hand guns

[KevinB]

Preliminary Evaluation of the Terminal
Performance of the 5.7x28 mm 23 Grain FMJ Bullet
Fired by the FN P-90 , Using 10% Ordnance Gelatin
as a Tissue Simulant.
Gary K. Roberts, D.D.S.

The results of this paper mirror those described by Fackler and the FBI Firearms Training Unit. [4,5] The 5.7 x 28 mm
23 gr FMJ bullet currently fired by the FN P-90 has insufficient penetration for law enforcement and military use. Vital
anatomic structures are located deep within the body, protected by various layers of tissue. The average thickness of an
adult human torso is 9.4 in (24 cm). The major blood vessels in the torso of even a slender adult are located
approximately 6 in (15 cm) from the ventral skin surface. [6] From oblique and transverse angles, the heart and major
blood vessels of the torso can be over 7.9 in (20 cm) deep. [7] Thick clothing, body angulation, and intervening
anatomic structures, such as excess adipose tissue, hypertrophied muscle, or even an arm, hand, or shoulder, can increase
the distance a bullet must penetrate to reach the vital organs and blood vessels of the torso.
Bullets must be able to penetrate deeply in order to disrupt the major organs and blood vessels in the torso and cause the
massive hemorrhage which results in rapid incapacitation in the absence of central nervous system trauma. [8] The
critical factor in assessing the wounding effectiveness of small arms projectiles, from the perspective of military and law
enforcement personnel, as well as civilians who depend on firearms to protect themselves, is the ability of the bullet to
reliably penetrate approximately 12 in (30.5 cm) of soft tissue, the minimum depth necessary to ensure disruption of the
major organs and blood vessels in the torso from any angle and despite intermediate obstacles. [9] The limited
penetration of the 5.7mm x 28mm 23 gr FMJ bullet, coupled with its sharp curvature diverging from the initial wound
track and point of aim, prevent this projectile from reliably disrupting the deeply positioned organs and blood vessels in
the center of mass of the torso, the target law enforcement and military personnel are trained to fire at to cause
physiological incapacitation.CONCLUSION
Numerous other bullets commonly used for law enforcement and military applications, such as the 9mm 147 gr JHP,
.40 S&W 180 gr JHP, .45 ACP 230 gr JHP, 5.56 x 45 mm NATO 55 gr and 62 gr FMJ and several .223 JHP/JSP, 12
gauge shotgun slugs and 00 buckshot, provide better penetration, crush more tissue, and have far greater potential to
reliably physiologically incapacitate an aggressor than the 5.7 x 28 mm 23 gr FMJ bullet currently fired by the FN P-90.
[10]
REFERENCES
[1] Roberts G: â Å“Comparison of the Terminal Performance of 9mm Parabellum, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP Jacketed
Hollow Point Bullets Intended for Law Enforcement and Military Special Operations Applications, Using 10%
Ordnance Gelatin as a Tissue Simulantâ ?. Wound Ballistics Review. 1 (4):32-37.
[2] Fackler ML: "The Wound Profile: A Visual Method for Quantifying Gunshot Wound Components". The
Journal of Trauma. 25(6):522-529; 1985.
[3] Roberts GK & Bullian ME: "Comparison of the Wound Ballistic Potential of 9mm vs. 5.56mm (.223)
Cartridges for Law Enforcement Entry Applications." In Press Tactical Edge.
[4] Fackler ML: "Errors & Omissions", Wound Ballistic Review. 1(1):46; Winter 1991.
[5] FBI Academy Firearms Training Unit. FBI Handgun Ammunition Tests 1989-1995. Quantico, U.S.
Department of Justice--Federal Bureau of Investigation.
[6] Fackler ML: "Letter to the Editor: Bullet Performance Misconceptions". International Defense Review. 3:369-
370; 1987.
[7] Fackler ML: "The Ideal Police Bullet", Internal Security and Co-In Supplement to International Defense
Review. 11(Supplement #2):45-46; 1990.
[8] Patrick UW: "Handgun Wounding and Effectiveness". FBI Academy Firearms Training Unit. Quantico, 14
July, 1989.
[9] FBI Academy Firearms Training Unit: "9mm vs. .45 auto". FBI Wound Ballistic Workshop. Quantico, 15-
17 September, 1987.
[10] Roberts GK: â Å“Law Enforcement General Purpose Shoulder Fired Weapons--The Wounding Effects of
5.56mm/.223 Carbines Compared With 12 ga. Shotguns and Pistol Caliber Weapons using 10% Ordnance
Gelatin as a Tissue Simulantâ ?. Wound Ballistics Review. In press.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Interesting post Brihard because the last I heard the PDW project was all but dead. The navy was considering getting onboard to outfit the Boarding Teams if the weapon was deemed suitable for Boarding Ops.

 

[1feral1]

In all of the three units I have been posted to, I have yet to see an officer carry a pistol. My current Regiment does not even have pistols.

All ranks carry rifles (or else LSWs), although I have never seen an officer with an LSW either.

The belief here is a rifle has more range and fire power than a 9mm pistol, and snipers see holsters as officers, and hence targets.

Even the CO carries a F88.

However there are pistols in the system, mainly the MkIII and L9A1 BHPs, but the odd Inglis is still in svc too. Also USPs, Glock 19s, and Beretta M9s (suppressed with KA QD supressors)

Cheers,

Wes

 

[Jarnhamar]

Wes I worked for a great officer who had that opinion. No matter where he'd go he'd always have a rifle. I remember a few times when I was his driver he'd hand me his pistol to wear, grin and suggest he drivies while i carry his map.  Now thats leadership 
He also ALWAYS carried his own radio (The whole 522 man pack) when on operations and even through work up training, he didn't mess around. (This might might also default to the reason he would hand me his pistol heh)

Re the FN P-90 and friends. With all the hassel we've had to go to to get new helicopters (We still won't see them until what, 2008 - 2012?) and all the dicking around with the C7/striker/etc.. I can't really see anything being adopted. It's probably pretty negitive but all i see this as is a way to spend some money, make little contracts with companies, give some army/civilian people a little pet project. Before any money is spent on something like this it would be nice for us to atleast have all the pistols we need.

The P-90 does seem to be a hit in hollywood though. The team members on stargate use them quite a bit, looks pretty awkward though.

 

[CertifiedNutter]

I thought the cf helped do testing on the P90 in the early phases but never had the coin to buy them. If they are going h&k why not get a bunch of ump's or mp5ks in 9mm for other tasks also? Since the sig and brownings do seem a bit hazardous in the wrong hands. Heck even IMI could easily make a cf uzi with armour chewing 9mm dirt cheap compared to a expensive mp-7 or P90. And pistols for every soldier would be too chaotic unless the war was on :threat:. From my veiw as a hobbiest though the best route available would be FN five-seven pistols with 20rd mags, cheaper than subs and more practical.

 

[CF_Lifer]

Very, Very Nice Pistol.

 

[jonsey]

Nice weapon. 

 

[CF_Lifer]

Yeah, FN makes alot of Good Weapons. The CF seem to like them too......C1 (FN FAL), C2 (LMG Version of FN FAL), C6 (FN MAG), C9 (FN MINIMI), FN Browning Hi-Power.

 

[KevinB]

Gee I guess we should make all our purchases based on aesthetics then?  :  Rather than functionality or need.

 

[jonsey]

Who said anything about desciding based on asthetics?

 

[KevinB]

Well USNSWC Crane,the RCMP and FBI have concluded the PDW's are terminally ineffective...

So I am wondering what woudl then be the criteria for adoption if effectiveness had been ruled out.

Maybe I am being an ashole here - but it really pisses me off when someone looks at a picture and makes a judgement - without having fired it, and without knowing the characteristcs of it - or the characterictics of thr system the army is seekign to replace.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Kevin you are not being an as*hole you are being practical and a realist. Please continue,god knows its needed for posts like this.

 

[CF_Lifer]

I've never fired that model of pistol, but it is made by FN, and as far as I know, they make pretty competent weapons. I dont know what the 5.7mm (am I right?) round is like, does anyone have any info? Kevin?

Andrew

 

[KevinB]

Andrew,

Understood - FN does make good kit and an acquaintance of mine now works for FN and an engineer (he used to work for KAC) in both pistol and now LMG (Mk46 and Mk48)

The problem is the round - I posted LCdr Gary K. Roberts (one of the foremost wound ballistics researchers) findings on the 5.7x28 round previously.  As well the reports mirrors the RCMP and FBI testing "Use of the 5.7 x 28 mm is
a good way to ensure mission failure."  the HK MP7 round has simialr ballistics as well the short M16 variants by M2Corp are near identical.

 

[KevinB]

Fabrique Nationale's 5.7x28mm round, and Heckler & Koch's 4.6x30mm round, neither of which
approaches the lethality of the 5.56x45mm NATO SS-109. For an assessment of the PDW, see Charles M.
Hayes, â Å“Personal Defense Weapons â “ Answer in Search of a Question?,â ? Wound Ballistic Review 5,1
(Spring 2001), pp. 30-36.

 

[CF_Lifer]

That 4-inch Barreled (M16A2 type is it?) chambered in 5.56 I'd assume? Looks like a competent PDW. Utilizing already existing Upper and Lower C7 Receivers, as well as Telescoping Buttstocks. Yes, I heard about the problems with the MP7. What about the P90? I doubt they would make a good Field weapon. I'm sure they preform well in Tactical Situations, where the missions are short, and no dirt and grit are a constant issue.

Andrew

 

[KevinB]

The M2 Corp PDW's are a modular platform - however the velocity that the C77 bullet is refduced to atthe muzzle makes for a very ineffective terminal performer - just little .22 holes like some one was stabbed with an icepick.
All of the curent PDW's suffer from a problem that while they may penetrate armour - they do not casue damage in human tissue - so You might have to shot a guy 10-20 times to incapacitiate him/her.  Problem lies here that when you need to use a pistol or PDW you need to stop the threat PDQ - not in 5 min...

There is ammuntion available that could do both from a short 5.56mm or 9mm platform - kicker is that the JAG reveiw on it does nto look good for it could be insinuated that it violates the Hague Conventions

The principal provision relating to the legality of weapons is contained in Art. 23e of the Annex to Hague Convention IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 18 October 1907, which prohibits the employment of "arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury". In some law of war treatises, the term "unnecessary suffering" is used rather than "superfluous injury." The terms are regarded as synonymous. To emphasize this, Art. 35, para. 2 of the 1977 Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949, states in part that "It is prohibited to employ weapons [and] projectiles . . . of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering." Although the U.S. has made the formal decision that for military, political, and humanitarian reasons it will not become a party to Protocol I, U.S. officials have taken the position that the language of Art. 35(2) of Protocol I as quoted is a codification of customary international law, and therefore binding upon all nations.
The terms "unnecessary suffering" and "superfluous injury" have not been formally defined within international law. In determining whether a weapon or projectile causes unnecessary suffering, a balancing test is applied between the force dictated by military necessity to achieve a legitimate objective vis-à-vis suffering that may be considered superfluous to achievement of that intended objective. The test is not easily applied. For this reason, the degree of "superfluous" injury must be clearly disproportionate to the intended objectives for development and employment of the weapon, that is, it must outweigh substantially the military necessity for the weapon system or projectile.
The fact that a weapon causes suffering does not lead to the conclusion that the weapon causes unnecessary suffering, or is illegal per se. Military necessity dictates that weapons of war lead to death, injury, and destruction; the act of combatants killing or wounding enemy combatants in combat is a legitimate act under the law of war. In this regard, there is an incongruity in the law of war in that while it is legally permissible to kill an enemy combatant, incapacitation must not result inevitably in unnecessary suffering. What is prohibited is the design (or modification) and employment of a weapon for the purpose of increasing or causing suffering beyond that required by military necessity. In conducting the balancing test necessary to determine a weapon's legality, the effects of a weapon cannot be viewed in isolation. They must be examined against comparable weapons in use on the modern battlefield, and the military necessity for the weapon or projectile under consideration.
In addition to the basic prohibition on unnecessary suffering contained in Art. 23e of the 1907 Hague IV, one other treaty is germane to this review. The Hague Declaration Concerning Expanding Bullets of 29 July 1899 prohibits the use in international armed conflict:
". . . of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions."
The U.S. is not a party to this treaty, but U.S. officials over the years have taken the position that the armed forces of the U.S. will adhere to its terms to the extent that its application is consistent with the object and purpose of Art. 23e of the Annex to the Hague Convention IV, quoted above.

COL W. Hays Parks USA

 

[1feral1]

About the FN C1, well did you know that Canada was the first country to adopt and mass produce it? Its by far different from its FAL cousin, and if I remember right its a few things like the piston, and carrier and breech block which look similar, but beyond that, the FAL was a different kettle of fish. Different trigger gp, pistol grip, lowere reciever, gas reg, plug,and stock, etc, etc.

So, dont go calling it a FAL, thats an insult to the tonnes of Cdn engineering which went into the rifle back at the CAL plant in Ontario.

The C1 was an 'inch ptrn' of the design, and other countries to produce the inch ptrn was the UK and Australia. The UK never produced the C2, but stuck to the L4 BREN in 7.62mm NATO.

India cheated and built a version of theirs called the 1A1, and it has designs from both inch and metric versions. All not under licence either, which had FN Herstal having kittens for yrs.

As for the C2, the Aussies also produced this version known as the L2 or AR as they called it here. Several Cdn purchased components such as the the front sight ears, bipod assy, carrying handle, and the original C2 body cover mounted rear sight ( not adopted on the C2A1) too.

A note on the Cdn Browning High Power pistol too, this was made by John Inglis (a la washing machine company) during WW2 in Canada, between about Jan 44 to the wars end, and ALL T series Inglis pistols in CF service are ALL watime made. Not bad after being over 60 yrs old, eh.

Yes some parts interchange between it and its FN herstal parent pistol, but wartime manufacturing, and 'inch' conversion, plus a few other hickups have created some problems. Even the thread size is different on the lower for the grips, along with a few other things too.

Cheers,

Wes

 

[CF_Lifer]

Yeah, I think its time the CF adopted a new Pistol. The Browning HP has served us long enough. It is still a Competent Service Pistol, but cant match the quality of say a SIG P225, or P226 (Personally, I love the P226, and its going to be the next Pistol my dad buys. I think in .40, so to make it a competent IPSC Pistol)

 

[MG34]

The Sigs are nice to be sure ,however they will not be issued as a general service pistol for a few reasons. There are tons of unissued brownings sitting around in the supply system,more than enough to last a few more decades.The current issue service 9mm Ball is too "hot" for the Sigs and wears them out prematurely and causes damage.Sure tha ammo could be changed but that would take money.The pistol replacement and PDW projects are all but gone,simply put there is no cash.The 2 prime contenders the FN P-90 and HK MP7 have not proven to be anymore effective than 9mm or 5.56mm. The FN 57 pistol has yet to be proven,given it's dismal performance in soft tissue (once again no better than 9mm)I would not hold my breath for one. There is nothing wrong with the Browning,it is old but it works..If it ain't broke ..