Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Smokin Joe
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.
|
I definitely agree that the FBI 'haven't a clue' regarding ballistics of handgun rounds; it was their organisation that coined the term 'Relative Incapacitation Index' in the 80s when they were evaluating rounds for their next generation handgun.
Their criteria of an effective bullet was how it performed against water (hydrostatic shock) given that 75% of our bodies if composed of water. It sounds plausible, but hold on. The Feds further concluded that the way forward as a light bullet travelling at high velocity, they decided that the optimum was a 10mm 125 grain bullet for their new S & W 1076 DAO pistols.
Unfortunately they discovered, during a bank shootout, that this was the biggest mistake of their lives. Several agents achieved good hits into the chests of robbers and were bemused that they didn't drop, so they fired again and again. I believe finally a 12g shotgun did the job!
The autopsy found that the 10mm 'Light' rounds had penetrated 3-4 inches maximum; indeed they had dumped their energy and created some hydrostatic shock. Not one 10mm killed.
Oddly enough the US Army devised a similar criteria when they were evaluating their new pistol, which turned out to be the Beretta M9 in 9x19mm. It was a classic 'anti-9' lobby at work.
I wonder why, given the hatred in the US (only) for the 9mm, that it is the pistol round of choice for near every Army, Police and Counter Terrorist organisation in the world. Even the US has adopted it for most Police departments. The only people who are decrying the 9mm are in the US; in the rest of the world we're using it quite effectively.
So coming full circle back to the original critique of 5.7mm; the foundation for stating that it is ineffective because of what happens when it hits water is shakey at best, complete crap at worst.
I've taken part in more .45 verses every other calibre debates than I would care to admit to; everytime we get inside the science from guys with rather high foreheads and practical experience from guys who have 'been there and got the T-shirt', we conclude that the .45 is no better than many other calibres, where the round enters in the body is significant not its diameter.
The comment, in conclusion, that the 5.7 does not have the energy to create the hydrostatic shock channel equal to the .45 is
wrong. Why? The hydrostatic theory of judging wound ballistics effectiveness is wrong.