FN Herstal Firearms banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I went to the ammo forum but this didn't really seem to fit in with the general nature of that forum. Don't know if it's appropriate here either. Mod, I ask that you please move as necessary...thank you! :)

On page 14 of the October issue of Special Weapons for Military and Police 2007, there is an article by Charlie Cutshaw entitled ".338 Spectre-Ultimate CQB Carbine". The article deals with this round in AR style rifles.

Mr. Cutshaw writes, "As the M16 rifle and M4 carbine gained operational exposure in Iraq and Afghanistan, it was discovered that the 5.56mm cartridge had terminal ballistic issues at any distances other than close quarters battle (CQB), about 50 meters, especially when fired from a short barreled carbine. Without going into details beyond the scope of this article, the 62-grain M855 military issue bullet essentially runs out of steam beyond about 50 meters".
"Enemy personnel shot with the round frequently take multiple hits and keep fighting, which is not a "good thing." Battlefield reports state that the M855 bullet fired from an M4 carbine behaves like a .22 long rifle bullet when it strikes tissue, essentially creating a deep .22 caliber path that causes little tissue displacement. For Special Forces, the solution was the Mark 262, Mod 0 and Mod 1 cartridge manufactured by Black Hills Ammunition. This round is nothing more than Black Hills 77-grain Match ammo in a tan box".......

It also states that the M855, 62-grain bullet leaves the 14.5 inch M4 barrel at 2600 fps, and quickly decreases to the point where terminal ballistics are unsatisfactory.

The article goes on to tell the greatness of the .338 Spectre caliber in a military role.


After reading the article, I started to think about the 5.7x28mm v. the M4/M855 combination. With the PS90 (I have a green USG), we're talking about the same diameter projectile albeit lighter in weight, travelling hundreds of fps slower out of our 16 inch barrels than the M855 travels from the M4's 14.5 inch barrel. I understand that 5.7 projectiles are lighter than typical .223 ammo, and I guess that translates into less kinetic energy behind it.

So, If the writer of the article has his info/facts straight, would I be right in assuming that the 5.7 shot from a PS90 has even less lethality and even worse "terminal ballistic issues" than the M855 does in an M4? I don't know whether tumbling bullets or fragmentation comes into play, but I'm hoping that something does.

For a home defense weapon for my family, I picked the PS90 as it would be an extremely good weapon for someone (Wife and older children) with very little firearms experience....easy to keep on target, and able to more easily hit their target with multiple rounds. If it's ballistics are poorer than the "unsatisfactory" M4/M855 combo, that's a problem.

I know some people will say, that with the PS90 you can just dump more rounds into the target. That's all well and good, except that the longer you take to incapacitate your attacker, the longer they have to do the same to you.

As to the lethality issues, any thoughts??? I'm hoping someone can prove me wrong, and in doing so restore my faith in the PS90/SS197 combo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,519 Posts
andygold, did this report mention anything about what part of the body they were hit by the 5.56 rounds?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
It wasn't actually a report, it was mainly an article about the new caliber, and the weapons available to fire it. I guess the beginning of the article where the author talks of the M4 problems was just a way to get into the "whys" of the new caliber.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,519 Posts
Shot placement is extreamly important. Hitting the CNS or vascular system of the intended is parimount. A 22 cal round to the Brain, Spinal Cord, Heart or large arteries usually result in incapacitation. Bad Guys shot in extremities, soft tissue to include "gut shots" that miss the major arteries may not lead to quick incapacitation.

I wish that the services hadn't went from the 1 in 12" twist barrel to the 1 in 9" and now 1 in 7" twist barrel. I know that the 1 in 7" gives you a flatter flight thus straighter and more accurate, but I think it decreased the tumbling that was frequent with the 1 in 12" twist.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,016 Posts
i dunno it sounds like to me they used the little extreme aka rare cases of the 5.56 mm round and based a opinion on it (while posting a review of a new round hmm makes you wonder) I personally used this round for a better part of a decade, and I know for a fact it will put a person down.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
According to the article, it wasn't the round by itself that was the problem. It was the round combined with the 14.5 inch barrel. The article said that with the 20 inch barrel that problem did not exist.

It was all about too slow of a velocity from the combination of ammo and barrel length.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
11,351 Posts
Well considering that they are talking about a close quarters weapon, I do not find this surprising. 150 feet is a long distance for a CQ weapon, be it an P/PS90 or M4 or whatever - hence the term close quarters.

When I was using an M16 back in my day in the military, what I shot went down with one shot. The only time this was not true was when a non-vital area was hit (extremity) but 99 times out of 100, there was sufficient damage to incapacitate the unlucky recipient.

A good point was made, don't beleive everything that you read, especially when someone is 'pimping' something else.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Terminal ballistics

The 5.7 has been around for a few years now and a number of law enforcement agencies have been using the round in the P90 and USG pistol for some time. There are reports of quite a few CP operatives using the weapons system in iraq but i still dont hear any after action reports of its effectiveness in actual combat. Speaking as a big fan of both weapons i still have doubts in my mind about the round and how it will perform in real situations so I still stick with a .40 for every day carry.
Surely a lot of people in the world have been shot with the 5.7 by now but there seems little info other than reports of its use in Peru and one action in Texas I believe.
Are there any new reports?. Any real world users out there with experience of its terminal ballistics? Does anyone else have that little lack of confidence? The Secret Service has been using it for a while and I understand they are impressed but on what basis??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
I

One thing you must always consider is what a magazine article is supposed to do. i.e sale or promote a product for sale. When i read these gun rags I take alot of what they say with a grain of salt and try to draw my own conclusions about the latest gizmo ,gadget ,and doo-hickey and how it might effect what i might have as a perceived need or an actual need . I just finished reading the same article and I do have respect for Mr. Cutshaws opinion but in Panama in 89 I witnessed M855 ball take down hostiles at just over 150 meters from a then labeled M16A2 carbine pre M-4 designation. As a side note the same Lt that made this hit also made a 70 meter hit with an M856 tracer that took the targeted individual out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
114 Posts
Re: Terminal ballistics

The 5.7 has been around for a few years now and a number of law enforcement agencies have been using the round in the P90 and USG pistol for some time.
13 years if memory serves me correctly?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Re: Terminal ballistics

SuA said:
The 5.7 has been around for a few years now and a number of law enforcement agencies have been using the round in the P90 and USG pistol for some time.
13 years if memory serves me correctly?
You would have thought we would know if it worked or not by now then wouldnt you!!?? But it still seems to be a controversial issue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
96 Posts
More then 13 years, more like 18 if you take into account when FN started developing it. This article points out in a major way why 5.56 pistols are fun and not really an equal to the 5.7 platform. The rate of twist and barrel length needed to stabilize combined with bullet weight, a round, the 5.56, that needs the longer barrel for a full powder burn suffers greatly out of shorter barrels. It's just physics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
commander zippy said:
...needs the longer barrel for a full powder burn suffers greatly out of shorter barrels. It's just physics.
So does the FiveseveN. Considering the smaller velocity difference between the P90 and PS90, the 10.3" barrel length seems ideal for the 5.7.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
96 Posts
thats the point. The smaller case of the 5.7 means a near complete powder burn since the charge is smaller, in the shorter barrel. It was designed from the outset for the P90 length barrel. An efficient burn of fuel always is better then an in-efficient burn. The longer barrel was a decade later after thought so It could be made public sale friendly.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top