MTMilitiaman
Member
Just because I am feeling feisty I'll play devil's advocate and pose the following question:
Why would the same arguments applied in support of the 5.56 NATO not applying more so to the 5.7x28?
Weight: Ammunition for the 5.7x28 is lighter than ammunition for the 5.56x45, as are weapons chambered for the cartridge.
Controllability: The 5.7x28 produces less recoil, making it more accurate and controllable on automatic fire, as well as making it easier to train new recruits who have limited exposure to firearms before military service.
The 5.7x28 SS190 round is said to have an effective range of 200 meters, where, IIRC, it is rumored to still be able to penetrate the standard modern infantry helmet (Correct me if I am wrong here.). While there is no disputing that the 5.7mm is less effective than the 5.56mm, there is also no disputing that the 5.56mm was less effective than the round that preceded it, but was still adopted for the aforementioned reasons. Also, the common arguments used to support the 5.56 still apply to the 5.7;"I still wouldn't want to get shot by one," and "shot placement is still key."
Note that I am not taking this argument to a level of complete absurdity. I am not claiming the same arguments still apply to the .22 Long Rifle, for example. Both the 5.7x28 and the 5.56x45 are marginally effective intermediate rounds with debatable stopping power that nevertheless seems to get the job done with current tactics at commonly occurring ranges.
The military has already incorporated multiple shots center of mass into its training. There is no reason that same tactics--hammer pairs and failure drills, could not be employed with the 5.7x28mm. There is also no reason the 5.7mm couldn't keep the bad guy's heads down while they were being flanked, and the 5.56mm lacks so much in barrier penetration compared to other common military rounds that there isn't much of it to lose going with the smaller 5.7mm round.
Additionally, going with the 5.7x28 would allow logistics to be cleared up by allowing the adoption of a handgun and a longarm in the same cartridge, effectively eliminating the 9x19 from logistics. The military would just have the 5.7x28, with larger 7.62x51 and 12.7x99 machine guns providing support from machine guns and sniper rifles.
Why would the same arguments applied in support of the 5.56 NATO not applying more so to the 5.7x28?
Weight: Ammunition for the 5.7x28 is lighter than ammunition for the 5.56x45, as are weapons chambered for the cartridge.
Controllability: The 5.7x28 produces less recoil, making it more accurate and controllable on automatic fire, as well as making it easier to train new recruits who have limited exposure to firearms before military service.
The 5.7x28 SS190 round is said to have an effective range of 200 meters, where, IIRC, it is rumored to still be able to penetrate the standard modern infantry helmet (Correct me if I am wrong here.). While there is no disputing that the 5.7mm is less effective than the 5.56mm, there is also no disputing that the 5.56mm was less effective than the round that preceded it, but was still adopted for the aforementioned reasons. Also, the common arguments used to support the 5.56 still apply to the 5.7;"I still wouldn't want to get shot by one," and "shot placement is still key."
Note that I am not taking this argument to a level of complete absurdity. I am not claiming the same arguments still apply to the .22 Long Rifle, for example. Both the 5.7x28 and the 5.56x45 are marginally effective intermediate rounds with debatable stopping power that nevertheless seems to get the job done with current tactics at commonly occurring ranges.
The military has already incorporated multiple shots center of mass into its training. There is no reason that same tactics--hammer pairs and failure drills, could not be employed with the 5.7x28mm. There is also no reason the 5.7mm couldn't keep the bad guy's heads down while they were being flanked, and the 5.56mm lacks so much in barrier penetration compared to other common military rounds that there isn't much of it to lose going with the smaller 5.7mm round.
Additionally, going with the 5.7x28 would allow logistics to be cleared up by allowing the adoption of a handgun and a longarm in the same cartridge, effectively eliminating the 9x19 from logistics. The military would just have the 5.7x28, with larger 7.62x51 and 12.7x99 machine guns providing support from machine guns and sniper rifles.