The problem we're dealing with here is not that the 5.7mm doesn't perform as well as some other pistol calibers, it's that the fans of the round will not be convinced of its underwhelming performance by whatever evidence that's been put up here and elsewhere.
That "evidence" consists of internet hearsay and obsolete papers written about outdated ammunition. You haven't even made a case against the SS190 (which dates back to the last
century), let alone EA's current 5.7x28mm loads.
You can't "prove" these data. You can only look at trends over time.
Indeed, and the trend is that the 5.7x28mm is generally effective; that trend was established by dozens upon dozens of verifiable shootings with it (the U.S. police shootings make up a small portion of the total number, as I've made clear from the beginning).
No one has been trying to establish a "one shot stop percentage" or "effectiveness rating" for the caliber, ala Marshall & Sanow. The simple fact is that the caliber has been
generally effective, just like the common pistol calibers.
I'm genuinely interested in learning whether the 5.7mm round is the tactical weiner-dog many people say it is, or whether it's a much better round than its reputation to date.
On the contrary, you've been actively fishing for "ammo" that supports your original assertion in the OP:
http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=92823Quote:
"These guys have drunk deeply of the 5.7mm kool-aid, and nothing short of nuclear warhead class information is going to shut them up." (11/19/11)
