posted 06-28-2002 01:19            

We have covered this before--next time do a search.

Other than being able to perforate soft body armor, the 5.7 x 28 mm used in the FN P90, as well as the 4.6 x 30 mm fired from the HK MP7 cause wounds less incapacitating than those made by 9 mm FMJ fired from a pistol.

I have personally fired the 5.7 x 28 mm FN P-90; velocity, penetration, and tissue destruction is like a .17 Hornet--far less than we see with 75 gr TAP or 77 MK out of our M4’s. Winchester RA45T 230 gr JHP’s fired from our duty 1911’s crush more tissue and penetrate further than the 5.7 x 28 mm. Use of the 5.7 x 28 mm is a good way to ensure mission failure.

Several papers have described the incredibly poor terminal performance of projectiles fired by the FN P90.

--Dahlstrom D, Powley K, and Gordon C: “Wound Profile of the FN Cartridge (SS 190) Fired from the FN P90 Submachine Gun". Wound Ballistic Review. 4(3):21-26; Spring 2000.

--Fackler M: "Errors & Omissions", Wound Ballistic Review. 1(1):46; Winter 1991.

--Fackler M: "More on the Bizarre Fabrique National P-90", Wound Ballistic Review. 3(1):44-45; 1997.

--FBI Academy Firearms Training Unit. FBI Handgun Ammunition Tests 1989-1995. Quantico, U.S. Department of Justice--Federal Bureau of Investigation.

--Hayes C: “Personal Defense Weapons—Answer in Search of a Question”, Wound Ballistic Review. 5(1):30-36; Spring 2001.

--Roberts G: “Preliminary Evaluation of the Terminal Performance of the 5.7 x 28 mm 23 Grain FMJ Bullet Fired by the New FN P-90 , Using 10% Ordnance Gelatin as a Tissue Simulant”, AFTE Journal. 30(2):326-329, Spring 1998.

--Roberts G: “Terminal Performance of the 5.7 x 28 mm 31 Grain SS-190 FMJ Bullet Fired by the FN P-90 in 10% Ordnance Gelatin.”, AFTE Journal. In Press.

The early 5.7 x 28 mm 23 gr FMJ bullet fired by the FN P-90 had insufficient penetration for law enforcement and military use. The current 31 gr SS-190 FMJ bullet has nearly adequate penetration, but the wound resulting from this projectile has a relatively small permanent crush cavity, as well as an insignificant temporary stretch cavity. Although the 5.7 x 28 mm penetrates soft body armor, wounding potential is at best like a .22 LR or .22 Magnum. Even 9mm NATO FMJ makes a larger wound--and we are all aware of the awe inspiring incapacitation potential of M882 ball from the M9......

Numerous other projectiles commonly used for law enforcement and military special operations applications, such as a good 9mm, .40 S&W, or .45 ACP JHP, the better 5.56 x 45 mm BTHP/JSP loads, as well as 12 gauge shotgun slugs and 00 buckshot, all provide better penetration, crush more tissue, and have far greater potential to reliably physiologically incapacitate an aggressor than the 5.7 x 28 mm 31 gr SS-190 FMJ bullet fired by the FN P-90. Law enforcement agencies and military special operations units are strongly urged to avoid adoption of this weapon system.

posted 06-28-2002 12:25               

It does however offer the criminal an easily concealed weapon capable of penetrating any of the currently made soft body armor and personal safety equipment issued today.

The results of the tests have been shared and discussed in the restricted LE section of the AmmoLab Forum but FWIW, the photo on the main AmmoLab.com web page at the bottom right is from the 5.7 fired from the P90 carbine.

posted 06-28-2002 14:34            

P.S. Where can I obtain issues of Wound Ballistics Review?

posted 06-28-2002 16:07            

No dilemma--shoot them in the head.

There are 5.56 mm suppressors for the M4 which do not appreciably degrade the terminal performance of the projectile; your standard issue JHP/JSP loads will perform the same against body armor whether suppressed or not.

Contact the IWBA for back issues of "Wound Ballistics Review".

posted 10-29-2003 14:43            

1 - it has been explained to me that the 5.7x28 mm round is actually the same caliber as the 5.56

2 - the P90 has a barrel length of 10.35"

3 - according to this website (http://groups.msn.com/TheMarylandAR15ShootersSite/rifleperformance.msnw), a 11.5" barrel would produce muzzle velocity of 2872 fps with M193.

4 - according to this website (http://www.ballisticards.com/faq.htm), a decrease of 1" would result in approximate 20 fps loss...meaning a 10.5" would have muzzle velocity of 2852

5 - according to this website (http://www.olyarms.com/223cqb.html), a .223 caliber round needs at least 2500 fps to fragment

6 - yet the p90 does not fragment. if it did, it would be a much better weapon. why doesn't it fragment?

7 - do you think that the P90 could be extended an inch or two in order to squeeze enough fps out of the SS190 to achieve fragmentation velocity?

8 - does excess powder (ie, powder that expands outside of the barrel) have any noticeable improvement on muzzle velocity? is that why the SS190 does not achieve the same velocity as a 5.56x45mm out of the same barrel length?

9 - has anyone ever tried to make .223 ammunition that fragments at lower velocities by making horizontal striations, using heat to brittle the metal, or fusing sections together so that they would be prone to break apart on impact, in order to achieve similar wounding profiles to a .223 round that fragmented naturally? (seems like the SS190 would be a perfect round to try this out on considering its increased potential to yaw and its existing ineffectiveness due to not fragmenting)

[This message has been edited by stuh505 (edited 10-29-2003).]

posted 10-29-2003 16:24            

From what you have written you in your posts, I would highly recommend you start reading more and posting less. This is not meant as an insult, but as a recommendation so that you will have some basic knowledge before spewing forth questions and comments that could have been answered or rendered less naive with a bit more knowledge.

Just because cartridges use bullets of the same diameter, they do not necessarily offer the same terminal performance--for example velocity may be substantially different due to differences in characteristics such as case capacity and propellent ignition efficiency. For example .30 Cal M1 Carbine vs. .30 Cal M1 Rifle.

posted 10-30-2003 00:03               

quote:

---

Originally posted by stuh505:
Mr. Roberts, I have been doing a lot of reading.

---

It would be Doctor Roberts if he were answering.

quote:

---

Perhaps the plethora of citations I made did not make this evident. Well I have been reading everything I can get my hands on.

---

With a few exceptions, the www is a really bad place to find knowledgeable information on wound ballistics. I _think_ Dr. Roberts is suggesting you do some offline reading.

quote:

---

If you will notice, most, if not all, of my posts at this point are questions.

---

And I can say for certain that all of them have been answered here previously. The acronym is DAFS. The rule is "DAFS, the ask."

To take your questions is order:

quote:

---

4 - according to this website (http://www.ballisticards.com/faq.htm), a decrease of 1" would result in approximate 20 fps loss...meaning a 10.5" would have muzzle velocity of 2852

---

That is a rule of thumb, don't bet on the numbers.

quote:

---

5 - according to this website (http://www.olyarms.com/223cqb.html), a .223 caliber round needs at least 2500 fps to fragment

---

That article has been heavily edited from the original to hide the problems with low velocity .223s. The 2,500fps "fragmentation threshold (the velocity varies depending on make of bullet) is for USGI ammunition. That threshold number is not for "any .223", just USGI M193 and M855.

quote:

---

6 - yet the p90 does not fragment. if it did, it would be a much better weapon. why doesn't it fragment?

---

Lousy bullet construction, the reasons for that are numerous.

quote:

---

7 - do you think that the P90 could be extended an inch or two in order to squeeze enough fps out of the SS190 to achieve fragmentation velocity?

---

Acceptable penetration and fragmentation can be achieved with nearly any bullet given proper engineering. Why change the launcher?

quote:

---

8 - does excess powder (ie, powder that expands outside of the barrel) have any noticeable improvement on muzzle velocity? is that why the SS190 does not achieve the same velocity as a 5.56x45mm out of the same barrel length?

---

The SS190 does not achieve the same velocity as the M855 from the same length barrel because the case capacity of the 5.7mm is smaller. The 5.7 uses a case that is 28mm long while the 5.56 NATO has a case length of 45mm. To add some mental scale, the .45 ACP uses a case that is 23mm long. Imagine a .223 case as long as a .45ACP topped with a bullet weighing less than those used in .22RFs.

quote:

---

9 - has anyone ever tried to make .223 ammunition that fragments at lower velocities by making horizontal striations, using heat to brittle the metal, or fusing sections together so that they would be prone to break apart on impact, in order to achieve similar wounding profiles to a .223 round that fragmented naturally? (seems like the SS190 would be a perfect round to try this out on considering its increased potential to yaw and its existing ineffectiveness due to not fragmenting)

---

That question in particular shows your need to research, as DocGKR pointed out. The primary thrust of ammunition development since the late '70s has been to increase the lethality of small arms.

I apologize if any of this comes across as harsh stuh505 but this topic has been beaten to death. In the long run, you'll be much better off batting it around the ammunition forum at ARF as I see you have been doing. Unlike ARF, dead horses DO get buried here.

On a side note, I believe this is the picture that NS was trying to point out in the original post of this thread.

You'll note that their own test shows penetration of slightly less than 25cm.

This is the shortcut to the page

More info here.

------------------
Among the winners there is no room for the weak.

posted 10-30-2003 01:12            

Here is a start. I would suggest you also read ALL of Dr. Fackler’s papers, as he is the progenitor of modern wound ballistic research—many of these are available online; a Medline search should reveal the rest. In addition, you should review ALL of the articles published by the IWBA in their Journal, “Wound Ballistic Review” from 1991-2001; these may be harder to find, although you can contact the IWBA to see if back issues are available. Duncan MacPherson is the man who quite literally wrote the book on the physics of projectile wounds, his book is also mandatory reading for a student of wound ballistics (MacPherson D: “Bullet Penetration—Modeling the Dynamics and the Incapacitation Resulting from Wound Trauma”. Ballistic Publications; El Segundo, 1994). The FBI, “Handgun Factors and Effectiveness”, by Urey W. Patrick remains the best overall review of handgun ammunition terminal performance—please read it in full, a Google search revealed it online at: www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm Ignore anything in gun magazines, anything written by Marshall or Sanow, and most medical journal articles--as to why, read: d http://www.firearmstactical.com/afte.htm

and
http://www.firearmstactical.com/streetstoppers.htm
Fackler, Martin L., MD.: "Book Review: Street Stoppers: The Latest Handgun Stopping Power Street Results." Wound Ballistics Review, 3(1); 26-31: 1997.
http://www.firearmstactical.com/sanow-strikes-out.htm
MacPherson, Duncan: "Sanow Strikes (Out) Again." Wound Ballistics Review, 3(1): 32-35; 1997.
http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-discrepancies.htm
van Maanen, Maarten: "Discrepancies in the Marshall & Sanow 'Data Base': An Evaluation Over Time." Wound Ballistics Review, 4(2); 9-13: Fall, 1999.
http://www.firearmstactical.com/undeniable-evidence.htm
Fackler, Martin L., MD.: "Undeniable Evidence." Wound Ballistics Review, 4(2); 14-15: Fall, 1999.
http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-statistical-analysis.htm
MacPherson, Duncan: "The Marshall & Sanow 'Data' - Statistical Analysis Tells the Ugly Story." Wound Ballistics Review, 4(2); 16-21: Fall, 1999.

----------------------------------
Most of your search will need to take place in a medical library, although a very few items are available online:

Numerous articles by Fackler are available here: http://www.AR15.com./forums/topic.html?b=3&f=16&t=164814

and a few additional Fackler articles are available here, along with a couple by Duncan MacPherson (search around): http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs31.htm http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs29.htm http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs24.htm http://www.firearmstactical.com/tactical.htm

Other Fackler articles: http://www.iwba.com/Patters%20of%20Mil%20Rif%20Bullets.html http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/fl_aw_report2.txt http://www.iwba.com/Officer%20Reaction%20-%20Response%20Times%20in%20Firing%20a%20Handgun3.pdf http://www.iwba.com/11OFFICER%20REACTION%203.pdf http://www.iwba.com/Officer%20Decision%20Time%20in%20Firing%20a%20Handgun.pdf http://pw1.netcom.com/~dmacp/Fackler_review.html http://chezjacq.com/fackler.htm http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Fackler/wrong.html

Below is a link to the NATO War Surgery Manual chapters authored by Fackler: http://www.vnh.org/EWSurg/ch02/02MissileCausedWounds.html http://www.vnh.org/EWSurg/ch16/16SoftTissueWoundsInj.html

posted 10-30-2003 01:22            

quote:

---

4 - according to this website (http://www.ballisticards.com/faq.htm), a decrease of 1" would result in approximate 20 fps loss...meaning a 10.5" would have muzzle velocity of 2852
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is a rule of thumb, don't bet on the numbers.

---

i think it is obvious that this is a rule of thumb, but for what i used it for, it was plenty accurate. all i wanted to do is see if the M193 had the same velocity as the SS190 if fired from the P90 length barrel. i found that it did nto have the same velocity and i find this to be rather perplexing.

quote:

---

5 - according to this website (http://www.olyarms.com/223cqb.html), a .223 caliber round needs at least 2500 fps to fragment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That article has been heavily edited from the original to hide the problems with low velocity .223s. The 2,500fps "fragmentation threshold (the velocity varies depending on make of bullet) is for USGI ammunition. That threshold number is not for "any .223", just USGI M193 and M855.

---

alright. still seems like the numbers should be close.

quote:

---

[--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 - does excess powder (ie, powder that expands outside of the barrel) have any noticeable improvement on muzzle velocity? is that why the SS190 does not achieve the same velocity as a 5.56x45mm out of the same barrel length?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The SS190 does not achieve the same velocity as the M855 from the same length barrel because the case capacity of the 5.7mm is smaller. The 5.7 uses a case that is 28mm long while the 5.56 NATO has a case length of 45mm. To add some mental scale, the .45 ACP uses a case that is 23mm long. Imagine a .223 case as long as a .45ACP topped with a bullet weighing less than those used in .22RFs.

---

....you really dodged the question here. this is obvious and it is not what i was asking at all.

let me explain this with a very simple example. we know that maximum velocity is acheived when the barrel length is long enough so that all of the powder will have room to expand behind the bullet and no longer because then a suction effect would be created. i did not feel the need to explain this because i thought it was obvious. i am going to make up some numbers for this example. assume that a 5.56x45mm round achieves a maximum velocity with a 26" barrel. assume that a 5.56x30mm achieves maximum velocity with a 18" barrel. so obviously if i fired the 5.56x45mm out of the 18" barrel, it would have a lot of excess powder and this would result in the powder expanding outside of the barrel in the form of muzzle flash and increased recoil. the question is, does the powder that expands outside of the barrel have any effect on muzzle velocity of the bullet? my intuition made me think that any excess powder would not have an effect. however, when i saw that the 5.56x28mm had lower velocity compared to a 5.56x45mm, i realized that this phenomena could explain the difference in velocity.

quote:

---

9 - has anyone ever tried to make .223 ammunition that fragments at lower velocities by making horizontal striations, using heat to brittle the metal, or fusing sections together so that they would be prone to break apart on impact, in order to achieve similar wounding profiles to a .223 round that fragmented naturally? (seems like the SS190 would be a perfect round to try this out on considering its increased potential to yaw and its existing ineffectiveness due to not fragmenting)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That question in particular shows your need to research, as DocGKR pointed out. The primary thrust of ammunition development since the late '70s has been to increase the lethality of small arms.

I apologize if any of this comes across as harsh stuh505 but this topic has been beaten to death. In the long run, you'll be much better off batting it around the ammunition forum at ARF as I see you have been doing. Unlike ARF, dead horses DO get buried here.

---

huh? my entire point here is trying to understand how to increase lethality. it is obvious in wound profiles of the 5.56 that lethality is increased by fragmentation. the p90 does not acheive fragmentation and does not cause significant damage. thus, it is completely logical to assume that if the p90 round were modified so that it would fragment, lethality would be increased. (this might not be the case due to lower velocity but it is still a logical assumption)

a regular 5.56x45mm round is aided in fragmentation by the groove at the canelure. that is why i suggested making additional grooves/striations to help it fragment at lower velocities. the fact that the p90 round is designed to yaw makes this work even better because horizontal striations would not affect forward motion (aka armor piercing) but as soon as it turned sideways it would lose its strength and fragment into pieces. perhaps only testing would show whether or not a bunch of fragments going at 2300 fps was more or less damaging than 1 unfragmented round at 2300 fps, but why is this such a "dumb" idea, considering that at 2500+ fps fragmentation makes a huge improvement??

posted 10-30-2003 08:01               

quote:

---

Originally posted by stuh505:
i think it is obvious that this is a rule of thumb, but for what i used it for, it was plenty accurate.

---

I'll save you the effort: from 11.5" to 16" you have an average delta MV of 57.8 fps per inch, from 16" to 20" the delta MV is 31.7fps/inch. Quite a difference, and that is just with M193; the values change yet again if I use the numbers for M855...

quote:

---

when i saw that the 5.56x28mm had lower velocity compared to a 5.56x45mm, i realized that this phenomena could explain the difference in velocity.

---

quote:

---

...thus, it is completely logical to assume that if the p90 round were modified so that it would fragment, lethality would be increased.

---

What you seem to be looking for for is how one could you make a round that acts like M193 in the size of a 5.2x28 (though if you're going to duplicate a 5.56 round why not one of the better ones?). With the right powder (assuming it exists) it could be possible to have the 5.7 shoot the M193 projectile. However you now will have other issues to deal with. Vastly increased muzzle blast and flash due to the high pressures. You'll need to redesign the weapon with a stronger bolt locking mechanism to handle the higher pressure. The currnet frame will not be able to handle the battering of this higher powered round so that will have to be beefed up. So unless you come up with some new wonder materials you'll need to make the weapon larger and heavier to a degree - just to get the increased muzzle blast even closer to your face thanks to the bullpup design.

Might as well use an M4 as the good Doctor suggested.

Edited to fix spelling

posted 10-30-2003 10:12            

quote:

---

The difference (as Tweak pointed out) is powder capacity pure and simple. Just as a .300 Win Mag pushes that same .308 caliber bullet faster than .30-06; the 5.56 can launch a bullet faster than the 5.7.

---

like i said before, that is not what i am asking about. i am assuming that the amount of powder is a linear function of cartridge length. thus, i am assuming that a 28mm cartridge has less powder than the 45mm cartridge. it is obvious that more powder will result in greater velocity when there is enough room for both powder loads to expand fully in the barrel behind the bullet. the question is, does having excess powder that does not have room to expand in the barrel behind the bullet have any mentionable effect on muzzle velocity?

EchoFiveMike,

thank you. that makes sense.

posted 10-31-2003 02:29               

quote:

---

Originally posted by stuh505:
Tweak, I am glad that you took the time to make such a thorough response.

---

And I won't bother doing it again given...

Yeah, that's for another forum.[V]

posted 10-31-2003 02:47               

quote:

---

Originally posted by BDUser:
I was under the impression that he would not be on sabbatical until the new year?

---

"Early 2004" I was giving him the benefit of the doubt. :-)

quote:

---

Tweak, you seem to be up on the FN info,

---

That's not me, that's someone else. I just point out the obvious.

FN describes the SS192 round as a "soft point" "JHP" load [rollseyes] that "reduces backstop damage". The combination of the two obviously equals "duty/training" to them.

As it is, the round is a POS and I hope it doesn't take a GG dying to make that obvious.

posted 10-31-2003 12:59               

quote:

---

Originally posted by stuh505:
the question is, does having excess powder that does not have room to expand in the barrel behind the bullet have any mentionable effect on muzzle velocity?

---

i believe this is the question.

i'll not comment on it being answered here or in the homework.