounds.

Rounds that penetrate less than 13" have been shown to be less than satisfactory in the real world.

The 5.7 has not proven less than satisfactory in the more than a dozen shootings. Anyone shot with it has dropped on the spot.

There is too much chance of having to shoot through an arm into the chest, or through the width of the chest

A side shot increases the effectiveness of a round because from the side, multiple organs can be struck with one round. A shot through the hand would reduce penetration by probably 1-2 inches. The 5.7 would still get enough penetration and then some, provided a 9.4-inch thick target.

Said it before.....the P90 is essentially worthless for civis, and purt near worthless even on full auto, *relative to* other carbine choices. It's fun. It's cute. It's got 50 rounds if you're LEO. But...It's a .22 magnum. If you need a carbine, grab an M4.

#1. No gun is worthless for civilians. And from what I make out, we are not talking civilian application. The P-90 isn't even publicly available at the moment, so there is no point at all arguing that.

#2. I take it from the .22Mag comparison that you didn't read my earlier post. It isn't a .22 Magnum at all. Out of the same barrel length it gets 700 fps better than a .22 Mag and the 5.7 has an entirely different bullet design.

#3. The advantages of the P-90 over the M4:

1/3 the recoil
Lightweight
High magazine capacity
Fully ambidextrous
Ergonomics
Size
Easily maintained
Won't overpenetrate target

The advantages of the M4 over the P-90:

More powerful

Which based on the shootings, wounding ability is not an issue with the P-90 anyway.

-DmL

smince
March 28, 2005, 06:47 PM
Picked up the new "Gun World" today at Walmart today, solely because it had an article by Leroy Thompson on the FiveseveN IOM. Basically he said "The Secret Service believes the 5.7 has 3 times the stopping power of the best 9mm, but IT HASN'T BEEN INVOLVED IN ENOUGH SHOOTINGS FOR THAT TO BE PROVEN OR DISPROVEN".

Guns and Ammo put out a "Combat Arms" special edition last month. David Fortier did an article on the P90/5.7. In a sub article, Iver Johnson made a necked-down .30 carbine for their M1 Carbine copy in 1963. He said if you place a hendful of each together, you'd have a hard time separating which was which. Nothing is new. Ahead of it's time? Or not well performing back then, either? Fortier also sadi that it was designed for PDW, but was being pushed into other areas of service. He would much rather have a real rifle if intentionally heading into harm's way.


5.56 has been chosen by many CQB teams BECAUSE overpenetration at close range is actually less than most 9mm SMG's.

OBIWAN
March 28, 2005, 09:42 PM
Wow...Gun World apparently understands statistics and the scientific method

And unlike DML they don't appear to have an agenda


Things that make you say hmmmm

I believe the 22mag comparison was a comparison in straight ballistics not weapons platforms

Advocates seem to jockey back and forth between rifle/pistol comparisons in whatever order supports their theory best.

It is a niche round in a niche weapon

Goody :D

It is definitely trendy I am quite certain chicks dig it!

But the terminal performance of the round is at least suspect

Most of the people I know that go in harms way are skeptical of it

I have seen some serious smear campaigns launched against those that would oppose its many claims of greatness.

One of those Is Dr. ROberts of Tactical Forums who has tested the round

"The early 5.7 x 28 mm 23 gr FMJ bullet fired by the FN P-90 had insufficient penetration for law enforcement and military use. The current 31 gr SS-190 FMJ bullet has nearly adequate penetration, but the wound resulting from this projectile has a relatively small permanent crush cavity, as well as an insignificant temporary stretch cavity. Although the 5.7 x 28 mm penetrates soft body armor, wounding potential is at best like a .22 LR or .22 MagnumEven 9mm NATO FMJ makes a larger wound--and we are all aware of the awe inspiring incapacitation potential of M882 ball from the M9....."

And Mr. DiFabio of Ammo lab

"Doc covered this well,
We have also run LE only tests with the 5.7 pistol and the P90 carbine.
Both were very disappointing and I have shared on several occassions that the development and attempted marketing of these cartridges toward the standard LE agency has for the most part been irreponsible IMHO.
This cartridge offers nothing to the patrol officer in terms of increased terminal ballsitics over the standard G22/40 cal serive pistol and it is easily outclassed by a 180gr GD load."

Stiletto
March 28, 2005, 10:49 PM
Read it (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1478302&postcount=12). He went into harm's way, picked up a P90, and it did exactly what he needed it to do.

gordo b.
March 28, 2005, 11:02 PM
Well since it is a one shot killer- I'll stick to my 1964 S&W .22 Jet , which gets a real 2200fps with a Speer 40 grain bullet. That way I still got 5 in reserve :rolleyes: and the S&W has a heck of a lot better trigger pull and sights! :D
I think the 31 grain .22 mag bullets hit about 1800fps in 6" barrel revolvers, my friend has a 30 round capacity Grendel which prolly hits at least that fast with ammo that costs 1/3 the price of the "new" 5.7 Spitfire. ;)

OBIWAN
March 29, 2005, 07:16 AM
Stiletto

The gentleman in the post is talking about full auto fire as well

A full auto 22lr will "tear somebody up pretty well" too

I could dig up lots of posts ...way more than 15 of people dropping to full auto fire from an MP-5

Stiletto
March 29, 2005, 01:08 PM
Lessee...going by World.Guns.Ru's ammo ballistics table...

.22 WMR (FMJ) gets you a 300 m/s, 2.6g round.

5.7x28 (FMJ) gets you a 750 m/s, 2g round.

I'm thoroughly unconvinced by the "it's only got the stopping power of a .22WMR" argument just going by numbers and penetration behaviors. Both are known to not overpenetrate. Running some physics numbers, the 5.7mm round gets about twice (1.92x) the momentum and almost five times (4.8x) the kinetic energy.

This is reflected by their ballistic gel performance. Theoretically, the 5.7mm is a much more lethal round than the .22WMR.

For that matter, it's vaguely close to a 9mm JHP (assuming 5.72g and 458 m/s) in energy delivery, with a little over half (57%) the momentum (the reason behind its high controllability despite high ROF in the relatively lightweight P90) and 93.8% of the kinetic energy.

So theoretically, it has kill capability closer to 9mm than .22WMR.

Also, there have been 15 recorded shoots with P90s, as opposed to A Bunch™ of shoots with various 9mm SMGs (including MP5s). So that particular statistic isn't really usable, although for what it's worth, all of the said shoots involved single shots or short bursts. Given, they were conducted by special operators (better shot placement), but it's still suggestive of a successful design.

DmL5
March 29, 2005, 03:17 PM
5.56 has been chosen by many CQB teams BECAUSE overpenetration at close range is actually less than most 9mm SMG's.

Even if that is correct, less overpenetration than a 9mm doesn't mean its no longer a concern.

Wow...Gun World apparently understands statistics and the scientific method

We aren't talking about 1-3 shootings. 15 shootings can be viewed as a large enough sample to prove or disprove a weapon's wounding ability.

And unlike DML they don't appear to have an agenda

I'm willing to argue this subject with you, but keep the bashing to yourself. Its what always happens. When one runs out of supporting data, they simply turn to bashing.

I believe the 22mag comparison was a comparison in straight ballistics

Its still false.

Advocates seem to jockey back and forth between rifle/pistol comparisons in whatever order supports their theory best.

When analyzing a pistol round for its terminal effects, one does not compare it to a rifle round fired from a rifle.

It is a niche round in a niche weapon

Actually, it is the opposite of a niche weapon. It works versus both armored and unarmored opponents. This weapon is in use in over 30 countries in a wide variety of roles and its filling those role quite well. It is not a niche weapon.

Most of the people I know that go in harms way are skeptical of it

People that go into harm's way with the P90? I have heard from people that actually operate with the weapon on a daily basis and have extensively tested it.

"The current 31 gr SS-190 FMJ bullet has nearly adequate penetration

I've already addressed this. You don't need more than a 8-10" (let alone the P-90's 12"+) penetrating bullet when engaging a target 9.4" thick, regardless of a 1-2" thick wrist in the way. Also note that Doc GKR doesn't cite the specific penetration number of the round. Maybe because it would undermine his statement?

the wound resulting from this projectile has a relatively small permanent crush cavity

Already addressed this. The bullet is .850-inch in length and turns point upward after two inches of wound travel, and continues travelling in this manner for much of the travel.

as well as an insignificant temporary stretch cavity.

He seems to be ignoring the fact that all pistol rounds create insignificant TC's. So it sounds like he's comparing it to rifle rounds again.

wounding potential is at best like a .22 LR or .22 Magnum

This one shows that Doc GKR has not given this subject much thought. Comparable to a .22 Mag? Given more thought one will realize this is an absurd claim. Comparable "at best" to a .22LR? A claim absurd beyond belief.

I'll take this even further and discuss another quote of Doc GKR's: "Use of the 5.7 x 28 mm is a good way to ensure mission failure." This one is also completely false. This round has been in general use dating back to 1991 with hundreds of operators in dozens of PD's and SF/CT units in over 30 countries. Not once has any operator been killed or even injured due to insufficient performance, let alone has it caused a "mission failure".

"Doc covered this well,

The above alone shows that Mr. Difabio has not given the subject much thought either. "Doc" only covered it well if you want absurd claims without solid evidence to back them up.

We have also run LE only tests with the 5.7 pistol and the P90 carbine. Both were very disappointing

I will point out to you that its worthless to simply hear him say "they did bad" but not have it backed up. This info you're providing (which I have read many times in the past and said so from the start) consists only of opinions without any data whatsoever.

I have shared on several occassions that the development and attempted marketing of these cartridges toward the standard LE agency has for the most part been irreponsible IMHO.

#1. These weapons were not developed toward LE like he says.

#2. These weapons are in use with dozens of PD's and have been for some time. They are pleased with them. They work very well for them. So the weapon is not ill-suited for LE work.

This cartridge offers nothing to the patrol officer in terms of increased terminal ballsitics over the standard G22/40 cal serive pistol

Yet again, I must ask: what is up. The point of this cartridge is not to offer "increased terminal ballsitics over the 40 cal serive pistol". Definitely the weapon will be disappointing if your pre-evaluation views are that bizarre. Once again, these quotes would prove nothing even if the weapon hadn't given the performance it has. So if you've seen "smear campaigns" launched against these ballisticians in response to this "data", its no surprise.

-DmL

DmL5
March 29, 2005, 03:37 PM
Some shooting info...

I also believe that it is foolish to put all your trust into gelatin based lab results. What counts in my book and probably the book of operators on the street, are "results". People also want to compare results of the 5.7 to the 45ACP, 9mm, etc. The 45ACP has been around for more than 94 years. I wonder what the statistics of one shot kills for the 5.7 will be after 94 years? I know of 13 recorded shootings with the 5.7x28 round. All 13 resulted in kills. I bet if we find out how many times people have been shot at all, with the 5.7 we will find that the kill ratio is on par with the best rounds in use today. 10 of the 13 were one shot kills and the other three were two shots. Some through body armor and some not. Everyone wants to get hung up on the ability to pierce body armor. Who cares??? The only thing that impresses me is that if the round will go through Level II armor then it will certainly go through any type of clothing a bad guy happens to be wearing. That is what concerns me. Kind of eliminates all the arguments of which hollow point will clog with clothing and which will not. That argument seemed to be the fad before the 5.7 came out.

Houston PD shot a subject who was firing at them with an AR-15. The subject was hit in the chest and the bullet tumbled into his heart, cutting it into two pieces. The coroner remarked that he had never seen a wound like that. The bullet also did not exit his body.

One of the cases was at an embassy in South America where three gunmen tried to take over the embassy heavily armed and wearing body armor. Two of the bad guys were taken down with one shot and the third with two shots.

One of our area SWAT teams uses it, that baby rocks. They have had a few incidents where the weapon was used and it stopped the BG cold.

Fargo or Grand Forks, ND had a shooting using a P90 during a raid a couple years ago. The shooting was about 4-5 years ago and resulted in a near instant fatality.

A SWAT team was called to the scene after an armed man, identified as Benjamin "Benny" Griggs, fired at a police cruiser and then barricaded himself inside a house. The standoff between Griggs and the police began at approximately 12:35 p.m. Friday. Griggs refused to talk to police or surrender and continued to fire shots. Seeking to end the standoff, officers fired tear gas into the home at about 2:20 p.m. Griggs then came out of the house, firing at police. The SWAT exchanged semiautomatic gunfire with Griggs and then approached the house. A coroner pronounced Griggs at the scene.

-DmL

DmL5
March 29, 2005, 03:43 PM
So theoretically, it has kill capability closer to 9mm than .22WMR.

And here is a quote from Sandy Wall of Houston, TX PD SWAT:

The 5.7mm ball produces a wound cavity about the size and shape of the best 9mm 115 grain JHP +P+, except the peak occurs at a deeper penetration.

And more from the same officer:

When I talk to operators from other agencies about weapons, I now seldom have to explain what weapon I’m talking about when I mention the P90 as my primary. Obviously the folks at FN are getting the message out and the weapon is now familiar. If you operate in an environment like the one I operate in, you can’t go wrong with a P90 slung at the low-ready.

-DmL

OBIWAN
March 30, 2005, 07:44 AM
Yes, and I have heard some less flattering quotes from Mr. Wall from people that actually know him and worked with him while they were evaluating the p90.

And I have seen you run this discussions into the ground on too many different boards to want to watch this ;)

In fact...a check of your posts on TFL shows you pretty much joined to discuss this weapon system almost exclusively.

How is your FN stock doing anyway???

Later

Stiletto
March 30, 2005, 08:55 AM
And I joined the board because I was looking for info about Desert Eagles. What's your point?

Keep the ad hominem stowed, it's not relevant.

What's your agenda for disliking the P90 concept and system so much?

DmL5
March 30, 2005, 04:59 PM
In fact...a check of your posts on TFL shows you pretty much joined to discuss this weapon system almost exclusively.

Your last post was about 10% ad hominem and 90% argument. Your most recent post is 90% ad hominem and 10% argument. It seems you're running out of reasons to justify your disliking of these weapons.

Why are you so against these weapons? Trying to save people from having to trust their lives with such an ineffective round? A round so "ineffective" its in general use in 30 countries with the elite (French GIGN) and has yet to be responsible for the injury of any people using it over the past decade?

You are correct that when I discuss something here, it is most often these weapons. But that is when I discuss. I read about many subjects.

-DmL

smince
March 30, 2005, 06:36 PM
A round so "ineffective" its in general use in 30 countries with the elite (French GIGN) and has yet to be responsible for the injury of any people using it over the past decade?

If true, why the intent of the original post? You stated you wanted to find more info about shootings with the 5.7. If thirty countries have it, and it has been around for a decade, why is there only info on about 13-15 or so shootings?

But does anyone here know of any shootings with it other than the Lima, Peru raid?

Seems this was the only one you knew of when you started this post.

OBIWAN
March 30, 2005, 06:56 PM
http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bin/tacticalubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=78;t=000768#000012


http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bin/tacticalubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=78;t=000050#000000

DmL5
March 30, 2005, 07:22 PM
why is there only info on about 13-15 or so shootings?

That is why I am inquiring for more info.

Seems this was the only one you knew of when you started this post.

I've known of the shootings posted here for a long while. I mentioned the Lima shooting because its commonly known and I expected replies mentioning it.

http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-b...t=000768#000012
http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-b...t=000050#000000

Please list the outstanding "info" you believe those links contain. I can assure you, I've covered that link ("FN Five Seven Test Data") on another board and many of the claims within it are blatantly false. Why take the word of the TF folks? They have an axe to grind. Their credibility (Doc GKR) is at stake and they will make far-fetched claims to protect it.

-DmL

smince
March 31, 2005, 07:07 PM
I think I'm going to buy a Kimber .17 MACH 2 Target for a Defensive carry gun.


.17 caliber bullet, 17 grains, 1600+fps. Got to be the latest thing in CCW! :D

Stiletto
April 1, 2005, 01:36 AM
You know, the SS190 and associated rounds were designed to be combat effective. I dunno about .17WMR. :rolleyes:

Have there been any human shootings with .17 yet?

smince
April 1, 2005, 09:02 AM
Have there been any human shootings with .17 yet?

Does it matter?


More info I have gleaned on 5.7. This is based on magazine writers, but I don't have the access I used to have regarding such matters.

David Fortier:

"Developed as a NATO replacement for 9x19, this cartridge currently languishes in limbo. While it has successfully met all NATO criteria for PDW, Germany blocks its adoption. While it was adopted by a number of European SF and the U.S. Secret Service, many vocal detractors doubt it provides adequate terminal performance. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, the future holds for this tiny cartridge."

"It should be understood from the outset that this new PDW was intended to be just that, merely a defensive weapon. It was intended to be issued only to personnel who did not need a regular assault rifle(truck drivers, maintainence personnel, etc.), but still need a weapon to protect themselves. While the P90 was intended to be a PDW, some are pushing it for other, more offensive missions."

"Currently, there have not been enough actual shootings with this combination to clearly define performance. It was used in the well-known Lima, Peru Embassy incident. In another well-known incident, Houston PD SWAT responded to a man firing an AR15. He was killed by a shot in the chest attributed to the P90, although several shots were also fired by 5.56 weapons. I am also privy to an incident in Iraq where an American soldier was hit with a 5.7x28 round fired from a P90 during a certain raid. Hit in the hip region, he dropped instantly and tumbled down a flight of stairs. It should be kept in mind, though, that a hit in this region with most any caliber would likely have had the same effect."

"Would I rather have the P90 SMG than a 9x19 handgun loade with ball if there was the chance I would be attacked by assault-rifle-armed and body-armor-clad hostiles? Yes: Poor terminal performance at 900rpm is better than rounds failing to penetrate."

"The P90 is a PDW. Nothing more."

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.

DmL5
April 1, 2005, 06:40 PM
Does it matter?

Yes it does. Don't be absurd. If the .17 M2 gives repeatedly outstanding performance in shootings, I'm not afraid to carry it.

Developed as a NATO replacement for 9x19, this cartridge currently languishes in limbo.

:rolleyes: "Languishes in limbo". I've stated more than a few times that its in use in over 30 countries.

While it has successfully met all NATO criteria for PDW, Germany blocks its adoption.

Incorrect. Not only has it "met NATO criteria", but its was also tested and recommended over HK 4.6mm (and others) by the NATO QRT as the best-suited replacement for 9mm. Germany blocked adoption because they were already comitted to using the 4.6mm from the start.

It will be interesting to see what, if anything, the future holds for this tiny cartridge.

After 10 more years of international use in counter-terrorist, PDW, LE, and SF roles? The above comes from a magazine. Put together to entertain the reader. There is no basis to the statement that "this weapon's future is unknown". We are IN the weapon's future. It was developed nearly fifteen years ago and first saw action in 1991.

While the P90 was intended to be a PDW, some are pushing it for other, more offensive missions."

Yes, some are pushing it for "more offensive missions". In fact, many. And all of them high-profile international CT/SF units. The M1911 was a military sidearm. Going by the author's methods, that would mean the M1911 was not designed for police work or CCW.

"Currently, there have not been enough actual shootings with this combination to clearly define performance.

There certainly have not been enough, if the author only knows of three kills with it.

It was used in the well-known Lima, Peru Embassy incident.

As I pointed out earlier, this incident alone involves three outstanding kills.

In another well-known incident, Houston PD SWAT responded to a man firing an AR15. He was killed by a shot in the chest attributed to the P90, although several shots were also fired by 5.56 weapons.

I am virtually positive that the above info came from MY posts on one message board or another. I am really only the second person on the internet to let slip the info about the "subject firing at them with an AR15". I am quite amazed, if only the author hadn't had a bias. He left out my comment about the heart being destroyed, and take note that the 5.56 weapons impacted elsewhere on the body (IIRC hands/arms) where they couldn't help the 5.7 do the heart damage. He's leaving out details. If he took all this shooting info from my posts, (except for the one about the US Soldier) 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.

I am also privy to an incident in Iraq where an American soldier was hit with a 5.7x28 round fired from a P90 during a certain raid. Hit in the hip region, he dropped instantly and tumbled down a flight of stairs. It should be kept in mind, though, that a hit in this region with most any caliber would likely have had the same effect."

This seems to be the only shooting he didn't take from my posts. I still can't say how amazed I am that my info was quoted.

"Would I rather have the P90 SMG than a 9x19 handgun loade with ball if there was the chance I would be attacked by assault-rifle-armed and body-armor-clad hostiles? Yes: Poor terminal performance at 900rpm is better than rounds failing to penetrate."

The author shows a bias in this statement. From where did he get the impression of "poor terminal performance"?

"The P90 is a PDW. Nothing more."

David Fortier can argue that out with the world's top counter-terrorist units. He can tell them that their standard entry weapon is "nothing more".

Stiletto
April 1, 2005, 09:09 PM
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. :confused:

smince
April 1, 2005, 09:59 PM
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
April 2, 2005, 02:13 PM
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
April 2, 2005, 02:53 PM
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. :p)

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
April 2, 2005, 03:27 PM
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
April 3, 2005, 07:07 PM
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
April 3, 2005, 07:15 PM
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