Quote:
|
Originally Posted by barney_rubble
I'm not in agreement with your assessment of the wounding potential of the 5.7mm v .45; the older technology of the .45 is just that 'old'. 5.7mm is far more effective.
When you cut to the bottom line, shot placement is the key. A .22 LR will do just as good a job at close quarters if you put it in the right place; a .45 in the wrong place will still be ineffective.
My information comes from a 22 year association with weapons, shooting them, trialling them, operational research and learning about what is going on there. Don't make the mistake that others do - it's the UK, what do they know about weapons because they don't have any. The Army is quite flush with them and we know what we are doing.
I'm certainly not going to publish my credentials on the net; anyone here who is stating their past is letting themself wide open under opsec.
|
Even the FBI says the 5.7mm has less than acceptable terminal ballistics after it impacts a water mass.
I'm not saying the FBI is the end all be all of ballistical data (because they defiently are not) but if even they are saying it is unacceptable. I'll stick with the .45 acp. Because there is no way that a 5.7mm will make the same size hole as .45acp. And the round doesn't have enough energy to create the hydrostatic shock channel equal to a .45.