Thanks for your kind comments. But, you know, although I like to shoot the FiveseveN, I do think it is, ahem, a bit ugly to look at!

In all seriousness, thank you for the review.

I admit though I have probably not done as much research on the round as you have but I was under the impression that the ATF labled any 5.7mm round above a certain velocity, as armor piercing.

It’s not so much of a disagreement as to what causes the shockwave in the human body as it is as to the effect it has on stopping a person. To add a little more clarity (or further complicate things), a 9x19mm round that goes through its target will not transfer all its energy to the target. However, there is a greater amount of damage caused due to the deeper penetration. American Rifleman did an article on the best rounds for defense. The study they conducted concluded that the best round for defense is one that doesn’t over penetrate, and one that has a great deal of energy to transfer to the body (perminant wound cavity was also a factor in their decision). Theoretically a round that has a slightly greater amount of energy and lower volume can pass through a body and transfer very little energy to that body, while a larger volumed object with less energy that stops in the body will transfer 98% its energy in to the body causing a greater amount of hydrostaic shock. The trick is to find the balance between the two or have a round that has so much energy that just a fraction of that energy transfer is enough to stop an individual. For example a .50BMG round passes through a person with ease, however, the energy is has is so massive that a fraction of that energy is still devistating.

There are a great many pieces of phyisics to consider when discussing ballistics.

I don’t mean to sound like a jerk trying to prove a point, I simply want to enlighten. I will admit that I am a fan of the .40cal rounds (10mm included), however, I do not feel larger is the answer either. I feel a middle ground must be found and that some of these newer rounds to come out might be the answer.

Thanks for your continued thoughts.

One thing we can certainly agree upon is that there is little agreement on the phenomenon of exactly what hydrostatic shock is and what its effects and importance may be.

Wikipedia has a fairly good article on the topic and in particular, I quote from it :

A number of law enforcement and military agencies have adopted the 5.7x28mm cartridge, which is reputed to cause considerable hydrostatic shock.

I’m not sure there’s much more than can be added. So much of ballistics and ‘stopping power’ is pseudo-science and guesswork.

I hope this clears things up a bit.
Also keltek makes a 5.56mm pistol; it’s large but they still consider it a pistol.

Thanks for your comments.

As I understand it – and I could very well be wrong – hydrostatic shock is linked primarily to velocity rather than energy. Now, okay, energy and velocity also have a relationship, of course, but the key part of hydrostatic shock is not the weight of the bullet (another derivative of energy) but its speed.

We certainly do not mean to put the 5.7×28 round above a 5.56 round. On the other hand, I don’t think there are any pistols chambered for 5.56!

It does have a great deal of penetration however that is all it does well. As it tumbles in the body it does not fragment the same way a 5.56mm round does. Really the only possitive I could see from the round is the low recoil due to its low momentum, which would give the shooter the ability to provide tight followup shots.

I would agree that it is a lethal round, however, all rounds are lethal to an extent. I would not classify this round as a defense round; it’s more of a fun round and target round.

I just discussed this topic with my hubby tonight. He by no means boasts about our firearms, but had casually mentioned something to a new co-worker about a particularly nice rifle I own when the topic came up and didn’t realize his mistake until I pointed it out to him (haha, yeah, I’m a great wife!).

Anonymity is your first defense! I find it more and more frustrating every time I see a well meaning Facebook post by friends about their newest firearm purchase etc., let alone when people ANNOUNCE they are carrying.

It only takes one ticked off friend, one idiot brother-in-law, or in my case a motor-mouth 8 year old offspring to draw unwanted attention to something that should be between you and nobody.

Thanks for offering up the rates on homicides. But what is your point?

So 4.2 of the 466 violent crimes per 100,000 in the US each year are homicides, whereas 1.6 of the 935 are in Canada, or 1.2 of the 2034 violent crimes in the US. Is that supposed to be good or bad?

I still feel very much safer in the US than I do in Canada or the UK.

And note also that the US homicide rate is steadily decreasing each year, more or less in line with the steady increase in gun sales and the steady liberalization of gun laws.

I ask again – so what exactly is your point?

I have a 9mm (FNX 9), a 40S&W (SD40VE) and a .22lr (Sig Mosquito), all regular size handguns that just wont cut it. I need a truly concealable item that will not hinder me in any way. Carrying any of those three on my side takes a big toll on me and, no matter what holster I use, it still prints because I tend to be very athletic and stretch down too much.

I don’t want my firearms to dictate my every posture, I want one that will suit my posture. For this reason, I’m going with a pocket handgun (either front or wallet type holstered). A small 380 is my choice.

Do you really think that the right given to us by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms doesn’t also mean that they can be loaded? Do you think the founding fathers wanted to restrict us to only carrying unloaded guns?

As for the issue of a gun being concealed/hidden or worn in public, this too is another desperate attempt to confuse things by gun grabbers.

In states that allow both open and concealed carry, the gun grabbers try to prevent open carry – most recent example being California, which has now restricted the ability to open carry – a former ability which was close to meaningless anyway because Californians were only allowed to open carry unloaded weapons (how useless is that).

It is generally best for all concerned to conceal one’s firearm, but the gun grabbers now try to force us to a less appropriate situation, which they can then attack further.

So, while there may be a ‘difference’ between possessing a gun and carrying around in public, loaded, and while there may be a difference between open and concealed carry, the Second Amendment makes no distinction between any of these things. It would seem to apply equally to all situations.