tankers personal weapons and 9 mm vs 5.7 mm

[AmmoTech90]

Just spoke with the guy testing it.  No fragmentation.

And that's why you have such good penetration from such a small bullet/propelling charge...and crap wounding characteristics.  Of course to overcome this we just have ensure that everyone has very high levels of markmanship training and can pull off that helmet penetrating headshot everytime.  C8 fired, NATO 5.56mm rounds will fragment out 100 metres, and you can get other 5.56mm rounds that will fragment out further.  And 5.56mm NATO does a pretty job penetrating armour.  Which means you can carry the same family of weapons as everyone else and use the same ammo.

 

[McG]

The 5.7 mm is being considered as a 9 mm replacement.  The current pistol cannot penetrate armour.  The next one will.

 

[AmmoTech90]

Hmmm, interesting.

 

[Kirkhill]

Some more silly questions from the usual source but.... If the 5.7 uses up a bunch of energy punching through armour does it still have enough energy to "drill a pencil sized hole" through the tissue behind?  Does it remain undeformed by the armour?  Would it retain its flight path or would it start tumbling and take kevlar, fabric and dirt into the wound?

Assuming that such a round's effects WERE enhanced by penetrating armour would the effective counter be to not wear armour?

 

[COBRA-6]

I've heard the 5.7mm referred to as causing an "icepick" type wound, and having very poor wound ballistics...

 

[rz350]

An ice pick type wound is better then some bruising and soreness cause the 9mm did not make it though the armour. But would the c8 not be the logical choice, interoperability, and FAR superior wounding power compared to either of the two peashooters being talked about?

 

[AmmoTech90]

Some more silly questions from the usual source but.... If the 5.7 uses up a bunch of energy punching through armour does it still have enough energy to "drill a pencil sized hole" through the tissue behind?  Does it remain undeformed by the armour?  Would it retain its flight path or would it start tumbling and take kevlar, fabric and dirt into the wound?

Assuming that such a round's effects WERE enhanced by penetrating armour would the effective counter be to not wear armour?

Penetration after armour would depend on the range, but, and this is only based on manufacturers information, it would start to fall off at the end of the effective range so I really dont think it's a factor.  Wounding characteristics are often a result of bullet construction and velocity.  There tends to be a minimum velocity, below, the bullet will not fragment/tumble effectively (this is for FMJ), so reducing the velocity before it hits you is normally a good thing.  This is not restricted to SS109 5.56mm, some types of 7.62 and other calibres target effects are highly depended on the make up internally of their FMJ bullets.  There can be some cases where fragmentation occures deeper and for very skinny people this may happen on the other side of them, and by wearing body armour you make yourself fatter...blah, blah, blah...even if I was Twiggy I would still wear body armour with plates.

D

Edit because rz350 posted:
You are talking about apples and oranges.  The C8 fires 5.56mm not 9mm.  MCG pointed out that the 5.7 was being considered as replacement for the 9mm, so the tankers would still be carrying C8s, just not Brownings.

 

[McG]

You are talking about apples and oranges.  The C8 fires 5.56mm not 9mm.  MCG pointed out that the 5.7 was being considered as replacement for the 9mm, so the tankers would still be carrying C8s, just not Brownings.

A bit of both really.  It is replacing the 9 mm, but also in the SMG role which we have generally done without.

5.7 mm clearly seems like the better option for pistol (with the possible exception of the Navy where too much penetration may be a bad thing on a ship).  However, it seems less clear wrt the 5.7 mm PDW vs the 5.56 mm carbine.  From what I've seen of SS109 would balistics, fragmentation typically occurs at a distance that would have seen the round already passed through body of the target.  If this is the case, then maybe the slightly larger 5.7 mm is better.

However, I don't think it is a question of 5.7 mm vs 5.56 mm.  I think it is SMG vs carbine, and 9 mm vs 5.7 mm.

 

[KevinB]

Frankly the 5.7 round does nothing that a 9mm AP round cannot do.  Several units have trialed them, those that then go further have typically set them back in the armoury after a few shootings.

  The USSOC memo on the P90 and FN57 piston pointed out that issuing a 5.7 is the best way to ensure mission failure.

Frankly the idea of requiring a handgun to penetrate armour is assinine.  Someone dreamed it up as an excuse for replacing the BHP, this idea may have had a tiny bit of merit during the coldwar but facing todays enemies its fucking retarded and wasting money that the CF could better spend on somthing else.

IF people want a short weapons system the 10" -11.5" C8CQB (depening on which variant you have these days) is vastly superior in penetration and wounding to the P90 with the SS190 ammuntion.

This is another area where the CF is going off and beating to its own drummer despite what experience and intelligence would dictate.
Mind you at least they killed the 4" bbl C8 idea.

 

[AmmoTech90]

From what I've seen of SS109 would balistics, fragmentation typically occurs at a distance that would have seen the round already passed through body of the target.  If this is the case, then maybe the slightly larger 5.7 mm is better.
However, I don't think it is a question of 5.7 mm vs 5.56 mm.  I think it is SMG vs carbine, and 9 mm vs 5.7 mm.

If the 5.7 does fragment, then the size difference will have no effect because the 5.56mm is sending a heavier bullet (62 grains vs 32 grains) down range with move Mv.
As I6 pointed out, there is a varient of our current weapon that will work in the SMG sized role, and with the right ammo can provide adequate fragmentation and cavity production.

 

[mudgunner49]

Any coherent reasons that they don't like it?  Maybe they were using it for the wrong purposes.

Like what - serving tea??? :  Shooting somebody is shooting somebody.  The 5.7 is great at poking holes but sucks at energy transfer.  We seem to re-hash this every couple of months when someone with the ability to google finds the P90 and flips out into a "Starship Troopers" frenzy, saying things like "It's so cool" or ""That would be the ultimate CQB weapon because it looks mean, and they say it can penetrate Kevlar..."!!

Meanwhile, nobody who knows anything wants one and none of the real-deal, HSLD .mil guys are using it (in investigative circles this is known as a CLUE).  The only folks who seem to want to foist this on the guys who will have to use it have their heads planted firmly up their collective third points of contact, apparently keeping their ears warm. :brickwall:

I guess what this rant is geared towards is this:  QUIT HARPNG ON THE P90/5.7 - IT'S A POS!!!!!! :deadhorse:

Besides, everybody knows that if you want to cause somebody to disappear into a shower of sparks you have to shoot them with a .45  :flameand only from a 1911, not one of those God-less plastic pistols )!!!

...now back to your regularly scheduled programming...


blake

edited to add:  Sorry to all the posters after me that I failed to read prior to ranting - it appears that a number of you said the same thing but were more PC...

 

[McG]

Shooting somebody is shooting somebody.

You can't dumb it down to something as simple as this.  If you could, then there would only be one small arm for all of the CF.  It would be good enough for snipers at record setting ranges, for special forces clearing a room, for infantry attacking a soviet defensive position, and for police officers in Canadian cities.  That is just not the case.  You most certainly can use a weapon for the wrong purposes.

Maybe you still disagree.  Try replace every one of your soldiers' weapons with a pistol have them assualt a dug in enemy and (when they object) fart the line that "shooting somebody is shooting somebody!"

 

[COBRA-6]

Regardless, the 5.7 doesn't get the job done. What good is penetrating Kevlar if it doesn't put down the guy behind it who is intent on killing you NOW. Besides, how many enemy are wearing level IIIA soft armour, is this a pressing issue?

Instead of wasting money on the 5.7 I would rather see the CF spend that money on gunfighting training, and move to a Mk262-type 5.56mm round. A C-8 CQB with Mk262 ammo will work fine in the old SMG-type role and doesn't require new weapon-type training, and a SIG 9mm pistol in the hands of someone who knows how to fight with it (not just shoot it) is an excellent sidearm.

My $0.02

 

[mudgunner49]

You can't dumb it down to something as simple as this.  If you could, then there would only be one small arm for all of the CF.  It would be good enough for snipers at record setting ranges, for special forces clearing a room, for infantry attacking a soviet defensive position, and for police officers in Canadian cities.  That is just not the case.  You most certainly can use a weapon for the wrong purposes.

Maybe you still disagree.  Try replace every one of your soldiers' weapons with a pistol have them assualt a dug in enemy and (when they object) fart the line that "shooting somebody is shooting somebody!"

Sure you can... ;D

OK - let me clarify.  I was speaking in the context of "pistols", as the C7/C8/SPR all do well assuming (a stretch, I know...) that proper ammo is used (Mk262 in it's various mods, Hornady 5.56-spec TAP, that sort of thing).

The pistol is a reactive, defensive weapon and I don't think that anyone in their right mind (there I go stretching the bounds of reason again) would consider engaging pers at range, or assaulting dug in en with a pistol!!!  The pistol is intended for engagement at "bad breath" distances, usually due to failure of the primary, maneuvrability concerns or the need to engage things with the off-hand.

Clear enough now??  See, we're not totally at odds, however I stand by my statement that the P90/5.7 is a POS... oh, and the 1911 thing too!! :flame:

edited to add - Mike, I totally agree, however I'd like to add Glock and Smith M&P to the list of potential pistols (I've bee using the M&P in .40 a bit - to the tune of multiple hundreds of rounds - courtesy of our local PD, and it's everything that Smith pistols haven't been...)


blake

 

[rz350]

Edit because rz350 posted:
You are talking about apples and oranges.  The C8 fires 5.56mm not 9mm.  MCG pointed out that the 5.7 was being considered as replacement for the 9mm, so the tankers would still be carrying C8s, just not Brownings.

Sorry about that. I was for some reason thinking someone suggesting the new PWD's in 5.7, which is why I said stick to the C8, instead of buying some POS that doesnt work half as well.

 

[COBRA-6]

edited to add - Mike, I totally agree, however I'd like to add Glock and Smith M&P to the list of potential pistols (I've bee using the M&P in .40 a bit - to the tune of multiple hundreds of rounds - courtesy of our local PD, and it's everything that Smith pistols haven't been...)


blake

+ 1 on the Glock and other possible pistols. I stated SIG simply because the CF has them in the system right now. I'd prefer the G19 myself...

 

[mudgunner49]

+ 1 on the Glock and other possible pistols. I stated SIG simply because the CF has them in the system right now. I'd prefer the G19 myself...

...I've got mine - but it's for sale.  Not that I don't like it, but I also have a G23, and if I swap out a G19 barrel and use G19 (or 17) mags, I can shoot 9 in it as well as .40 - plus I like the Browning better for 9 - plus I want to be able to afford an M&P in .40 (because I have access to lots of cheap ammo and have 3 other .40's) - plus if I buy something new and don't liquidate something, I will p!$$ off my wife who will use something from the arms room to turn my birth certificate into a useless document...

you get the idea...


blake

 

[McG]

Frankly the idea of requiring a handgun to penetrate armour is assinine.  Someone dreamed it up as an excuse for replacing the BHP, this idea may have had a tiny bit of merit during the coldwar but facing todays enemies its fucking retarded and wasting money that the CF could better spend on somthing else.

Why should we not want the pistol to penetrate armour?  We wear armour.  Do we think that the enemy will remain oblivious to the protective value it offers?  Keep in mind, the Army has to think about more than just today's battles.  The army needs to be getting kit that will work in the fight that might start tomorrow.  We could find ourselves in another Yugoslavia where our firepower must be effective against a modern(ish) threat.

And, despite the calling down of Canadian weapons procurment, the US Army is also looking for a PDW and 5.7 mm is still on thier radar.  (there are quotes from the general commanding general PEO soldier to this effect in some recent Jane's articles)

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Anyone looked at a AP round for 357Sig? If you wanted a PDW/SMG with some punch that would seem to offer the best of many worlds. However some of the bull pups seem to offer SMG length weapons using standard 5.56 and standard mags and not much bigger than the P90.

How about a modernized 7.62x25 round in a PDW?

 

[tank recce]

What's that?! An LMG and 203 per recce ptl?? Don't you know that recce isn't supposed to fire its weapons - that's why they don't get any!  :

/bitterness, back to your regularly scheduled (quite fascinating, actually) thread.

Actually, I do find that a fascinating weapons load-out, especially the turret-roof carbines. How would you secure the rifles from flying away during spirited bajaing, or being eaten by low-hanging trees, while still being available RIGHT F'n NOW when Abdullah Abdullah darts at you from the under brush, carrying a vest-load of ugliness? We did something like that during the last few Cougar Exs, with the slings anchored to the wirecutters, but it didn't strike me as a particularly workable arrangement...