Not my quote, Wayne Webber's during a press release. If it was inadequate enough to cancel the entire UCP pistol project for all the world markets, then obviously it must have been pretty inadequate performance.Originally Posted by Handy
Not my quote, Wayne Webber's during a press release. If it was inadequate enough to cancel the entire UCP pistol project for all the world markets, then obviously it must have been pretty inadequate performance.
I get that, I still don't have any idea how 5.7 FMJ performs out of pistols compared to 9mm FMJ. They both suck, I was wondering by how much different do they suck.
During WWII the Germans are said to have referred to the 7.62 x 25 Tok cartridge as the "Russian icepick" because of its tendency to punch a small hole in and a small hole out (unless it hit bone).
The 5.7 FMJ is going to have a similar tendency given its velocity. If I had to choose between a FMJ 9mm and a FMJ 5.7, I'd take the 9mm (reluctantly) unless I was expecting to face body armor. Personally, I think a 7.62 x 25 might be a better round than a FMJ 5.7.
Look at the photo: when both FMJ projectiles are going point forward, the 9 mm is somewhat superior, when the projectiles begin to yaw, the 5.7 mm FMJ is a bit better, when both projectiles then travel base forward the 9 mm regains the advantage. In all cases, the expanded 9 mm JHP crushes more tissue...
Last edited by DocGKR; 06-12-2016 at 11:31 AM.
Facts matter...Feelings Can Lie
I wouldn't be surprised if 5.7 tends to act like 9mm FMJ and Tok FMJ. But since it is much lighter than Tok and has a very different shape - long and conic - I would also not be surprised if it had wounding effects that were unusual due to yawing on impact.
That's why I asked if anyone had any actual data showing 5.7 FMJ and 9mm FMJ pistol performance. Test evaluations seemed like a better measure than drawing parallels to anecdotes of dissimilar cartridges.
Thank you. I was interested in FMJ to FMJ comparisons because of the discussion about the US Army pistol trials. If the military continues to stand by the Hague Conventions than JHP performance won't be a factor in those trials, and the possibility of light, pointy bullets opens up. Which may explain why the Army left caliber open.
Look at the photo: when both FMJ projectiles are going point forward, the 9 mm is somewhat superior, when the projectiles begin to yaw, the 5.7 mm FMJ is a bit better, when both projectiles then travel base forward the 9 mm regains the advantage. In all cases, the expanded 9 mm JHP crushes more tissue...
DOD JAG has already repeatedly told the Big Army that non-FMJ ammo can be approved for general purpose use, as long as the Army appropriately articulate the requirements. Unfortunately Big Army continues to fail to do as instructed...
Facts matter...Feelings Can Lie
Maybe they don't feel articulate enough to keep individual soldiers from being tried as war criminals? Dunno. I was just interested in the FMJ comparisons.
This is, in part, what the Canadian Police Research Centre discovered in 1999
"the wound capability of the 5.7x28 SS190 is approximately 40 percent that of a 9mm 124 grain FMJ fired from a Glock 19, with appreciably smaller wound size, penetration depth, wound channel diameter and soft tissue volume displacement".
Thank you! I guess they don't yaw.
Reply With Quote
