Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Your opinion - Most "State of the Art" pistol for military

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?