[DmL5]

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