I'm talking military pistol here...

My vote is the S&W M&P.

The FN (the 9mm or 45, not the 5.7) looks suitable as well though I haven't shot one. But I'm sure everyone will differ on what constitutes "state of the art". It hurts me to recognize that probably includes plastic construction.

+1. I think a Glock in 45 GAP should be considered if a 45 cartridge is desired, or chamber the M&P for 45 GAP.

The 5.7 FN. It will shoot through alot of body armor that no other handgun will. Light, very easy to shoot, and holds 20 rds. Very easy to maintain, etc. E

If it is durable and easy to maintain the FN makes a lot of sense...it is the choice of Mexican drug dealers and they surly knows what kills people...

Another big plus is lack of recoil...a big training plus...

Bob

+1 for this being the current state of the art.

Although, hard to argue with the XD or XD-M platform. Seems to have the toughness of the Glock with better ergonomics.

M&P< since by military i assume you mean U.S.

They require a manual safety button.

Plus, the M&P's are great guns.

For me it would have to be the FN. While not a standard caliber I was impressed with the design, function and shootability of the gun. VERY light recoil, impressive penetration, ease of use and should be very easy to train new shooters in how to use and use well. FN has a long history of great military small arms design and this 5.7 pistol is a prime example.

OK you pistol, Art Deco/State of the Art( whatever the Hell that means) gun nuts

My answer to the question,,,,The Mauser Broom Handle

I considered the FN 5.7, but the jury�s still out on the real effectiveness of the cartridge in neutralizing an enemy. True there have been some shootings that have resulted in corpses, but just killing someone; hell, you can do that with a Red Ryder if you try hard enough.

If the cartridge proves out, I�d consider switching my choice, but at this point I just remain skeptical.

In the realm of body armor penetration, there are a couple of cartridges that could play out if further developed:

7.62x25 Tokarev
.357 Sig

Both could be rather interesting if someone got real creative on the body armor issue.

Except for SOCOM troops and Military Police IMHO pistols are useless compared to issuing an M4 carbine.

And for support troops the M4 should be strictly a semi-automatic version!

I say this with 25 years of Military service time experience.

Feel free to disagree with me.

The SMG loadings of the 7.62x25 Tokarev are awsome at punching body armour. Some of the Czech ammo was a mild steel jacket and I saw it punch both sides of a level 2 vest and then the oil drum it was hung on...impressive

1911

I do disagree. Taxpayers have more dollars invested in SOCOM assets (like me in a former life), but non-SOCOM troops have families to go home to also. Herbert McBride said it best, "A bayonet is what you country gives you when they are too damn cheap to buy you proper pistol". He carried his own 1911 in France. That is a big time UCMJ violation now thanks to Slick Willie.

I agree and disagree. Certainly whenever possible, take a rifle. But there are times, especially for military police, when a rifle just isn't practical.

And on the battlefield, a handgun is awfully comforting when your rifle either goes down, or runs dry when the action is hot & heavy.

Thank you Take a Knee for your service.

I will agree with your position IF and WHEN the Military begins training it's ordinary personel on how use use a pistol.

For the 99% of troops who are not MPs or SOCOM... they are not properly trained. A one day a year qualification course is not enough... IMHO, to carry a pistol.

I respectfully agree to disagree.

+1. The well trained soldier will do well with whatever he or she is issued. The untrained will be a detriment with whatever you guys decide is best.

I wish the Military would back to the 1911

The M1911 in .45 Auto, what else did you expect?

38 S&W or the fire-breathing 38 Special?

Sad but true. When you go through SFAUC, you shoot about 5K rds (2K 9mm, and 3K or so 5.56). A combat service support guy might not shoot that much in a 20yr career.

Well, like I said, some Marine Corps units have gone back to them, and their armor is the hardest working SOB in the unit.

S&W M&P with manual safety.

why?? seriously 7 round mags compared to 17 round mags out of a double stack 9mm like a glock 19, its also 1 pound 3 oz less. I know the 1911 is a great gun and all but most guys only play with them on the range nowadays. whats cool at the range is different than whats nice to have carrying around all day and potentially having to fight people its nice to have 250% more bangs available in ONE magazine.

besides special forces who is even issued a hand gun in the military nowadays anyway?? had a buddy in the 101 st and in the infantry and he never had a handgun. it seems like the military just views handguns as another hassle they don't want to mess with. something else they must issue, keep track of, supply ammo for, train people, and otherwise keep folks from doing something bad to themselves or fellow soldiers. we live in a world where the government and the military feels they need to keep all bad from happening to people and as a result alot of freedom and cool things for the majority of the people get lost as a result. its too bad a soldier can't if they so desire purchase their own handgun and even their own ammo and if they show they can be proficient shooting it and operating it be permitted to take it with them in the field. but the way the military thinks is that some idiot guy who works in the back say in the supply chain or as a cook or something will blow his leg off with an accidental discharge.

357sig has a lot of muzzle flash.

Aviation guys still carry sidearms. And train with them.

The Israelis had an interesting adaptation of the Glock that would allow them to select a full auto mode.

FN's and M&P's ..... can't really go wrong with either one.

Forty different nations (including the US and Canada) have adopted the 5.7x28mm FN Five-seveN pistol for military and law enforcement usage. Developed for NATO as a replacement for the 9x19mm pistol round, the US, France, Canada, and the UK found it to be "in all ways superior" to the 9mm and pushed for its NATO-wide adoption until stopped by the refusal of the German government to adopt the P90 side arm that it used.

All in all the 5.7x28 is an excellent personal sidearm round, although somewhat lacking as a rifle round due to its limited effective range of about 475 yards (as opposed to the 800 yard effective range of most modern military rifles). That said, as modern warfare becomes focused on increasingly urban operations, the 5.7x28 cartridge, capable of being chambered in both a pistol and a medium range rifle, may very well become the standard of the US and its allies.

The "5.7" has been around now for 21 years, and the FN Five-seveN pistol probably represents the state of the art for a military or police pistol with its light weight, high capacity, and all round shootability. Yes, there are more powerful pistols out there, but given its intended military purpose, there isn't another pistol that can come close in terms of a 21st century, state of the art, handgun.

Glock 18? A friend has a G34 that has a selector switch, he can own it as a dealer sample legally, but he can't sell it. FAB Defense makes a WAY COOL little stock that inserts into the "plug" recess in the frame, and has a little pistol grip/finger guard that attatches to the light rail. It runs 100% with 33rd mags. A pocket machine gun. The only downside is you can't "drive" the sights 'cause they are on the reciprocating slide. It has such a high cyclic rate though one squeeze and its time to let off the trigger.

Kevin, I too was somewhat skeptical at first, however a couple of things made me change my mind. The first was the penetration of the military round; 11-inches of penetration in ballistic gel, and 8-inches of penetration after passing thru 48 layers of Kevlar at 50 meters (that's the equivalent of two Level Two vests worn one on top of another). In addition to excellent penetration the wound channel created was massive due to the bullet tumbling as it penetrated the ballistic medium.

These two factors swayed me in favour of the FN 5.7 pistol, and after putting 100 rounds thru one, I was sold. I really believe it to be a superb military pistol, and most likely the wave of the future.

M9

I have a Marine Armorer as a cousin, and he would rather work on 10 1911's before one M9, or M11.

In comparison to a Glock, the M1911 is a bunch of work. But that's about the only gun that's easier to work on.

I've seen the reports, I've fired the weapons. The P90 is one of the funnest SMG's I've ever handled. BUT.

Have you killed anything with the 5.7? I haven't. I hit a coyote with a 5.45 which has a whole lot more oomph, and a much more wicked bullet design. I was comppletely unimpressed, completely. So I have a had time believing a much SMALLER round is going to do anything impressive.

With that said, I've shot game with 9mm FMJ and have been completely unimpressed. Perhaps it's no worse than the 9mm??

Not new, just ahead of it's time.

CZ SP01 9mm

Basically the famous CZ75 with even better ergo's for smaller hands, and a touch more muzzle weight. Tailor made for the job asked. The previous -75 is brain-dead easy to shoot well with it's much-copied grip holding 16rds and one of the better DA/SA triggers around. Consider the value of this ease of effective use given the military is not going to train up everyone sufficiently to fire light-weight, striker fired and DAO pistols worth a damm, IMO. For a military-wide sidearm, seems a no brainer to me.

EVERY pistol is a compromise:
Portability vs firepower.

The S & W M& P's are great. ( Iown a compact 9 and it is a very good carry piece )
So are CZ's ( my son is a CZ fan and his 75 does the job, all day long )

I can't come to grips with the 5.7. Granted, I've only shot one (the local Federal rep is a friend and let me shoot about 100 rounds)---and granted, it's been 34 years since I was in a Marine Corps line infantry unit. Perhaps the role and mission of the military has changed since I was in and altered the TO&E---I doubt seriously that the laws physics have changed however.

Correct me where I'm wrong---when I was in the Corps, handguns (the sainted 1911) were issued to officers, Staff NCO's and enlisted men with MOS's that required that their hands were otherwise occupied during potential combat--namely radiomen, assistant machine gunners, mortarmen, 106RR rifle, 6.5 rocket launchers (bazooka), LAW's, etc. as well as a host of REMF's. It played a defensive role for those in Final Protective Fire (FPF's) and never held an offensive role at all. In an FPF when "Charlie is inside the wire" to use a dated term, the ability of a handgun round to penetrate body armour and gelatinize an adversarie's internal organs may be serendipitous, but it's only a side benefit to stopping them immediately. A hopped up enemy high on the adrenaline of being in an assault and/or aided by pharmaceuticals may or may not notice their impending death. It's worth noting that the single most devastating handgun wound that Sykes and Fairbairn report observing was with the 7.63 x 25 Mauser. It's been years since I read "Shooting to Live" but I seem to recall that it was a leg wound that flipped the perp in the air and left a shattered, dangling shread where his leg had been. That Mauser round delivers very close to the same ft/lbs that the 5.7 provides. Why didn't we switch to the 7.63 and why did the Shanghai Constabulary stay with the .45???

Bottom line is that shooting defensively is about probabilities. What's the probability of your enemy wearing armor?? What's the probability that you'll strike bone or something solid enough to keep the energy of the round in the body of the aggressor? What's the probability that you'll need in excess of 8 rounds? 10?, 16?

Maybe the answers to the above all indicate that the 5.7 is the way to go, but I still can't come to grips with it.

My vote would still go to a well built 1911 WITH it's users trained properly, and those who can't be trained don't get 'em. But assuming things must be dumbed down for the weakest link in the chain, then realistically I guess a .45acp polymer/striker------Glock or M&P. IMO the Glock is a better, simpler mouse trap, but the ergos of the M&P are superior for the wide variety of hand sizes the pistol would be issued to. Especially when compared against the large G21.

A pistol version of the AR-15 with a collapsible stock so you can shoot it like a rifle.

I have spoken to several agencies who have fielded the P90, and who have used them in deadly force situations. None have been happy with their performance. I will not name agencies for obvious reasons, but one large Texas department's SWAT team has had several OIS with the gun, and found it to be extremely ineffective, even when compared to their 9mm MP5s fielded previously. When one considers these incidents were each a result of several rounds fired in bursts, a semi auto pistol is less confidence inspiring.

The 5.7 is a niche round, and does its job very well, within its parameters. These parameters do not include typical anti-personnel use, and when pressed into this role, it fails miserably.

Actually the victim of the shooting was shot in the arm; to quote from their account of the incident:

"Though he was in hospital within half an hour of being shot, nothing could be done to avoid amputation, so badly were the bone and tissue lacerated. Perhaps "pulped" would convey our meaning more exactly. Yet in theory at least the bullet should have caused far less shock than it obviously did."(emphasis added)

I suspect that we may very well be switching over to 5.7 as a light, medium range rifle for use in urban warfare. That being the case, and since the 5.7 is an interchangable round with the FN Five-seveN handgun, it would seem probable that the military might adopt a two-gun, one-round policy at sometime in the future.

As far as switching to the 7.63 Mauser round was concerned the US Cavalry was in charge of the Ordnance Board at the time of the trials that led to the selection of the Model 1911 Colt pistol. First and foremost in their stated requirements was that the successful pistol had to be in .45 caliber. Had the Navy been in charge of the Ordnance Board they might very well have chosen a 9mm or 7.65/7.63mm round for adoption by the US military.

When Fairbairn and Sykes took over training the Shanghai Police the department was in disarray, and morale was at an all time low. Fairbairn and Sykes chose to arm and train the Chinese policemen with .45 caliber handguns as a morale booster; something to overcome the frankly superstitious fear the Shanghai police had of the C96 Mauser pistol favoured by criminals and war lords alike.

Two years ago, at Fort Hood, Texas, on November 5, 2009 Major Nidal Hasan killed 13 US soldiers, and wounded another 32, with an FN 5.7mm pistol.

As far as my personal shooting experiences are concerned, I've dispatched four groundhogs with the 5.7 and would have to say that it did the job and, all things considered, probably did it better than a 9MM.

According to NATO test results, the 5.7mm was deemed to be better, in all respects, than the 9mm.

Whatever happened to Desert Eagles? I liked the idea of blowback actions?

Glock 17 or 34

This is anecdotal and we don't have access to the autopsy reports. We also don't know where they were shot. Still, I don't like those odds, only about 1/3 died (thank God in this instance)

Would you ever shoot a deer with it?

I believe that NATO test was through body armor, in which case the mere fact they 5.7 made it through makes it a winner by default. As for non body armor tests, the 5.7 has very shallow penetration through soft tissue, very little ability to break bone, which all add up to an insufficient cartride for self defense.

In a world of soldiers facing soldiers with body armor, it's perhaps a better choice, but that's the only world where it's better. In that instance, it makes more sense to develop kevlar punching rounds for the 9mm and stick with what we have.

Thanks, I was going off the memory of having read the book in excess of 25 years ago. At least I had the gist of the story close.
My question was rhetorical--poorly phrased, as it obviously didn't make my point, but rhetorical.[/quote]
hmmmm, sounds pretty close to today's scenario where the 5.7 is supposed to be the "cop killer" used by Mexican drug cartels. It holds a prime place in Tom Clancy's new book.

Still, as in your next entry about the NATO testing and the Ft. Hood incident---there's a significant difference in using a weapon offensively vs. defensively. The chemistry of the target changes too much---no doubt in duct seal, wet newsprint, gelatin blocks or sheeple wondering what the loud noise in the lobby is, the 5.7 may look great---probably works great when you're against an unsuspecting target or one motivated to escape and evasion by fear. Still, when the tables are turned and we are the hunted/victim/target instead of the aggressor, the 500 mile per hour brick trumps the 1500 mile per hour needle---so far, at least historically.

Rifle wise---I'd certainly rather have an AR platform 5.56 than a Marlin 45/70 Guide Gun UNLESS I was inside my house defending against a large, determined meth tweeker--then, quite frankly I'd opt for the 45/70.

I've never heard of anyone that was in a fight wishing that they had a smaller caliber weapon---more ammo maybe. Of course, I could be wrong. :-) Still hard for me to embrace the 5.7---of course my opinion is irrelevant to the issue.

Your opinion is as good as anyone else here. Hell, we�re just a bunch of gun nuts sitting around a campfire shootin the chit.

I just tend to think the solution to the body armor threat is cartridge development. Our soldiers who are armed with handgun should have a traditional 9mm FMJ and some sort of soft body armor penetrator loaded into a spare magazine for when the body armor threat rears it's head.

Kevin, I think you may be unintentionally trivializing the Ft. Hood shootings by referring to the published reports of the event as anecdotal. The factual side of the reports may be summed up as one shooter, armed with a 5.7mm pistol killed 13 and wounded 32 other persons. I doubt the autopsy reports will refute the fact that Hasan killed 13 people, or that the cause of death was anything other than by gunshot wound. Since Hasan has yet to face trial all specific details of the shooting will be sealed until the matter is resolved in the military courts.

While I wouldn't shoot a deer with a 9mm, I would shoot a man with a 5.7, if that answers your question.

The NATO tests were conducted on a variety of ballistic medium including tissue and bone. Commercially available 5.7 ammo is loaded to less than military specification; that said it still averages 11 inches of penetration in ballistic gel, and creates a wound channel significantly larger than that of comparable 9mm ammunition.

Since your original question concerned a state of the art pistol for the military I think it only reasonable to reply in terms of soldiers facing soldiers, and not in terms of civilians facing street punks, etc. as others responding have done.

If you want to change the question, I'd probably change my answers.

Best regards

Scott

On the 5.7 FN, a few more points. It's a very sought after pistol by the mexican drug sorts. Some examples have gone for as much as $5000.
Our special forces guys like it alot. It seems that they find they have more dead bad guys with it than they get with the 9mm.
The commerical ammo is underloaded. Loading data by Ramshot and Accurate arms show a 100-200 fps increase with similar bullets.
And performance on 2.5 gallon water jugs is impressive. Blow them apart quite well. E

Please produce some verifiable data that any of our SpecOPS guys are using the 5.7 in any platform.

I also dont recall being attacked by any water jugs, 2.5 gallon or otherwise.

Its a niche round designed for a niche use. Nothing more, and often less.

Agree with the 5.7x28mm...


That just goes to show that shot placement is paramount.

I will be shooting some coyotes here in the near future with SS197SR and/or one of EA's 5.7x28mm loads (http://www.eliteammunition.net/home.html). Based on the experiences others have had shooting coyotes with 5.7x28mm, I'm sure it will be quite effective.




Actual verifiable accounts from people that have been in shootings with the P90 completely disagree with you. For example:

http://www.hendonpub.com/resources/articlearchive/details.aspx?ID=309

I concede that the P90 is not all things to all people. However, for what I do, as a SWAT officer in a major city, it�s a great weapon.

<snip>

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. In the one shooting we had with the P90, the bullet performed well. In fact, the bullet performed exactly as it was designed. The autopsy provided detailed information about the wound cavity and travel of the bullets.

<snip>

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.

-- Sandy Wall of HPD (see below)



http://warriorsos.blogspot.com/2010/10/how-to-win-gunfight-by-sandy-wall.html

Sandy Wall retired from Houston Police Department after 28-years. He served for 22 years on SWAT, and was a three-term president with the Texas Tactical Police Officer Association (TTPOA). He is currently the Training Director for Safariland Training Group. Sandy is the founder of the Less Lethal Solutions, Inc. and the inventor of "The Wall Banger."



http://www.tactical-life.com/online/tactical-weapons/radical-tactical-firepower/

S.W.A.T. team commander Capt. Mohamed Lostan of the Passaic County Sheriff�s Dept. in NJ is a particularly enthusiastic supporter of the handgun and cartridge. �While our department issues .40-cal. pistols, our S.W.A.T. team is allowed to carry any handgun they want to use as long as they purchase it themselves and qualify with it, In fact, I was the first one on the team to carry the Five-seveN, although now several others do as well,� he continued. Lostan definitely knows his way around firearms. In addition to his 23 years with the sheriff�s department and current position he also served in the U.S. Army in the 3rd Division Recon Unit and the 82nd Airborne Division.

�I was so impressed by the 5.7�28mm cartridge used in the P90 that I asked permission for S.W.A.T. team members to be able to carry Five-seveN pistols if we purchased them on our own.�




The Five-seveN pistol has no problem firing lots of rounds very quickly and accurately; the Fort Hood shooting demonstrated that very clearly. Many of the witnesses mistook the gunshots for fully automatic fire (hence the early reports of 3 suspected shooters).




On the contrary, there is a wealth of information available from the Fort Hood shooting. The Wikipedia article is a good start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting




Per news reports, most of the wounded were shot in limbs and other non-vital areas of their bodies. A fatality rate of about 30% is average (or above-average) for handgun bullets. There is no reason to think the exact same results would not have been produced with a 9mm, .40 S&W, or .45 ACP pistol. See, for example:

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-02-06/...ltiple-shell-casings-student?_s=PM:CRIME

Two men were arrested Sunday in connection with a shooting that left an Ohio university student dead and 11 other people wounded, police said.

<snip>

The shooting happened at a house where members of the Omega Psi Phi fraternity were holding a party, Hughes said.

<snip>

Authorities found multiple shell casings from two semiautomatic handguns, one a .40-caliber and the other a .45-caliber, Hughes said.




On the subject of hunting, here are a few animals (posted elsewhere by various people) taken with the caliber:











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

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




Actually, there are numerous 5.7x28mm loads available from Elite Ammunition that penetrate 12+ inches of calibrated 10% ballistic gelatin. Even FN's anemic SS197SR penetrates about 11 inches in ballistic gelatin.




This is completely false. The female police officer that responded to the Fort Hood shooting, for example, was hit once in the femur (the strongest bone in the human body) with a 5.7x28mm bullet, and it shattered her femur into "hundreds of bone fragments." The killer then walked up to her, kicked her M9 pistol out of reach, and walked away. She was lying on the ground badly wounded when a second police officer, Sgt. Mark Todd, stopped the killer. She was already fading out of consciousness when medics reached her. Sgt. Munley subsequently underwent a knee replacement operation and she won't be able to do patrol work anymore. All of this information is corroborated by a number of witnesses including Munley herself, on both her blog and in her trial testimony. See:

http://sgtmunley.blogspot.com/

I was given a second chance at life. I was also fortunate to not lose my leg. The awesome surgeons were able to do an arterial graph and repair my femoral artery. But for a couple of days, there were unsure about the outcome and if I was going to be able to keep my leg at all.

I stay in a lot of pain because the bottom of my femor is blown into hundreds of bone fragments that are pushed into my muscle tissue and until the surgery, they will not be removed.


http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20091202/articles/912029944

Sgt. Kim Munley, who helped stop the shooter Nov. 5 at Fort Hood, Texas, will have to get an artificial knee, which means she will not be able to return to street patrol duty.


http://www.kasa.com/dpps/military/army/Fort-Hood-hero-faces-more-surgery-_3228588

Munley underwent total knee replacement surgery in January and still walks with a cane. She said the most difficult part of her recovery has been learning to rely on others.


The killer at Fort Hood was eventually hit 5 times with 9x19mm, by the way, and he survived to stand trial.




Being armed does not make an individual impervious or magically resistant to bullets; the wounds (and their effects) are not different. As for the soldiers at Fort Hood, they were highly motivated during that attack, one way or the other; all of them were very intent on surviving and helping others survive. Many of the victims described feeling the effects of adrenalin during the shooting.

Two of the victims even charged the shooter with chairs (according to the trial testimony, both were killed with shots to the chest before they could reach him). The female police officer mentioned earlier was also intent on stopping the shooter but by all reports, was incapacitated (and nearly died) by her leg wounds.




You have to realize we're not discussing bricks or needles. We're discussing a tiny pistol bullet (5.7mm) as opposed to other tiny pistol bullets (9mm, etc); they are all very tiny and they are all highly dependent on proper shot placement. With proper shot placement, they all work; with poor shot placement, they all fail. There is a wealth of information available from actual shootings with 5.7x28mm, and every indication is that the caliber is every bit as effective as the common pistol calibers -- even with FN's watered down loads (SS195, SS197).




You just finished posting unverifiable internet stories from supposed shootings with 5.7x28mm. Produce some verifiable data that proves your internet stories are factual (don't cite a post on some other forum, either, because that won't prove anything).

I am not at liberty to disclose things told to me in professional confidence, therefore I suppose we are at an impasse. I guess we will have to agree, to disagree.

BT927....welcome to the campfire----your first entry is a great one----very convincing. Looking forward to more in the future. Fill us in on your background, you appear to speak from experience.

Greg,

HAPPY BIRTHDAY! to you and all other Marines here at the fire.

Cheers,

Pete

Thanks Pete, and Urrahh to any Teufel Hunden at the fire.
Semper Fi,
Greg

Let me get this straight. You were told something in "professional confidence", but decided that the content of that confidence could be breached in an open forum. When asked to substantiate the allegations made public in your posting you decline to do so on the basis of a sense of loyalty to an already betrayed "professional confidence".

Hmmm.

Seems to me that this is more about veracity than disagreement.

Thanks for the welcome. I do have quite a bit of experience with these weapons and I hope to document some testing and other information in the near future with photos and/or videos, for everyone curious (including myself). I should be shooting some coyotes here in the near future with either the Five-seveN or PS90 (or both), with FN's loads and/or with Elite Ammunition's 5.7x28mm loads. I'm sure either will do well; in the process I hope to get videos to share. I also hope to do some various pork shoulder tests with the aforementioned EA loads behind barriers such as car doors/windshields, solid core doors, clothed and unclothed targets (denim), etc. Videos will definitely be included for those tests.

Anyway, I found some of the comments in this thread misleading so I couldn't resist. One thing I neglected to mention is the gelatin testing that Brassfetcher independently conducted with EA's 5.7x28mm ammo. Here are the high speed videos from their testing (9mm included for comparison purposes, but note that the videos aren't quite to scale):


9x19mm 147-grain Remington Golden Saber (1,000 ft/s):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKC832xZ6RA


EA 5.7x28mm 28-grain S4M (2,600 ft/s):

http://www.eliteammunition.net/f/5.7x28mm_Elite_Ammunition_S4M.wmv


EA 5.7x28mm 50-grain Pro II (1,800 ft/s):

http://www.eliteammunition.net/f/5.7x28mm_Elite_Ammunition_ProtecTOR_II.wmv

BT927 - Excellent post on the 5.7, thanks for the info.

I have shot the P90 when doing some training with a large city SWAT team. They used it as an entry weapon, and they very much liked it. They were't impressed so much with the single round effectiveness as the ability to put mulitiple rounds ACCURATELY on target, in a split second. This was verified when I dumped anywhere from 3 shot to 10 shot groups of full auto fire into remarkably tiny groups from 25 yards. It is easily the most controllable SMG I've ever fired. The trigger takes a lot of getting used to, but after that, it's just plain the easiest SMG to shoot. So I've been convinced of the P90, but I'm starting to give some new consideration to the FN57 now.

Where is "here"---where abouts do you live???

MO.

check your PM

FN 9mm or the S&W MP 9mm.

Is there any advantage to the 5.7 over a 5.56 in a carbine??? In a pistol it'll penetrate but one 22 caliber hit probably won't stop anyone attacking you

Yes, the P90 (or an SBR'd PS90) is much smaller and lighter than a 5.56mm carbine and still carries more ammunition.

I think there is one other (military) advantage to the 5.7x28 round and that is that it would allow NATO to develop multiple platforms (rifles, pistols, etc.) around a single cartridge. This logistical advantage would free up billions of dollars in military spending, which in turn would allow NATO countries to focus more on the development of battlefield "smart technologies", thus placing fewer soldiers in harms way in any future conflict.

Gotta get past the politics of NATO, specifically Germany and H&K.

Ultimately, since the US foots the bill for about 75% of NATOs costs, Germany will adopt the 5.7x28; either that, or it will find itself the sole NATO partner using the H&K developed 4.6x30mm cartridge. Given that the USA, France, Canada, and the United Kingdom all favour the 5.7x28 (and that it has already been adopted by several NATO countries), politics aside, I think the Germans will fall in to lock-step with the rest of NATO.

Going back to your original question I like my M&P a lot. It's been 40 years since I got out of the Marines but If I were back in that would be the gun I prefer. Although, I'd certainly prefer it in 45.

WOW ! I thought I was a fan of the 5.7 FN. Do keep us informed. I'm begining to like my fascinating little pistol more and more. Have to try handloading it later on after the hunting seasons. E

Why are talking carbines now? Why would the Army and Marines goes and buy new P90s to replace late model M4s? An amateur talks weapons and professionals will discuss logistics...

Logistically speaking supplying one round that functions in multiple platforms is the reason NATO is considering adopting the 5.7x28mm. FN has structured several firearms around the 5.7x28 platform; a pistol, a sub-machine gun, and a carbine.

Sort of a modern day Winchester 73?? It's kind of the Pointing Labrador Retriever syndrome of firearms development---one caliber to do it all. The late Gene Hill lamented pointing labs as doing alittle of everything, but nothing as well as a specialist. Old Writer, is it a good idea in your opinion to have a single caliber in so many platforms???

Yes, and No.

From the purely supply side of things it makes sense to use one round in as many firearms as possible; pistol, rifle, sub-machine gun, and light machine gun. The "No" side of the equation is that by selecting a single service caliber for multiple weapons platforms there are inevitably going to be trade offs-- what makes a superb pistol round may be marginal at best in a light machine gun.

On the face of things, it looks as if NATO (the prime instigator of the single cartridge concept) has looked at how wars have been fought over the last twenty years and have determined that a cartridge with a militarily effective range of 400-600m is optimal for the type of warfare NATO troops are apt to be engaged in in the foreseeable future, hence their pushing for NATO to adopt the 5.7x28 round.

On the surface this looks to be a reasonable compromise. Most fighting is now done in the 200-400m range, and large battles, such as were fought in WWII, are unlikely to happen in the future; battlefield technology has changed. Likewise, the type of enemy NATO is apt to engage is different. Instead of facing multiple divisions of the Red Guards, NATO troops are more apt to deal with bands of armed insurgents, irregular forces who will be more comfortable with swift, close combat attacks before melting into the hills or the alleys of a city. In this instance arming NATO troops with multiple platform weapons systems built around a single caliber makes sense.

Just as the 19th century saw light and heavy regiments of infantry and cavalry, I'm guessing that the 21st century will see something similar, with the average NATO grunt/ground pounder being armed with lighter weapons tailored to the requirements of 21st century warfare. When the field of battle changes NATO will probably roll out the "heavies", troops who will be deployed with the weapons and training to fight in "unconventional" battlefield environments.

No, it's not. Dr. Gary Roberts and his group as well as the FBI have done extensive testing of this round and have found it woefully inadequate on a number of fronts.

Copied from a post by Dr. Roberts:

10/13/11

"Several papers have described the incredibly poor terminal performance of the 5.7 x 28 mm projectiles fired by the FN P90:

--Dahlstrom D, Powley K, and Gordon C: �Wound Profile of the FN Cartridge (SS 190) Fired from the FN P90 Submachine Gun". Wound Ballistic Review. 4(3):21-26; Spring 2000.
--Fackler M: "Errors & Omissions", Wound Ballistic Review. 1(1):46; Winter 1991.
--Fackler M: "More on the Bizarre Fabrique National P-90", Wound Ballistic Review. 3(1):44-45; 1997.
--FBI Academy Firearms Training Unit. FBI Handgun Ammunition Tests 1989-1995. Quantico, U.S. Department of Justice--Federal Bureau of Investigation.
--Hayes C: �Personal Defense Weapons�Answer in Search of a Question�, Wound Ballistic Review. 5(1):30-36; Spring 2001.
--Roberts G: �Preliminary Evaluation of the Terminal Performance of the 5.7 x 28 mm 23 Grain FMJ Bullet Fired by the New FN P-90 , Using 10% Ordnance Gelatin as a Tissue Simulant�, AFTE Journal. 30(2):326-329, Spring 1998.

"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 Magnum. Even 9mm NATO FMJ makes a larger wound--and we are all aware of the awe inspiring incapacitation potential of M882 ball from the M9......

"A few large U.S. LE agencies adopted 5.7 mm weapons--after being involved in several OIS incidents with P90's, 5.7 mm usage in these agencies plummeted as a result of the poor terminal performance.

"It is all basic physics and physiology. Look at the surface areas in contact with tissue for 9 mm FMJ and JHP compared to 5.7 mm. When both are point forward, the 9 mm FMJ crushes more tissue than the 5.7 mm; for the short time that the 5.7 mm is at FULL yaw, it crushes a bit more tissue than the 9 mm FMJ. At no time does the 5.7 mm crush more tissue than the expanded 9 mm JHP--even when the 5.7 mm FMJ is at full yaw, an expanded 9 mm JHP crushes more tissue. The relatively small temporary cavities produced by both the 9 mm and 5.7 mm projectiles are not likely to cause significant injury to the majority of elastic structures of the body.

"The P90 can definitely penetrate soft body armor, but then so can 9 mm AP rounds. The greater momentum of 9 mm bullets allow them to defeat vehicles and other intermediate barriers better than the 5.7 mm bullets. Standard 9 mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP JHP loads crush more tissue, offer ideal penetration, and are equally likely to not exit the opponent as the 5.7 mm. 5.56 mm and 6.8 mm weapons offer significantly superior terminal effects compared to 5.7 mm. Bottom line�what does the P90 offer that is not already available?"

All of the research cited by Dr. Roberts was conducted at least ten years ago (Robert's own paper was published thirteen years ago).

The decision by NATO is based on research conducted over the past five years, and may be more reflective of the ammunition currently in use.

to borrow from an article by david fortier on military small arms magazine referenced in the wikipedia article:

5.7x28mm
In the 1980s, lightweight personal body armor was becoming more prevalent among Soviet units. While these flak jackets were easily penetrated by rifle fire, they were able to defeat 9x19mm ball rounds. So there was growing concern over NATO�s 9x19mm weapons being rendered obsolete. Fabrique Nationale recognized this threat and began working on a solution in the 1980s, an effort that picked up steam when NATO established the CRISAT target--a 1.6mm titanium plate and 20 Kevlar folds--as a penetration standard. FN responded with a small-caliber, high-velocity cartridge called the 5.7x28mm.




A small bottlenecked cartridge with a 28mm-long case, it�s topped with a .224-inch-diameter projectile. The standard military SS190 ball loading features a 31-grain armor-piercing FMJ-BT projectile, and there are tracer, subsonic and practice rounds, too--as well as commercial 40-grain sporting ammunition (SS196 and SS197). (Editor�s note: FN and ATK, parent of Federal Cartridge, recently signed a distribution agreement under which ATK would become the exclusive distributor of commercial sporting ammo in the U.S.; the restricted law enforcement and military ammunition remains an FNH USA product.)




The cartridge�s overall length is 40.5mm, and it weighs half what a 9x19mm cartridge does. To cut through soft body armor, the .224-diameter SS190 projectile incorporates a cone-shaped steel penetrator sitting atop an aluminum core surrounded by a steel jacket.




Velocity of the 5.7x28mm SS190 ball load from a P90 PDW�s 10.2-inch barrel is 2,346 fps. Fired from an FN Five-seveN service pistol it still clocks a respectable 2,133 fps. Despite the high muzzle velocity, recoil is approximately 30 percent less than a 9x19mm. The 5.7x28mm is capable of defeating the CRISAT target at 200 meters

this intrigues me on several counts. One, talking to a special forces type a couple of years ago he confirmed the effectiveness of a Vmax hornady bullet in the 5.56 that i had got a glimpse of one soldier loading into a rifle via the t.v.
I had experimented with these and they are nasty bullets.
two: The velocity of the pistol is similar to that of one of the so called AR15 pistols, but in a smaller package.
Then i remember something from a number of years ago where somebody was fulling with as i remember either a CZ or a 1911 platform with a necked down to .224 40s&w casing. Similar velocities, and you could put a A.P. bullet in it. Sound Familiar?
I will have to rethink this caliber, because with the RIGHT bullets i think it would be flat destructive, particularly with the flat ballistics easy shooting and large mags.

I might add try some vmax loaded in .223 and shoot some steel plates. Goes right through

His full title is Dr. Gary K. Roberts, DDS (note that he is a dentist, not a trauma surgeon, forensic pathologist, etc). I am not aware of any credible independent source online that clearly acknowledges DocGKR as an authority on the subject of wound ballistics, let alone gunshot wounds in actual human bodies.

He spends a lot of time posting on the internet, and he definitely has a cult-like following on a few internet forums, but that doesn't count for anything. He has certainly done extensive testing with bullets in ballistic gelatin, and some LE/military organizations have consulted him over the years, but that hardly puts him head-and-shoulders above the other individuals that are typically mentioned in these sorts of discussions. For example, the 28-year veteran of Houston, PD SWAT that I mentioned earlier, who has actually shot people with guns (including the P90), and served three terms as president of the TTPOA (Texas Tactical Police Officers Association).

Furthermore, the individual in question (DocGKR) has not even tested any 5.7x28mm load introduced in the last 15-20 years. What he thinks about an ammo type not offered to civilians (SS190) or an ammo type discontinued 20 years ago (SS90) is utterly irrelevant to a discussion on current 5.7x28mm loads.

Not to mention, two days after the Fort Hood shooting occurred, this same individual was already touting the early media reports that said the killer was stopped by a female police officer who had been shot with 5.7x28mm rounds.

Of course, we now know that the early news reports were inaccurate and that is not what actually happened; despite her bravery, the female police officer in question was incapacitated (and nearly died) from a hit to the leg, and the killer was actually stopped by a second (male) police officer while she was lying on the ground severely wounded.

All of this despite the fact that DocGKR had never even tested either of the ammunition types used by the Fort Hood shooter (SS192, SS197SR); not to mention the misinformation campaign (with regards to this caliber) that he has been pushing for years on forums all over the internet.

More recently, he tried to discount one of EA's 5.7x28mm loads (which he has never even tested) by simply scrutinizing a blurry photo of it that he found on the internet. The man is clearly not impartial; he made up his mind on this caliber about 15 years ago when he shot gelatin with the SS90 prototype cartridge.

Basically, what you are trying to do is use a completely erroneous appeal to authority (http://grammar.about.com/od/ab/g/appealauthterm.htm); in other words, a fallacy in which a rhetor seeks to persuade an audience not by giving evidence but by appealing to the respect people have for the famous. What's humorous is that the individual you are trying to use in such a manner does not even meet the notability criteria for his own Wikipedia article, and I explained above why that is the case.

Nevertheless, let's assume for a moment that DocGKR is definitely a highly respected authority on wound ballistics (i.e. shooting gelatin), and he dislikes SS190 based on his experience shooting gelatin with it. In that case, your argument would still be completely devoid of actual evidence (forum stories don't count and DocGKR has posted no actual evidence of any sort), and your "authority" on the subject is still basing his opinion on ancient testing done with a simulant (gelatin) and outdated ammunition (SS90 and SS190).




You likely haven't even read any of those (ancient) papers. Half of them discuss a 23-grain plastic-core prototype cartridge (SS90) that was discontinued 20 years ago.

The two or three other papers on that list (discussing SS190) are irrelevant from the get-go, in light of the massive amount of verifiable information available on the caliber's performance in actual human bodies (as opposed to a simulant).

Papers aside, nothing else in that post was substantiated in any way. Even the picture in the post is extremely outdated (the projectile pictured is actually the SS90 prototype).

BT, see my responseon the Koolaid thread. I have withdrawn from this discussion.

They'd do quite nicely with the Glock 17. Affordable, reliable, durable, arguably the easiest to support from an armorer's point of view... there are very few down sides to the platform.

Same with the Glock 22 for units allowed more... lets call it leeway.

as it was explained to me....the Glock 17 is designed to be shot well by people that aren't shooters,I've met a number of ex NYPD guys that do private security in the sand box and they prefer the G17.....and the AK over the M-4.

Why no modernized design for the Tokarev round?