NationStates

Your Aussie nickname is Ulfy because I said so D:<

Ulfy pronounced Wolfy but without the wuh

Registug wrote:Your Aussie nickname is Ulfy because I said so D:<

Ulfy pronounced Wolfy but without the wuh

Stone the crows still giving out nicknames ?

Imperial isa wrote:

Registug wrote:Your Aussie nickname is Ulfy because I said so D:<

Ulfy pronounced Wolfy but without the wuh

Stone the crows still giving out nicknames ?

Just a touch of boulder throwing.

Imperial isa wrote:

Registug wrote:Your Aussie nickname is Ulfy because I said so D:<

Ulfy pronounced Wolfy but without the wuh

Stone the crows still giving out nicknames ?

Oh nah I never started in the first place

Obviously

:P

What type of military organizational structure does your nation have, how does it operate and to what capacity/level; and does it coalesce with your civilian governance structure in any way ranging from police to civilian management?

Ulfr-Reich hybridizes the Prussian/German-Empire military organization and governance method combined with Jarlic and generally Norse methodology of how matters are conducted. Brutality with a control and regulation system (Ulfr Reich does have a Almennstaben (General Staff) as one example of this system).

Discuss that^

Oh, good news gents, today is bottling day, a glorious day where I bottle and rack completed brews and my kitchen smells like a meadery, oh glorious day.

The reports I have read were nothing short of eye opening, as well as being possibly the most interesting thing I have seen since a ballistic cast of a V.L.D. bullet a month or two ago.

Presenting:

4.6x30 H&K, 5.7x28mm FN, and why 9x19 is not going away.


Let's start at the beginning.

At the end of the 1980s (1989-1990 area I believe), NATO issued a request for a small arm offering armor penetrating qualities in a "Personal Defense Weapon" (PDW) (See: Doc. D296, NATO). The two big Western European firearms manufacturing companies, FN and H&K responded to the request. FN had already been experimenting with smaller 5mm caliber weapons, and had a much larger dedicated research and development team than H&K did at the Time. This gave them a clearcut advantage, and 5.7x28 came to life in 1991. The round was put though the ringer but did end up being used in great deal by many tactical teams, SF soldiers, police forces, and soldiers In normal military units. It came under some pretty heavy scrutiny due to the poor terminal performance of the round when not penetrating armor, and even to this day it still suffers that same reputation. In 1999, a push was made to make 5.7x28mm FN a standard NATO round.

Around the same time, H&K introduced their PDW round, the 4.6x30H&K. 8 years late to the party, H&K showed up drunk, angry, and driving a police cruiser that was reported stolen about a month ago two counties over. Germany took to the native companies 4.6x30, with Britain jumping in the band wagon shortly after. Britain retained the 5.7x28 round, but still utilized the smaller 4.6x30. As standardization was pushed though, Germany opted to give NATO the middle finger. The standardization was stopped, and to this day has not been pushed though.

This sparked a new lot of trials. The initial trials declared 5.7 a clearcut superior round, while testing by H&K announced 4.6 a far superior caliber. The trials were carried out by ETBS in France in 2002, compounded of 22 major tests. These included: Ballistic gel, body armor penetration, maximum effective range, energy retention, and overall accuracy. In nearly every trial, the 5.7x28 came put on top, offering a stated 27% more effectiveness over the 4.6x30mm H&K and an 11% more effective ratio on armored targets. I have found a variety of different tests that give similar numerical values (Highest against soft: 36% increase over 4.6, lowest 14%. Armor: 22%, 8%.) to 5.7x28 over 4.6x30. Overall, the 5.7x28 preforms a 17.8% better than 4.6x30 in both armor and tissue.

Now, if you have been here since MMW 6 (I believe that's when I came around) and 7, you know my feelings, as well as a slew of other professionals on the subject* of the 5.7x28mm (I consider it to be nothing more than a .22 WMR +P Basically). The 5.7x28 typically penetrates well, but offers very little energy dump, and often fails to expand. Those that do expand offer little advantage over the 9x19 NATO, and the 9x19 that does expand or fragment outclasses the 5.7 in nearly every way. The designers clearly anticipated this, and gave the 5.7x28 a center of weight behind the geometrical median point, allowing the bullet to tumble. This tumble effect however is minimal all too often. The 5.7 offers very little soft tissue crush cavity and a small temporary stretch cavity on soft targets, effectively making it a similar profile to .22WMR (I have a comparison picture somewhere)It has a low overall surface area of contact vs. The larger 9x19mm. 5.7 crushes a smaller surface area, even when in full yaw it only SLIGHTLY crushes more than 9x19.


Simply put: 5.7x28mm offers a poor terminal performance. So what about 4.6x30? As I outlined before, 4.6x30 offered no more effective terminal performance when compared to 5.7x28, offering no better armor penetration or soft tissue damage than the 5.7x28. This, as one might note, makes it basically outclassed in nearly every area vs. 5.7. A nation that uses 5.56 will have no issue producing 5.7, due to similarities in the rounds basic manufacturing process. Assembly lines require little reworking in order to begin producing 5.7x28mm. The 4.6 does. 5.7 also delivers a lower recoil impulse to the operator, as well as having less barrel wear on the weapon.

Now, why did I say "Why 9x19 isn't going anywhere"?
because it isn't, and it preforms better than both of these rounds. In armor penetrating versions, 9x19 outclasses and outperforms both of these rounds in armor penetrative ability inside of 50m, and offers a greater wound profile and terminal effect than both rounds.

This all said, 5.7x28 does have its pros: Its armor penetrating abilities are very good at distances further than the 9x19, its typically considered very controllable, and its decently accurate.
4.6x30mm also has its market, but what it is I am not sure.

In summary: 5.7x28 was made to penetrate body armor and preforms much better than 4.6x30, which is not saying much as 5.7 is a very poor preforming round. Both have their market and I assume both are here to stay, and we will not see them to go away any time soon. 9x19 outpreforms both inside of 50m, and most likely out to 100m it is roughly on par.

*I do not consider myself a professional

Puzikas wrote:The reports I have read were nothing short of eye opening, as well as being possibly the most interesting thing I have seen since a ballistic cast of a V.L.D. bullet a month or two ago.

Presenting:

4.6x30 H&K, 5.7x28mm FN, and why 9x19 is not going away.


Let's start at the beginning.

At the end of the 1980s (1989-1990 area I believe), NATO issued a request for a small arm offering armor penetrating qualities in a "Personal Defense Weapon" (PDW) (See: Doc. D296, NATO). The two big Western European firearms manufacturing companies, FN and H&K responded to the request. FN had already been experimenting with smaller 5mm caliber weapons, and had a much larger dedicated research and development team than H&K did at the Time. This gave them a clearcut advantage, and 5.7x28 came to life in 1991. The round was put though the ringer but did end up being used in great deal by many tactical teams, SF soldiers, police forces, and soldiers In normal military units. It came under some pretty heavy scrutiny due to the poor terminal performance of the round when not penetrating armor, and even to this day it still suffers that same reputation. In 1999, a push was made to make 5.7x28mm FN a standard NATO round.

Around the same time, H&K introduced their PDW round, the 4.6x30H&K. 8 years late to the party, H&K showed up drunk, angry, and driving a police cruiser that was reported stolen about a month ago two counties over. Germany took to the native companies 4.6x30, with Britain jumping in the band wagon shortly after. Britain retained the 5.7x28 round, but still utilized the smaller 4.6x30. As standardization was pushed though, Germany opted to give NATO the middle finger. The standardization was stopped, and to this day has not been pushed though.

This sparked a new lot of trials. The initial trials declared 5.7 a clearcut superior round, while testing by H&K announced 4.6 a far superior caliber. The trials were carried out by ETBS in France in 2002, compounded of 22 major tests. These included: Ballistic gel, body armor penetration, maximum effective range, energy retention, and overall accuracy. In nearly every trial, the 5.7x28 came put on top, offering a stated 27% more effectiveness over the 4.6x30mm H&K and an 11% more effective ratio on armored targets. I have found a variety of different tests that give similar numerical values (Highest against soft: 36% increase over 4.6, lowest 14%. Armor: 22%, 8%.) to 5.7x28 over 4.6x30. Overall, the 5.7x28 preforms a 17.8% better than 4.6x30 in both armor and tissue.

Now, if you have been here since MMW 6 (I believe that's when I came around) and 7, you know my feelings, as well as a slew of other professionals on the subject* of the 5.7x28mm (I consider it to be nothing more than a .22 WMR +P Basically). The 5.7x28 typically penetrates well, but offers very little energy dump, and often fails to expand. Those that do expand offer little advantage over the 9x19 NATO, and the 9x19 that does expand or fragment outclasses the 5.7 in nearly every way. The designers clearly anticipated this, and gave the 5.7x28 a center of weight behind the geometrical median point, allowing the bullet to tumble. This tumble effect however is minimal all too often. The 5.7 offers very little soft tissue crush cavity and a small temporary stretch cavity on soft targets, effectively making it a similar profile to .22WMR (I have a comparison picture somewhere)It has a low overall surface area of contact vs. The larger 9x19mm. 5.7 crushes a smaller surface area, even when in full yaw it only SLIGHTLY crushes more than 9x19.


Simply put: 5.7x28mm offers a poor terminal performance. So what about 4.6x30? As I outlined before, 4.6x30 offered no more effective terminal performance when compared to 5.7x28, offering no better armor penetration or soft tissue damage than the 5.7x28. This, as one might note, makes it basically outclassed in nearly every area vs. 5.7. A nation that uses 5.56 will have no issue producing 5.7, due to similarities in the rounds basic manufacturing process. Assembly lines require little reworking in order to begin producing 5.7x28mm. The 4.6 does. 5.7 also delivers a lower recoil impulse to the operator, as well as having less barrel wear on the weapon.

Now, why did I say "Why 9x19 isn't going anywhere"?
because it isn't, and it preforms better than both of these rounds. In armor penetrating versions, 9x19 outclasses and outperforms both of these rounds in armor penetrative ability inside of 50m, and offers a greater wound profile and terminal effect than both rounds.

This all said, 5.7x28 does have its pros: Its armor penetrating abilities are very good at distances further than the 9x19, its typically considered very controllable, and its decently accurate.
4.6x30mm also has its market, but what it is I am not sure.

In summary: 5.7x28 was made to penetrate body armor and preforms much better than 4.6x30, which is not saying much as 5.7 is a very poor preforming round. Both have their market and I assume both are here to stay, and we will not see them to go away any time soon. 9x19 outpreforms both inside of 50m, and most likely out to 100m it is roughly on par.

*I do not consider myself a professional

Very imformative, but pretty much what I expected as of the comparison of the two round. A sub 5mm round makes exactly zero sense unless it is a flechette. What is new in formation is that specialised 9x19 variants actually outclass these rounds at common CQB engagement ranges.
I'm pretty sure im going to step up fromt the tokarev to the .357sig for MT. If regular 9 kcks so much ass than befeed up 9=glory.

"Modern alternatives not really worth it, status quo is actually superior"
We seem to have been getting that a lot on NS, these last few months.

Samozaryadnyastan wrote:"Modern alternatives not really worth it, status quo is actually superior"
We seem to have been getting that a lot on NS, these last few months.

Really modern alternatives like PCT/CT flechettes things like the LSAT are superior, jsut in our apathic age no one gives a shit about furthering science/technology just for the sake of it. Hell I managed to dig up a video f the LSAT firing, what other concerns they have?
Also the 5.7 has the advantage of cramming a shitload of bullets into a compact gun á la P90

re-post:

What type of military organizational structure does your nation have (along the lines of a general staff or some-such), how does it operate and to what capacity/level; and does it coalesce with your civilian governance structure in any way ranging from police to civilian management?

Oh, I redesigned my 8.45x50mm Kort cartridge via the powers of CS6.



Glorious S.m.K.H. influenced big bore (essentially the Ulfran .280/intermediate equivalent).

Transnapastain wrote:Also, no magazine release? Or is it "on the other side"

Also, also, I don't see a slide catch? Is that "on the invisible side too?" Usually its on the same side as the ejection port.

Dually noted, will add in later.

Ulfr-Reich wrote:re-post:

What type of military organizational structure does your nation have (along the lines of a general staff or some-such), how does it operate and to what capacity/level; and does it coalesce with your civilian governance structure in any way ranging from police to civilian management?

I'll happily answer in detail later , but I think this belongs to the NS military realism tread.Just move the question there.

United Republics of Aralon wrote:

Ulfr-Reich wrote:re-post:

What type of military organizational structure does your nation have (along the lines of a general staff or some-such), how does it operate and to what capacity/level; and does it coalesce with your civilian governance structure in any way ranging from police to civilian management?

I'll happily answer in detail later , but I think this belongs to the NS military realism tread.Just move the question there.

Alrighty, thanks for enlightening me of said questions not belonging in this thread, it shall be moved with haste.

A wild, two-hour Saiga conversion appeared.



Still a ways to go, of course, but I'd say it's a SAIGA conversion well done considering the gunsmith only charged me $10.00 for it ("you helped," was his reasoning).

Because I had no idea where else this could possibly go.

Need to defend a whole island/country? Fordorsia's got ya covered.


Details: http://airborneleaf.deviantart.com/art/Fordorsia-Island-Defense-Cannon-Mk-3-371452252?ga_submit_new=10%253A1368470644&ga_type=edit&ga_changes=1&ga_recent=1

Fordorsia wrote:Because I had no idea where else this could possibly go.

Need to defend a whole island/country? Fordorsia's got ya covered.
(Image)

Details: http://airborneleaf.deviantart.com/art/Fordorsia-Island-Defense-Cannon-Mk-3-371452252?ga_submit_new=10%253A1368470644&ga_type=edit&ga_changes=1&ga_recent=1

With a shell that big, all you would need is HE, Thermobaric, and nuclear. No AP or FRAG needed.

Edit: Size. It was joke.
Sarcasm on the internet.

Puzikas wrote:

Fordorsia wrote:Because I had no idea where else this could possibly go.

Need to defend a whole island/country? Fordorsia's got ya covered.
(Image)

Details: http://airborneleaf.deviantart.com/art/Fordorsia-Island-Defense-Cannon-Mk-3-371452252?ga_submit_new=10%253A1368470644&ga_type=edit&ga_changes=1&ga_recent=1

With a shell that big, all you would need is HE, Thermobaric, and nuclear. No AP or FRAG needed.

Edit: Size. It was joke.
Sarcasm on the internet.

In that case, I shall make the necessary changes. Although, Fordorsia has never been keen on nuclear weapons, especially the kind that needs to explode to get away from the gun.

Puzikas wrote:

The reports I have read were nothing short of eye opening, as well as being possibly the most interesting thing I have seen since a ballistic cast of a V.L.D. bullet a month or two ago.

Presenting:

4.6x30 H&K, 5.7x28mm FN, and why 9x19 is not going away.


Let's start at the beginning.

At the end of the 1980s (1989-1990 area I believe), NATO issued a request for a small arm offering armor penetrating qualities in a "Personal Defense Weapon" (PDW) (See: Doc. D296, NATO). The two big Western European firearms manufacturing companies, FN and H&K responded to the request. FN had already been experimenting with smaller 5mm caliber weapons, and had a much larger dedicated research and development team than H&K did at the Time. This gave them a clearcut advantage, and 5.7x28 came to life in 1991. The round was put though the ringer but did end up being used in great deal by many tactical teams, SF soldiers, police forces, and soldiers In normal military units. It came under some pretty heavy scrutiny due to the poor terminal performance of the round when not penetrating armor, and even to this day it still suffers that same reputation. In 1999, a push was made to make 5.7x28mm FN a standard NATO round.

Around the same time, H&K introduced their PDW round, the 4.6x30H&K. 8 years late to the party, H&K showed up drunk, angry, and driving a police cruiser that was reported stolen about a month ago two counties over. Germany took to the native companies 4.6x30, with Britain jumping in the band wagon shortly after. Britain retained the 5.7x28 round, but still utilized the smaller 4.6x30. As standardization was pushed though, Germany opted to give NATO the middle finger. The standardization was stopped, and to this day has not been pushed though.

This sparked a new lot of trials. The initial trials declared 5.7 a clearcut superior round, while testing by H&K announced 4.6 a far superior caliber. The trials were carried out by ETBS in France in 2002, compounded of 22 major tests. These included: Ballistic gel, body armor penetration, maximum effective range, energy retention, and overall accuracy. In nearly every trial, the 5.7x28 came put on top, offering a stated 27% more effectiveness over the 4.6x30mm H&K and an 11% more effective ratio on armored targets. I have found a variety of different tests that give similar numerical values (Highest against soft: 36% increase over 4.6, lowest 14%. Armor: 22%, 8%.) to 5.7x28 over 4.6x30. Overall, the 5.7x28 preforms a 17.8% better than 4.6x30 in both armor and tissue.

Now, if you have been here since MMW 6 (I believe that's when I came around) and 7, you know my feelings, as well as a slew of other professionals on the subject* of the 5.7x28mm (I consider it to be nothing more than a .22 WMR +P Basically). The 5.7x28 typically penetrates well, but offers very little energy dump, and often fails to expand. Those that do expand offer little advantage over the 9x19 NATO, and the 9x19 that does expand or fragment outclasses the 5.7 in nearly every way. The designers clearly anticipated this, and gave the 5.7x28 a center of weight behind the geometrical median point, allowing the bullet to tumble. This tumble effect however is minimal all too often. The 5.7 offers very little soft tissue crush cavity and a small temporary stretch cavity on soft targets, effectively making it a similar profile to .22WMR (I have a comparison picture somewhere)It has a low overall surface area of contact vs. The larger 9x19mm. 5.7 crushes a smaller surface area, even when in full yaw it only SLIGHTLY crushes more than 9x19.


Simply put: 5.7x28mm offers a poor terminal performance. So what about 4.6x30? As I outlined before, 4.6x30 offered no more effective terminal performance when compared to 5.7x28, offering no better armor penetration or soft tissue damage than the 5.7x28. This, as one might note, makes it basically outclassed in nearly every area vs. 5.7. A nation that uses 5.56 will have no issue producing 5.7, due to similarities in the rounds basic manufacturing process. Assembly lines require little reworking in order to begin producing 5.7x28mm. The 4.6 does. 5.7 also delivers a lower recoil impulse to the operator, as well as having less barrel wear on the weapon.

Now, why did I say "Why 9x19 isn't going anywhere"?
because it isn't, and it preforms better than both of these rounds. In armor penetrating versions, 9x19 outclasses and outperforms both of these rounds in armor penetrative ability inside of 50m, and offers a greater wound profile and terminal effect than both rounds.

This all said, 5.7x28 does have its pros: Its armor penetrating abilities are very good at distances further than the 9x19, its typically considered very controllable, and its decently accurate.
4.6x30mm also has its market, but what it is I am not sure.

In summary: 5.7x28 was made to penetrate body armor and preforms much better than 4.6x30, which is not saying much as 5.7 is a very poor preforming round. Both have their market and I assume both are here to stay, and we will not see them to go away any time soon. 9x19 outpreforms both inside of 50m, and most likely out to 100m it is roughly on par.

*I do not consider myself a professional

Damn... I was really hoping that the 4.6mm would fare better. Oh well.

So,
Thompson SMG chambered in 7.92x25mm for WWII military.
Y/N?

The Archangel Conglomerate wrote:

Puzikas wrote:

The reports I have read were nothing short of eye opening, as well as being possibly the most interesting thing I have seen since a ballistic cast of a V.L.D. bullet a month or two ago.

Presenting:

4.6x30 H&K, 5.7x28mm FN, and why 9x19 is not going away.


Let's start at the beginning.

At the end of the 1980s (1989-1990 area I believe), NATO issued a request for a small arm offering armor penetrating qualities in a "Personal Defense Weapon" (PDW) (See: Doc. D296, NATO). The two big Western European firearms manufacturing companies, FN and H&K responded to the request. FN had already been experimenting with smaller 5mm caliber weapons, and had a much larger dedicated research and development team than H&K did at the Time. This gave them a clearcut advantage, and 5.7x28 came to life in 1991. The round was put though the ringer but did end up being used in great deal by many tactical teams, SF soldiers, police forces, and soldiers In normal military units. It came under some pretty heavy scrutiny due to the poor terminal performance of the round when not penetrating armor, and even to this day it still suffers that same reputation. In 1999, a push was made to make 5.7x28mm FN a standard NATO round.

Around the same time, H&K introduced their PDW round, the 4.6x30H&K. 8 years late to the party, H&K showed up drunk, angry, and driving a police cruiser that was reported stolen about a month ago two counties over. Germany took to the native companies 4.6x30, with Britain jumping in the band wagon shortly after. Britain retained the 5.7x28 round, but still utilized the smaller 4.6x30. As standardization was pushed though, Germany opted to give NATO the middle finger. The standardization was stopped, and to this day has not been pushed though.

This sparked a new lot of trials. The initial trials declared 5.7 a clearcut superior round, while testing by H&K announced 4.6 a far superior caliber. The trials were carried out by ETBS in France in 2002, compounded of 22 major tests. These included: Ballistic gel, body armor penetration, maximum effective range, energy retention, and overall accuracy. In nearly every trial, the 5.7x28 came put on top, offering a stated 27% more effectiveness over the 4.6x30mm H&K and an 11% more effective ratio on armored targets. I have found a variety of different tests that give similar numerical values (Highest against soft: 36% increase over 4.6, lowest 14%. Armor: 22%, 8%.) to 5.7x28 over 4.6x30. Overall, the 5.7x28 preforms a 17.8% better than 4.6x30 in both armor and tissue.

Now, if you have been here since MMW 6 (I believe that's when I came around) and 7, you know my feelings, as well as a slew of other professionals on the subject* of the 5.7x28mm (I consider it to be nothing more than a .22 WMR +P Basically). The 5.7x28 typically penetrates well, but offers very little energy dump, and often fails to expand. Those that do expand offer little advantage over the 9x19 NATO, and the 9x19 that does expand or fragment outclasses the 5.7 in nearly every way. The designers clearly anticipated this, and gave the 5.7x28 a center of weight behind the geometrical median point, allowing the bullet to tumble. This tumble effect however is minimal all too often. The 5.7 offers very little soft tissue crush cavity and a small temporary stretch cavity on soft targets, effectively making it a similar profile to .22WMR (I have a comparison picture somewhere)It has a low overall surface area of contact vs. The larger 9x19mm. 5.7 crushes a smaller surface area, even when in full yaw it only SLIGHTLY crushes more than 9x19.


Simply put: 5.7x28mm offers a poor terminal performance. So what about 4.6x30? As I outlined before, 4.6x30 offered no more effective terminal performance when compared to 5.7x28, offering no better armor penetration or soft tissue damage than the 5.7x28. This, as one might note, makes it basically outclassed in nearly every area vs. 5.7. A nation that uses 5.56 will have no issue producing 5.7, due to similarities in the rounds basic manufacturing process. Assembly lines require little reworking in order to begin producing 5.7x28mm. The 4.6 does. 5.7 also delivers a lower recoil impulse to the operator, as well as having less barrel wear on the weapon.

Now, why did I say "Why 9x19 isn't going anywhere"?
because it isn't, and it preforms better than both of these rounds. In armor penetrating versions, 9x19 outclasses and outperforms both of these rounds in armor penetrative ability inside of 50m, and offers a greater wound profile and terminal effect than both rounds.

This all said, 5.7x28 does have its pros: Its armor penetrating abilities are very good at distances further than the 9x19, its typically considered very controllable, and its decently accurate.
4.6x30mm also has its market, but what it is I am not sure.

In summary: 5.7x28 was made to penetrate body armor and preforms much better than 4.6x30, which is not saying much as 5.7 is a very poor preforming round. Both have their market and I assume both are here to stay, and we will not see them to go away any time soon. 9x19 outpreforms both inside of 50m, and most likely out to 100m it is roughly on par.

*I do not consider myself a professional

Damn... I was really hoping that the 4.6mm would fare better. Oh well.

So,
Thompson SMG chambered in 7.92x25mm for WWII military.
Y/N?

Go Owens, laste war style Austen or Schmeisser, the Thompson was way too freakin' prone to catastrophic failures in the field.


Also, I made a buck n' ball shell for my 50mm grenade launcher;

The Archangel Conglomerate wrote:

Puzikas wrote:

The reports I have read were nothing short of eye opening, as well as being possibly the most interesting thing I have seen since a ballistic cast of a V.L.D. bullet a month or two ago.

Presenting:

4.6x30 H&K, 5.7x28mm FN, and why 9x19 is not going away.


Let's start at the beginning.

At the end of the 1980s (1989-1990 area I believe), NATO issued a request for a small arm offering armor penetrating qualities in a "Personal Defense Weapon" (PDW) (See: Doc. D296, NATO). The two big Western European firearms manufacturing companies, FN and H&K responded to the request. FN had already been experimenting with smaller 5mm caliber weapons, and had a much larger dedicated research and development team than H&K did at the Time. This gave them a clearcut advantage, and 5.7x28 came to life in 1991. The round was put though the ringer but did end up being used in great deal by many tactical teams, SF soldiers, police forces, and soldiers In normal military units. It came under some pretty heavy scrutiny due to the poor terminal performance of the round when not penetrating armor, and even to this day it still suffers that same reputation. In 1999, a push was made to make 5.7x28mm FN a standard NATO round.

Around the same time, H&K introduced their PDW round, the 4.6x30H&K. 8 years late to the party, H&K showed up drunk, angry, and driving a police cruiser that was reported stolen about a month ago two counties over. Germany took to the native companies 4.6x30, with Britain jumping in the band wagon shortly after. Britain retained the 5.7x28 round, but still utilized the smaller 4.6x30. As standardization was pushed though, Germany opted to give NATO the middle finger. The standardization was stopped, and to this day has not been pushed though.

This sparked a new lot of trials. The initial trials declared 5.7 a clearcut superior round, while testing by H&K announced 4.6 a far superior caliber. The trials were carried out by ETBS in France in 2002, compounded of 22 major tests. These included: Ballistic gel, body armor penetration, maximum effective range, energy retention, and overall accuracy. In nearly every trial, the 5.7x28 came put on top, offering a stated 27% more effectiveness over the 4.6x30mm H&K and an 11% more effective ratio on armored targets. I have found a variety of different tests that give similar numerical values (Highest against soft: 36% increase over 4.6, lowest 14%. Armor: 22%, 8%.) to 5.7x28 over 4.6x30. Overall, the 5.7x28 preforms a 17.8% better than 4.6x30 in both armor and tissue.

Now, if you have been here since MMW 6 (I believe that's when I came around) and 7, you know my feelings, as well as a slew of other professionals on the subject* of the 5.7x28mm (I consider it to be nothing more than a .22 WMR +P Basically). The 5.7x28 typically penetrates well, but offers very little energy dump, and often fails to expand. Those that do expand offer little advantage over the 9x19 NATO, and the 9x19 that does expand or fragment outclasses the 5.7 in nearly every way. The designers clearly anticipated this, and gave the 5.7x28 a center of weight behind the geometrical median point, allowing the bullet to tumble. This tumble effect however is minimal all too often. The 5.7 offers very little soft tissue crush cavity and a small temporary stretch cavity on soft targets, effectively making it a similar profile to .22WMR (I have a comparison picture somewhere)It has a low overall surface area of contact vs. The larger 9x19mm. 5.7 crushes a smaller surface area, even when in full yaw it only SLIGHTLY crushes more than 9x19.


Simply put: 5.7x28mm offers a poor terminal performance. So what about 4.6x30? As I outlined before, 4.6x30 offered no more effective terminal performance when compared to 5.7x28, offering no better armor penetration or soft tissue damage than the 5.7x28. This, as one might note, makes it basically outclassed in nearly every area vs. 5.7. A nation that uses 5.56 will have no issue producing 5.7, due to similarities in the rounds basic manufacturing process. Assembly lines require little reworking in order to begin producing 5.7x28mm. The 4.6 does. 5.7 also delivers a lower recoil impulse to the operator, as well as having less barrel wear on the weapon.

Now, why did I say "Why 9x19 isn't going anywhere"?
because it isn't, and it preforms better than both of these rounds. In armor penetrating versions, 9x19 outclasses and outperforms both of these rounds in armor penetrative ability inside of 50m, and offers a greater wound profile and terminal effect than both rounds.

This all said, 5.7x28 does have its pros: Its armor penetrating abilities are very good at distances further than the 9x19, its typically considered very controllable, and its decently accurate.
4.6x30mm also has its market, but what it is I am not sure.

In summary: 5.7x28 was made to penetrate body armor and preforms much better than 4.6x30, which is not saying much as 5.7 is a very poor preforming round. Both have their market and I assume both are here to stay, and we will not see them to go away any time soon. 9x19 outpreforms both inside of 50m, and most likely out to 100m it is roughly on par.

*I do not consider myself a professional

Damn... I was really hoping that the 4.6mm would fare better. Oh well.

So,
Thompson SMG chambered in 7.92x25mm for WWII military.
Y/N?

N

4.6x30 necked up to 7.92 for maximum NO IMPUNITY round when unable to produce a 7.92x57mm pistol.

United Republics of Aralon wrote:

Samozaryadnyastan wrote:"Modern alternatives not really worth it, status quo is actually superior"
We seem to have been getting that a lot on NS, these last few months.

Really modern alternatives like PCT/CT flechettes things like the LSAT are superior, jsut in our apathic age no one gives a shit about furthering science/technology just for the sake of it. Hell I managed to dig up a video f the LSAT firing, what other concerns they have?
Also the 5.7 has the advantage of cramming a shitload of bullets into a compact gun á la P90

Sauce or your just trying "FUTUR WAR BEST WAR" and be rly silly.

Also 5.7 is a neat round, but putting 100000000000000000 rounds into a PDW isn't the best solution to everything. The guy with the 45-round magazine-fed 7.62x25mm AK has a better PDW imo.

Ulfr-Reich wrote:Go Owens, laste war style Austen or Schmeisser, the Thompson was way too freakin' prone to catastrophic failures in the field.

Was it really? That wasn't mentioned on the wikipedia (figures). I'll look into other SMGs then.

United Republics of Aralon wrote:

Samozaryadnyastan wrote:"Modern alternatives not really worth it, status quo is actually superior"
We seem to have been getting that a lot on NS, these last few months.

Really modern alternatives like PCT/CT flechettes things like the LSAT are superior, jsut in our apathic age no one gives a shit about furthering science/technology just for the sake of it. Hell I managed to dig up a video f the LSAT firing, what other concerns they have?
Also the 5.7 has the advantage of cramming a shitload of bullets into a compact gun á la P90

7.62x25 is better and shorter, which means it's shorter and better.

Benomia wrote:

United Republics of Aralon wrote:Really modern alternatives like PCT/CT flechettes things like the LSAT are superior, jsut in our apathic age no one gives a shit about furthering science/technology just for the sake of it. Hell I managed to dig up a video f the LSAT firing, what other concerns they have?
Also the 5.7 has the advantage of cramming a shitload of bullets into a compact gun á la P90

7.62x25 is better and shorter, which means it's shorter and better.

Guise, Beano broke logic.