I wouldn't worry too much about people niavely purchasing 5.7 guns/ammo. The expense alone may deter many. It's not that big a deal or mistake if someone gets "sucked into" getting one.
I don't worry at all about what people buy with their firearms budgets. But if people buy a 5.7 for personal protection I do think they deserve to be informed that this round has not stood up to scrutiny by serious end-users. See following post.
I know a devestating case can be made on 'one-side' against the 5.7 round in comparison to 'other' calibers ... but that is the nature-of-the-beast regarding Caliber Wars.
Sorry, you'll find that the ballistics and tactical community both in the USA and internationally is remarkably united in what works and what doesn't work in the "Caliber Wars". You'll always find lay-people who will loudly proclaim that one standard service caliber or another doesn't work, but among the professionals you'll find that no one has much preference for 9mm/357 SIG/40S&W/45ACP in handgun calibers, or 5.56mm NATO/7.62 NATO for carbines or rifles.
Many in the U.S. do not like its lack of terminal performance at conversational distances. The Europeans however designed it for effective military defense at longer ranges. It is what it is ...
I confess I don't know which European agencies/powers issue the 5.7mm to their cops/soldiers. Do you? Are these agencies/countries currently involved in active shooting wars? I'd be interested in knowing who they are. Our military people have uniformly been very displeased with the round. (See following post)
A lot of shooters really like the 5.7 shooting experience.
Fun, protection, high velocity, long range, accuracy, a different experience ... and they know what/why they are doing.
I can heartily concur with the editorial change suggested.
