Lucky Gunner gel testing of 5.7x28mm

https://youtu.be/oMdaQVCEOYw?si=ElGSrCuzqiBIo21W

https://youtu.be/oMdaQVCEOYw?si=ElGSrCuzqiBIo21W

Is 5.7x28mm just overpriced .22 Magnum?

No.

My question after the 22 Mag question is, what does 5.7 do better than 9mm in handguns or 5.56 in rifles?

I have much more faith in a 100+ grain pistol velocity cartridge against bone and ribcage than a 22LR, 22 Mag, or 5.7. I'm not convinced 5.7 has enough velocity in a pistol to be discussed like a rifle cartridge from a terminal standpoint.

It does nothing better than 9mm or 5.56 except one thing, low recoil. I would not use it in a handgun, but medical problems drove me to it in long guns where all the recoil I can tolerate is about rimfire levels, it is that.

22WMR is not as reliable nor durable as this centerfire cartridge in long guns, and my chrono says I am getting 2550 fps from a 10" barrel with LF198, no 22 WMR is getting that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fatdog

It does nothing better than 9mm or 5.56 except one thing, low recoil. I would not use it in a handgun, but medical problems drove me to it in long guns where all the recoil I can tolerate is about rimfire levels, it is that.

22WMR is not as reliable nor durable as this centerfire cartridge in long guns, and my chrono says I am getting 2550 fps from a 10" barrel with LF198, no 22 WMR is getting that.

---

So in pistols, it's a more reliable 22 Mag for low recoil but higher capacity use, and in long guns, it's a low recoil 5.56 Lite?

It is encouraging to see that Lucky Gunner seems to be using shear-validated 10% ordnance gelatin. It would be nice to see them depart from the use of the Clear Ballistics goo and actually do their customer base a useful service that would allow a valid comparison of ammunition in a valid test medium.

However, Chris Baker's (mis)use of terms like ''wound channel'' (3:23) suggests that he may be unaware of the fact that the attribution of damage that occurs in 10% ordnance gelatin does not necessarily correlate with that which might occur in living tissue due to the large difference in elastic yield strengths between gelatin and soft tissues.

Baker's statement with regard to the diameter of temporary cavity ''that really needs to be closer to about 4 inches before we can really rely on the temp cavity to have any immediate effect on the target'' (4:40) suggests a misunderstanding of the phenomena involved since most visceral tissues can sustain temporary cavities greater than 4 inches in diameter without damage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the Schwartz

It is encouraging to see that Lucky Gunner seems to be using shear-validated 10% ordnance gelatin. It would be nice to see them depart from the use of the Clear Ballistics goo and actually do their customer base a useful service that would allow a valid comparison of ammunition in a valid test medium.

However, Chris Baker's (mis)use of terms like ''wound channel'' (3:23) suggests that he may be unaware of the fact that the attribution of damage that occurs in 10% ordnance gelatin does not necessarily correlate with that which might occur in living tissue due to the large difference in elastic yield strengths between gelatin and soft tissues.

Baker's statement with regard to the diameter of temporary cavity ''that really needs to be closer to about 4 inches before we can really rely on the temp cavity to have any immediate effect on the target'' (4:40) suggests a misunderstanding of the phenomena involved since most visceral tissues can sustain temporary cavities greater than 4 inches in diameter without damage.

---

Actually, I'm pretty sure he was saying the same thing you are. He was saying that those smaller stretch cavities will not permanently tear actual tissue. I've heard him say exactly what you're saying about flesh vs gel numerous times. I don't think he meant wound channel as in literal flesh wounding, just perhaps an unfortunate or confusing term for the damage in the gel

I think that you might be misunderstanding the point that I was making; I will clarify...

I reviewed the Lucky Gunner video again.

Baker's statement, taken word for word from the attached video, ''that really needs to be closer to about 4 inches before we can really rely on the temp cavity to have any immediate effect on the target'' suggests that a temporary cavity having a diameter of 4 inches is some sort of threshold for damage in human soft tissues. No such threshold exists. Many visceral tissues—pulmonary, upper and lower gastrointestinal, adipose, and muscle tissue, etc—exhibit no damage when subjected to temporary cavities that exceed 4 inches diameter. The idea that such a low threshold for soft tissue damage exists at just 4 inches of temporary cavity diameter is inaccurate and misleading.

As for Baker's use of the term ''wound channel'', his use of that term in this particular context carries with it the connotation that there is some sort of equivalence or correlation between that which is seen in the ordnance gelatin and in human soft tissues. I agree that his use of the term is unfortunate since it introduces the potential for further confusion into a topic that has seen too much of it already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noah

My question after the 22 Mag question is, what does 5.7 do better than 9mm in handguns or 5.56 in rifles?

---

It can penetrate armor at a greater range than 9mm AP with less recoil and greater capacity, while fitting (rather, being viable) in smaller guns than 5.56 can.

Whether that matters to you and the context you use firearms is a variable, but that's the purpose of the round, why it was designed, and the answer to what it does better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DocGKR

10/13/11

Small caliber PDW's like the MP7 and P90 are niche weapons that have very narrow and specific roles to play.

Below are comments specifically on the MP7 by a combat experienced senior SOF NCO currently serving in the U.S. military:



Pat Rogers, a former NYPD officer and combat veteran Marine, is a highly respected firearms trainer who has also commented on the use of small caliber PDW’s like 4.6 and 5.7 mm:



A decorated, experienced SWAT officer at a U.S. LE agency that has had multiple OIS incidents with 5.7 mm FN P90's has written the following--note that his comments equally apply to the 4.6 mm MP7:



As a result of poor terminal performance, a large Federal agency is also no longer running P90’s like they used to. Likewise, some military units that tried small caliber PDW's in combat are procuring other options, like 9" .300 Blackout uppers to run on M4 lowers.

When a civilian LE agency chooses a full-auto system, significantly more time is needed for training. This increases costs, both in the amount of ammunition necessary to purchase, as well as the need to pay officers for increased time in training, rather than being in the field. Instead of a 1-5 shot NSR with an AR15 based system, with an MP7 each officer is now going to be routinely shooting 15-20+ rounds into each target both in training and in actual OIS incidents, thus the amount of ammo expended is going to be 4 times what would be used with an AR15 based system shooting any common CQB caliber like 5.56 mm, .300 Blackout, 6.8mm, or even 7.62x51mm. How is an LE agency going to afford four times more training ammo for a weapon system like the MP7 that needs to be always shot full auto and whose ammo is more expensive than other common calibers?

In the civilian realm, how is an LE agency going to explain to their Admin and media why they are now needing to shoot every suspect 15-20+ times? In addition, when you are having to shoot 15-20 rounds full-auto at every target, there is a higher likelihood that some of those rounds may miss the target; how is an LE agency going to handle the liability from the potential increased number of missed shots that can occur with a system that needs to be used full-auto like a "fire hose" in order to offer adequate incapacitation of threats?

With the data now available, a U.S. LE agency would have to be woefully ignorant or colossally stupid to purchase the MP7 (or P90) for SWAT use given the numerous weapon systems available for LE SWAT/CQB use that are both better and more cost effective than small caliber PDW's. If SBR's are desired, consider a 10-12" 5.56 mm using properly selected good quality barrier blind ammunition (see: http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.p...-mm-Duty-Loads), 8-12" .300 Blackout uppers when appropriate LE ammo is finally released (6-12 months away); even better get 8-12" 6.8 mm's uppers, or if you want to have the best terminal performance go with the new group of 16" .308 rifles like the KAC SR25 EMC, LaRue Predatar (or OBR for precision use), or the FN Mk17/SCAR-H using appropriate ammunition (see: http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.p...5164#post75164).

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TGS

It can penetrate armor at a greater range than 9mm AP with less recoil and greater capacity, while fitting (rather, being viable) in smaller guns than 5.56 can.

Whether that matters to you and the context you use firearms is a variable, but that's the purpose of the round, why it was designed, and the answer to what it does better.

---

Certainly- the video was discussing the round in a civilian context with non AP ammunition, wasn't thinking about the AP aspect.