FN 5.7mm P-90 Ballistics?

[OBIWAN]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bi...=000768#000012


http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bi...=000050#000000

[DmL5]

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]

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!

[Stiletto]

You know, the SS190 and associated rounds were designed to be combat effective. I dunno about .17WMR.

Have there been any human shootings with .17 yet?

[smince]

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]

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.

"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]

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.

[smince]

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]

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]

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. )

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]

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]

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]

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