24hourcampfire.com
24hourcampfire.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 5 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 18,881
E
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
E
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 18,881
Now that I have to agree with ! E

BP-B2

Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 17
B
New Member
Offline
New Member
B
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 17
Originally Posted by tex_n_cal
And those 62 gr bullets were going a lot faster out of m16's, than any 5.7-launched bullets...

But I do wish folks would quit saying the 5.7 is a challenge to reload, 'cause they're getting me intrigued, and I had really planned to go buy other stuff smile If I did buy one, though it would probably be an AR57 upper for an AR15 smile

They were also being used at much longer distances, so no, they weren't going a lot faster.

Furthermore, they were purportedly failing to tumble/fragment, whereas 5.7x28mm bullets do not fail to expand/tumble/fragment (per any gelatin test or any shooting). In short, that comparison is useless.

Last edited by BT927; 11/19/11.
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 179
G
Campfire Member
Offline
Campfire Member
G
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 179
One thing that has always been consistent about light, fast bullets is the inconsistency of the wounding effect. Once upon a time, the 220 Swift was idolized by gun writers as producing spectacular kills on game up to deer size. Time and experience proved them wrong.
The 5.7 would be a wonderful plinker but as time goes on the results in defensive situations will likely be similar to those of the 220 Swift on big game, very inconsistent.


Glockin' Bob
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." -- Thomas Jefferson
"
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 33
O
Campfire Greenhorn
Offline
Campfire Greenhorn
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 33
I'm not selling my 357. I ready have several 22's

Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 18,881
E
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
E
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 18,881
I don't agree. While back in the day, the .220 Swift was erratic, it isn't today because we now have much better bullets.
That and you can't get something for nothing. The 5.7 FN kicks 30-40% less than a 9mm which, in turn kicks alot less than a .357 Magnum. The FNH pistol holds 20 rounds and weighs 19 ozs. empty.
I suspect with a decent soft point bullet, that will both expand and hold together, like the .22 rimfire magnum from a handgun, it will do alot jobs. E

IC B2

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,005
D
Campfire Ranger
OP Offline
Campfire Ranger
D
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,005
Originally Posted by BT927
Originally Posted by tex_n_cal
And those 62 gr bullets were going a lot faster out of m16's, than any 5.7-launched bullets...

But I do wish folks would quit saying the 5.7 is a challenge to reload, 'cause they're getting me intrigued, and I had really planned to go buy other stuff smile If I did buy one, though it would probably be an AR57 upper for an AR15 smile

They were also being used at much longer distances, so no, they weren't going a lot faster.


Sorry, wrong answer.

Average engagement range in the urban warfare engagements in Mogadishu and in Iraq were significantly shorter than anticipated previously. Engagements in urban environments are typically under 100 meters with a large percentage of engagements occuring at ranges under 20 meters. At those ranges the 62 gr green tip is travelling at close to 3000 fps. Infantry (Army and USMC) units retooled their tactics rapidly to deal with these much-shorter engagement distances and as soon as possible ammunition better suited to unarmored CQB targets was substituted.

Originally Posted by BT927
Furthermore, they were purportedly failing to tumble/fragment, whereas 5.7x28mm bullets do not fail to expand/tumble/fragment (per any gelatin test or any shooting). In short, that comparison is useless.


Where do you get this stuff? Anybody who claims any bullet/ammo type never fails is dissimulating, or has no real world ballistics experience. ALL ammo fails at one time or another. One of the objectives of terminal ballistics testing is to find the line where failures occur. The results tabulated by the FBI and other ballistics testers are based on multiple shots into gelatin for EVERY round they test, because they expect a certain amount of failure as a matter of course. Failure may consist of failure to expand, failure to yaw (FMJ or monolithic bullets), precipitous/premature expansion/fragmentation, failure to penetrate 10-12" of gelatin, etc. All bullets fail at some time or another. The proportion of bullets that perform as desired to bullets that fail is what matters.

If you are actually claiming that 5.7mm FN bullets do not as in NEVER fail in gelatin testing, then you are either lying or your sources are lying, or you're ignorant of the full scope of the tests. And if bullets can fail in gelatin, they can and do for damn sure fail in the real world. It's a matter of when and how they fail that's important.

So clear up your language and your claims, newbie. You're either lying or careless with your claims here.

I've had a couple of interesting callbacks from people who are puzzled by some of your Houston PD claims, BTW. Ballistics data will be forthcoming as well. I'll post more info as it comes to me.

Oh, and I've been asked, how much of your annual income did you say is based on sales of 5.7x28 ammunition and/or firearms, again? Inquiring minds want to know.

Last edited by DocRocket; 11/20/11.

"I'm gonna have to science the schit out of this." Mark Watney, Sol 59, Mars
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,005
D
Campfire Ranger
OP Offline
Campfire Ranger
D
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,005
Originally Posted by Eremicus
I don't agree. While back in the day, the .220 Swift was erratic, it isn't today because we now have much better bullets.
That and you can't get something for nothing. The 5.7 FN kicks 30-40% less than a 9mm which, in turn kicks alot less than a .357 Magnum. The FNH pistol holds 20 rounds and weighs 19 ozs. empty.
I suspect with a decent soft point bullet, that will both expand and hold together, like the .22 rimfire magnum from a handgun, it will do alot jobs. E


Good points, E. Still, for general woods & field deer hunting, would you use a 220 Swift as your first choice?

Most of us wouldn't (and don't), preferring a more traditional deer caliber like the .243 Win, .30-30 Win, 260 Rem, 7mm Rem Mag, or one of the venerable .30's (.30-30, .308, .30-06, .300 Mag). Why do you suppose that is? I think the answer to that question might shed some light on the reasons the 5.7mm hasn't overtaken the anti-personnel world already, as its proponents claim it will and should.


"I'm gonna have to science the schit out of this." Mark Watney, Sol 59, Mars
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,811
J
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
J
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,811
Originally Posted by DocRocket


Don't Drink the 5.7mm Koolaid




Don't worry Doc, I'm not drinking any of that retched "kool aid"



I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 179
G
Campfire Member
Offline
Campfire Member
G
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 179
Originally Posted by Eremicus
I don't agree. While back in the day, the .220 Swift was erratic, it isn't today because we now have much better bullets.
E


I beg to differ. The performance of the 220 Swift on big game is still erratic as ever despite certain improvements in bullet design. The performance of handgun bullets is still erratic despite much research into making them perform uniformly. Hollow points clog up with material and fail to perform as expected. Sometimes they strike bone other times only soft tissue, there are so many variables.
Big bullets punch big holes and have sufficient mass to continue on the intended trajectory. Punching big holes increases the chances of severing large vessels and nerves. Punching bullets clear through the target increases damage to the target. Small, fast bullets are not good at penetration.
I'll not take a 220 Swift out bear hunting, there's a reason bear hunters prefer large, heavy calibers, particularly in CQ.


Glockin' Bob
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." -- Thomas Jefferson
"
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 17
B
New Member
Offline
New Member
B
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 17
Originally Posted by DocRocket
Where do you get this stuff?

Even your almighty dentist has stated that 5.56mm failures were associated with reduced velocities and variations in bullet construction:

http://ammo.ar15.com/ammo/project/term_m855yaw.html

These failures appear to be associated with the bullets exiting the body of the enemy soldier without yawing or fragmenting. This failure to yaw and fragment can be caused by reduced impact velocities as when fired from short barrel weapons or when the range increases.

<snip>

In addition, bullets of the SS109/M855 type are manufactured by many countries in numerous production plants. Although all SS109/M855 types must be 62 gr. FMJ bullets constructed with a steel penetrator in the nose, the composition, thickness, and relative weights of the jackets, penetrators, and cores are quite variable, as are the types and position of the cannelures. Because of the significant differences in construction between bullets within the SS109/M855 category, terminal performance is quite variable�with differences noted in yaw, fragmentation, and penetration depths.


All of the aforementioned factors, again, are completely irrelevant outside of a discussion on 5.56x45mm bullets.



Originally Posted by DocRocket
If you are actually claiming that 5.7mm FN bullets do not as in NEVER fail in gelatin testing, then you are either lying or your sources are lying

There are numerous 5.7x28mm gelatin tests online, but not a single one where the bullet didn't expand, tumble, or fragment (one of the three); the 5.7x28mm (FMJ) bullets that tumble do so consistently, and do so within about two inches of penetration.

Feel free to prove me wrong by posting a gelatin test wherein a 5.7x28mm bullet passed through a gelatin block without enlarging the permanent wound cavity in some way. I'm waiting.



Originally Posted by DocRocket
So clear up your language and your claims, newbie. You're either lying or careless with your claims here.

Speaking of which, you have yet to back up the mountain of misinformation you spouted in this thread; apparently you ran out of time as soon as you got called out on your falsehoods. In that case, why are you still spouting off?

You have proven beyond a doubt you have no clue what you're talking about in this thread; get a clue or stop talking.



Originally Posted by DocRocket
how much of your annual income did you say is based on sales of 5.7x28 ammunition and/or firearms, again?

Zero. I'm correcting your misinformation because it's misinformation.

IC B3

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 22,264
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 22,264
I'm finding these vids interesting:

5.7:



9mm FMJ:



and .45 ACP:



"...the designer of the .270 Ingwe cartridge!..."

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 22,264
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 22,264
oh and coincidentally, I was shooting next to a guy at the range today, with a FN 57. He liked the lack of recoil, but admitted it had a loud bark.

His groups were about twice the size of mine, when I shooting my P238 Sig. The two 1911's, and the 1950's .357 S&W, were much better.

It still might be fun to load in a carbine, or a good SS rifle. smile


"...the designer of the .270 Ingwe cartridge!..."

Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,323
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,323
Originally Posted by DocRocket
.. the 5.7mm FN handgun cartridge...and has been shown time and again over the past 15 years to be an answer in search of a question that doesn't need to be asked.



I have shot a lot of 1 pound 6 month old roosters with a 40 gr 1200 fps bullet.

Body shots do not even create a limp.

When Reagan was shot with a 22, he did not know he was shot.

This is some really poor stopping power.

What makes the 223 rifle work, is the bullet is so fast the shock wave of liquid flesh getting out of the way, does the damage to other flesh.

Lower velocity 22 bullets just make a tiny hole, that will not stop a 1 pound bird.



There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self. -Ernest Hemingway
The man who makes no mistakes does not usually make anything.-- Edward John Phelps
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 17
B
New Member
Offline
New Member
B
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 17
Originally Posted by Clarkm
When Reagan was shot with a 22, he did not know he was shot.

This is some really poor stopping power.

Reagan didn't know he was shot per se, but he felt extreme pain and told U.S. Secret Service agent Parr he thought he had cracked one of his ribs by jumping onto him inside the President's limousine. In other words, Reagan was aware of his injury; he simply didn't know it was caused by a bullet.

Anyway, getting shot and not knowing it is actually a fairly common phenomenon, regardless of caliber.



Originally Posted by Clarkm
Lower velocity 22 bullets just make a tiny hole, that will not stop a 1 pound bird.

The .22 LR has killed countless humans. However, we're not discussing the .22 LR; read the thread title. We're discussing the 5.7x28mm, which pushes heavier expanding bullets at much, much higher velocities than the .22 LR; the comparison you're attempting to make is completely invalid.

Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,323
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,323
Originally Posted by BT927
the comparison you're attempting to make is completely invalid.

"completely"?

Terminal ballistics bring out the worst in posters, in 18 years I have been around gun forums.
Terminal ballistics is what I am least certain about how to improve my game.
Lots of out of control variables, and not enough data.

I have killed ~~ 5,000 rodents with a .223, but I did not learn much about terminal ballistics from it.

[Linked Image]

I do know that there is a vintage of Quikshok from about 12 years ago, made outside the US, that is so powerful that the big rock chucks I shot never made it to their holes.
With a 6" single shot Stevens target pistol, it does 1240, 1286 fps with 32 gr. That will never meet SAAMI.


There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self. -Ernest Hemingway
The man who makes no mistakes does not usually make anything.-- Edward John Phelps
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,811
J
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
J
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30,811
Originally Posted by tex_n_cal
I'm finding these vids interesting:

5.7:



9mm FMJ:



and .45 ACP:




The 5.7 does not look very impressive in the ballistics gelatin test that you posted. The 45 ACP with the 230 hydro shock did more damage in those tests



I got banned on another web site for a debate that happened on this site. That's a first
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 17
B
New Member
Offline
New Member
B
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 17
Originally Posted by jwp475
The 5.7 does not look very impressive in the ballistics gelatin test that you posted. The 45 ACP with the 230 hydro shock did more damage in those tests

That's FN SS195LF, which performs like the SS190 (minus the steel penetrator). The SS195LF is anemic compared to any of the current 5.7x28mm loads by EA, which Brassfetcher has also tested:

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

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

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,510
Campfire Outfitter
Online Content
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,510
Originally Posted by Clarkm

Terminal ballistics bring out the worst in posters,


Put that in quotes, and could be a subheadng for the Handguns Forum.

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 22,264
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 22,264
Originally Posted by BT927
Feel free to prove me wrong by posting a gelatin test wherein a 5.7x28mm bullet passed through a gelatin block without enlarging the permanent wound cavity in some way. I'm waiting.




"in some way" is a pretty low standard.

I did indeed pick out one of the more poor tests of the round, but you previously posted that it always did well in Gelatin testing. Even the 9mm FMJ ammo, not a revered "stopper" in the 2nd video, did much better.

Here's a vid of a lowly .22 LR:



"...the designer of the .270 Ingwe cartridge!..."

Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,261
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,261
No doubt about it, in ballistic gelatin the .45 Auto has the edge, followed by the 9mm FMJ, with the 5.7mm bring up a distant third. What they do in humans especially after going through bullet resistant material is any body's guess.


Don't vote knothead, it only encourages them. Anonymous

"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." Anonymous

"Self-reliance, free thinking, and wealth is anathema to both the power of the State and the Church." Derby Dude


Page 5 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Moderated by  RickBin 

Link Copied to Clipboard
YB23

Who's Online Now
238 members (300jimmy, 01Foreman400, 12344mag, 257 mag, 2UP, 10Glocks, 26 invisible), 1,640 guests, and 897 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums81
Topics1,187,592
Posts18,397,926
Members73,815
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023


 







Fish & Game Departments | Solunar Tables | Mission Statement | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | DMCA
Hunting | Fishing | Camping | Backpacking | Reloading | Campfire Forums | Gear Shop
Copyright © 2000-2024 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.3.33 Page Time: 0.113s Queries: 15 (0.004s) Memory: 0.9103 MB (Peak: 1.0946 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2024-03-28 10:29:46 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS