Velocity Figures

casper_zip · Post by **casper_zip** » 08 Oct 2009, 11:57

Hey everyone:

Anyone have velocity figures on the 5.7 x 28 MM with the 40-45-50-and even the 55 grain bullets ? Usually you can shop around ang get some pretty good buys on 55 grainers. I am awaiting my chance to load and shoot this one. Heard Lil Gun loves this little feller. Hopefully, I will find out pretty soon.

Thanks and any/all info apprecitated,

Casper_zip

Post by **MrSlippyFist** » 08 Oct 2009, 12:21

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=3892&start=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=4907" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=4561" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=3891" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=4006" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2454" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Post by **MrSlippyFist** » 08 Oct 2009, 12:22

That was just the 3 most recent pages of the reloading section, you can find a lot more if you keep looking back.

Post by **Grantness** » 08 Oct 2009, 14:15

Where did you hear lil gun was a good powder for 5.7x28? Unless you are shooting 5.7x28 out of a T/C, I wouldnt go near it. Your best bet is to choose a powder with a burn rate between True Blue and VVN105 or Blue dot....Preferably a powder thats already been proven safe. Snoop around. Slippy has provided you with some links. There's plenty of tested loads to try if you do a search.

55gr will work, but I wouldnt go any heavier than that. Personally, I never use 55gr bullets. You are better off picking something between 40-45gr. Out of the FsN, the most you can expect out of a quality 45gr bullet is about 2000fps (...and thats pushing things). For a 40gr bullet you can get in the vicinity of 2080fps with Blue Dot, Acc#7, or HS-7. If you pull and reload the 28gr SS195 projectile, the most you can expect is ~2400fps with available powders (that I know of). As far as 55gr bullets go, I cant recall seeing any loads reaching much over 1700fps. I dunno, I havnt really been keeping up with any 55gr data.

vamesq · Post by **vamesq** » 08 Oct 2009, 15:05

Grant: As always, you are absolutely correct. The safest, most accurate loads I have personally tested using a 55 grain FMJBT maxed-out around 1550-fps. 55 grains is indeed a heavy round for the FiveseveN handgun platform. If you can acquire SB193 factory rounds, pull, dump and reload them using your own verified data. I assure you, you will not find a better, heavier projectile-rounds for the 5.7 handgun anywhere on this planet.

Caveat: It has become extremely hard to find and obtain FN factory, SB193, 55 grain FMJBT projectiles at a reasonable (sane) price. I have reloaded some of the 2005 production and found the composition, ballistic-entry characteristics, and overall performance differentiate this particular FN projectile from any other. In addition, it (SB193) will not recycle through a 5.7 handgun due to the low (subsonic) factory charge and powder weight.

Post by **Esteves** » 08 Oct 2009, 15:59

I'm pretty sure the projectiles used in the SB193 are just 55gr Sierra Game Kings.
(Reference in the archives.)

ETA: archive/index.php_t-478.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

FNMAN (AKA Ken Flood) wrote:The SS192 and SS195 both have a Aluminum core. They have never had a lead core. In fact, the only rounds that have lead in the bullet are the Sb193 Sub Sonic 55 gr. Sierra Game King and the SS196 Hornady V-MAX round.

vamesq · Post by **vamesq** » 09 Oct 2009, 07:22

I believe grouping projectiles together by weight and other visible characteristics is a mistake. FN has its design patents and Sierra, Hornady, Fiocchi, Federal and many others have theirs. What makes each of them so different?

First of all, bullets of equal weight but of a different type and manufacture will not produce the same pressure. It would appear by casual observation that they would be interchangeable, and if the loads are moderate, that may be true. But as maximum pressure is approached in experimenting, the pressure may exceed safety limits. Of course, as with all ballistic explanations, the same powder, the same load, the same seating depth, and the equality of all other items are to be assumed equal. While the bullet’s weight may be equal, the length, core weight, jacket weight, bearing length, and even to a very slight amount, the diameter, may all be different. The variations between extremes can be as high as 15%. Generally, the highest pressure and velocity will be together, as one would expect.

Other than its superior long range marksmanship capabilities, the Game King has been examined with regard to its performance on impact with the human body or in artificial material that approximates human soft tissue. It has been determined that the bullet will break up or fragment in some cases at some point following entry into soft tissue. Whether fragmentation occurs will depend upon a myriad of variables, to include range to the target, velocity at the time of impact, degree of yaw of the bullet at the point of impact, or the distance traveled point-first within the body before yaw is induced. The Game King has not been designed to yaw intentionally or to break up on impact. Those characteristics (yawing) are common in all military rifle bullets, resulting in wounds that are more severe than those caused by the Game King.

Conclusion 1: The 55gr. Game King projectile was designed for more accurate, longer range hunting applications.

Conclusion 2: The 55gr. SB193 projectile was designed to quietly penetrate 24 layers of Kevlar and inflict human casualties in close range, combat and tactical applications.

Conclusion 3: The distance a military-type bullet travels point-forward before yawing or tumbling 90 degrees is critical to wounding effects.

Because the Sierra 55gr. Game king has a heavier jacket along with a blunter ogive (BC .189), the pressures generated are different than other bullets at the same weight. In order to determine a particular ogive, take the distance of the centre of the arc from the axis, plus the radius of the shank, (equals the radius of the arc), then it is called a tangential or spitzer ogive. This is a very common ogive for high velocity, (supersonic) rifle bullets.

The sharpness of this ogive is expressed by the ratio of its radius to the diameter of the cylinder; a value of one half being a hemispherical dome, and larger values being progressively more pointed. Values of 4 to 10 are commonly used in rifles, with 6 being the most common. Another common ogive for bullets is the elliptical ogive. This is a curve very similar to the spitzer ogive, except that the circular arc is replaced by an ellipse defined in such a way that it meets the axis at exactly 90°. This gives a somewhat rounded nose regardless of the sharpness ratio. An elliptical ogive is normally described in terms of the ratio of the length of the ogive to the diameter of the shank. A ratio of one half would be, once again, a hemisphere. Values close to 1 are common in practice. Elliptical ogives are mainly used in pistol bullets.

At low supersonic speeds, the optimal ogive shape is curved, approximating a short radius, tangent ogive. As Mach number increases, the optimal ogive begins to look more like a cone with straight edges leading to a sharp juncture with the bullet shank, i.e., more like a secant ogive with a long radius. Using mathematical techniques, ‘optimal’ ogive shapes have been designed that are neither tangent nor secant. The problem with these ‘optimal’ designs is that they are only ‘optimal’ for one Mach number. That’s because the ‘optimality’ is based on the geometry of the shock cone, which changes with projectile velocity. The best a bullet designer can hope for is to go with a nose design that’s optimal for the average velocity of the bullet.

In addition, jacket material may be either gilding metal, gilding metal clad steel, or copper plated steel, copper, aluminum, steel clad with a cooper-nickel alloy. The core will usually be either lead or steel. Both the core and the jacket may contain other components or chemicals to assist in the terminal ballistic characteristics.

Overall Conclusion: Although outwardly similar in many respects, bullet designs vary greatly and specifically determine the “best and highest use” for any particular application.

casper_zip · Post by **casper_zip** » 09 Oct 2009, 09:12

I am awaiting my custom Contender barrel from MGM. It will be SS and 10.5". Some of the guys on other forums use the 5.7 x 28 in T/C and love it. Several said that Lil gun is the powder to use. Of course, I will use caution and common sense reloading as I have always.

Some of the powders you guys use, I don't have, anyway. I am a Blue Dot man from way back, tho.

Keep up all the good info, I do appreciate it.

casper_zip

Post by **Grantness** » 09 Oct 2009, 09:22

wow vamesq. Thanks for the detailed post.

Casper...Lil Gun should be ok for use in your T/C from what I hear. Just don't use it in any semi-automatic platforms.

vamesq · Post by **vamesq** » 09 Oct 2009, 09:30

Grantness wrote:wow vamesq. Thanks for the detailed post.

Casper...Lil Gun should be ok for use in your T/C from what I hear. Just don't use it in any semi-automatic platforms.

Grant: I had a lot of help on this one. Very complicated issue(s) involving Metallurgy and the physics of ballistics. I am in no way an expert, however, I did use/rely heavily on expert references from which I formed my response. Talk to you soon.

Hobknob · Post by **Hobknob** » 09 Oct 2009, 09:54

Vamesq, I've seen those bits and pieces of info before...

That looks oddly similar...to sections from the 1990 Memo for US Army SOC (section 5 except with Match King and Game King swapped out...essentially nullifying arguments made in earlier sections of the memo)
http://www.thegunzone.com/opentip-ammo.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Along with some heisted data from Bryan Litz's definition/explanation on applied ballistics:
http://www.appliedballisticsllc.com/ind ... Design.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you're from SOC or if you're Bryan, welcome!
If you're not, please reference someone else's work rather than pass it off as your own intellectual genius.

Anyway, welcome, I'm sure you'll find a lot of information generated directly by the members of this forum.

vamesq · Post by **vamesq** » 09 Oct 2009, 10:08

Thanks Hobknob. Glad to be here and in good company.

Post by **Esteves** » 09 Oct 2009, 11:50

Good call, Hobknob.

vamesq · Post by **vamesq** » 09 Oct 2009, 12:58

The more I think about it, some of you want to re-invent the wheel. No need, it's out there and available. Just trying to help. PS: write-call me when you get your doctorate, in anything.

Wollychop · Post by **Wollychop** » 09 Oct 2009, 13:04

There's also no need for passive aggressive comments. And anyone can claim anything (like holding a doctorate) on the internet, so keep that in mind.

vamesq · Post by **vamesq** » 09 Oct 2009, 13:12

PM me. Glad to give you the name and number of the registrar's office. Thanks Wallychop.

Hobknob · Post by **Hobknob** » 09 Oct 2009, 13:20

vamesq wrote:The more I think about it, some of you want to re-invent the wheel. No need, it's out there and available. Just trying to help.

I wasn't chiding the presentation of information (though some was altered from its original documentation thus nullifying its validity), merely commenting on the manner in which it was presented as original opinion. There is a lot of valuable information (as well as crap) out there that is easily accessible and it is genuinely worthwhile to do your own research rather than trust the first thing you find (or don't find).
I think much of the "re-inventing" that goes on here is in fact original or built on original source test material that isn't (or wasn't) actually available elsewhere. Testing and documenting new powder/bullet/seating/trimming combinations for internal and external ballistic info is both an interesting and rewarding activity, especially when your findings yield unexpected results.

vamesq wrote:PS: write-call me when you get your doctorate, in anything.

Sarcasm? Genuine interest? Be careful what you ask for, after all, this is the internet and few people are exactly who they seem to be.

Wollychop · Post by **Wollychop** » 09 Oct 2009, 13:21

Sorry, I didn't mean to give you the impression that I care at all if you hold any sort of degree.

The fact of the matter is that I have dealt with plenty folks who hold doctorates who could hardly be called intelligent, or even competent in their fields. If you have knowledge, please share! But don't try to brow beat others with your sheep skin.

The same goes if someone tries to call you to the carpet for contributing information. There's tons of room here for folks to share what they know or what they've learned. No need whatsoever to try to piss on each others' legs.

Post by **MrSlippyFist** » 09 Oct 2009, 13:35

They give nobel peace prizes to complete tards, why not doctorates?

Hobknob · Post by **Hobknob** » 09 Oct 2009, 13:36

Wollychop wrote: No need whatsoever to try to piss on each others' legs.

ok, I'll put it away.....zzzzip

MrSlippyFist wrote:They give nobel peace prizes to complete tards, why not doctorates?

+1

Post by **panzermk2wife** » 09 Oct 2009, 13:52

vamesq

Don't know if you are aware but we had a member here who had been here for a long time claim to hold a few different doctorates & ranking in the miliatary....etc and had many people here fooled including some of us that have posted in this thread. So just be aware we are extremely cautious of anyone claiming doctorates so forth in anything.

The things he claimed were a disgrace to both those who hold doctorates & those who have served and currently serve our military and Law Enforcement. And disgrace is being nice.

If you would like to know more please feel free to pm me.

And welcome to the forum

Post by **Grantness** » 09 Oct 2009, 14:01

I think we have a bit of a miscommunication here. Vamesq did point out that his opinions and the statements in his post were derived from various expert references. I dont think he was trying to imply that he originated all of those facts/data or that he was one of those experts. I know we're all a bit sore from certain recent events, but hastily reading into other people's intentions is a risky business and can lead to unnecessary hostilities.

vamesq · Post by **vamesq** » 09 Oct 2009, 14:25

Thank you Grant. In fact, that is why I wrote "I am no expert and, I had a lot of help with my response". Good research is priceless, egos and attitudes are worthless. I am sorry if some of the members thought I was claiming to be an expert. The only claim I can truly make, is that I am rather proficient at researching and finding answers to somewhat complicated questions. That's how I make a good living. Unfortunately, some may not take it wrong, however, I will site my research references from now on. I had no idea this was a measure of one's independent study and professional veracity. I unfortunately believed, if it's right, it's right or prove it wrong. I took my own personal time to get the facts and pass it on.

Post by **MrSlippyFist** » 09 Oct 2009, 14:30

I think attitudes are priceless, not worthless. It's the one thing (of mine) I can control completely and it's easier than adjusting others egos, which needs to be done sometimes.

Post by **Esteves** » 09 Oct 2009, 14:38

Thanks for the clarification, vamesq.

Good research is, indeed, worthwhile. A significant aspect of "good" is accurate quotation and citation, if you're building on work that wasn't originated by you.

Facts matter. So do sources. Both can influence conclusions.

gw45acp · Post by **gw45acp** » 09 Oct 2009, 16:50

Esteves wrote:Thanks for the clarification, vamesq.

Good research is, indeed, worthwhile. A significant aspect of "good" is accurate quotation and citation, if you're building on work that wasn't originated by you.

Facts matter. So do sources. Both can influence conclusions.

:agree:

I for one appreciate the time spent on researching as well as citing sources, as long as it's not qouting Dr. Fackler or Brown. :laugh:

Post by **panzermk2wife** » 09 Oct 2009, 17:28

Or Dr. Herle...... :lmao: :lmao:

Oh damn did I say that out loud

Sorry, I just had to say it

No I'm not

Post by **Rapier1772** » 09 Oct 2009, 18:10

Shame on you Lisa :lmao:

SSBiggun · Post by **SSBiggun** » 09 Oct 2009, 18:59

panzermk2wife wrote:Or Dr. Herle...... :lmao: :lmao:

Oh damn did I say that out loud

Sorry, I just had to say it

No I'm not

Um, I detect a little animosity here.

Post by **panzermk2wife** » 09 Oct 2009, 19:33

SSBiggun wrote:
panzermk2wife wrote:Or Dr. Herle...... :lmao: :lmao:

Oh damn did I say that out loud

Sorry, I just had to say it

No I'm not
Um, I detect a little animosity here.

I think I am allowed to crack a smarta$$ joke at his expense considering what he has done not only to us but to others on the forum.

It's better than any of the alternatives I could think of

Post by **f3rr37** » 09 Oct 2009, 19:46

panzermk2wife wrote:Or Dr. Herle...... :lmao: :lmao:

Oh damn did I say that out loud

Sorry, I just had to say it

:lmao: Well played Lisa!

Post by **panzermk2** » 09 Oct 2009, 20:14

f3rr37 wrote:
panzermk2wife wrote:Or Dr. Herle...... :lmao: :lmao:

Oh damn did I say that out loud

Sorry, I just had to say it
:lmao: Well played Lisa!

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

Post by **panzermk2wife** » 09 Oct 2009, 22:36

Thank you very much

Post by **jmz5** » 11 Oct 2009, 08:16

:laugh:

fatherfoof · Post by **fatherfoof** » 11 Oct 2009, 12:57

Returning to the pragmatic aspect of the post, I suspect that their are very few combinations Grant has not played with. I can attest to the fact, the math breaks down. It all assumes uniformity within a bullet. Envision throwing a football with a weight inside from one end, to the middle, to the point of 1/4 the ball length. The math discussed won't change, but the football will handle totally differently. I wait to see what Grant posts because I can't afford a new pistol. Also, there are people here with earned doctorates.

Hobknob · Post by **Hobknob** » 11 Oct 2009, 13:16

Wow, I stepped away from my computer for the weekend and the thread changed completely! (Props to Lisa for the smackdown)

Post by **panzermk2wife** » 11 Oct 2009, 13:20

We didn't say there are people here that didn't earn their doctorates, this guy was sounding more & more like someone else in extremely recent memory.

And as for the actual thread I don't pretend to know it so I leave it to those who do

Post by **Grantness** » 11 Oct 2009, 14:35

fatherfoof wrote:Returning to the pragmatic aspect of the post, I suspect that their are very few combinations Grant has not played with. I can attest to the fact, the math breaks down. It all assumes uniformity within a bullet. Envision throwing a football with a weight inside from one end, to the middle, to the point of 1/4 the ball length. The math discussed won't change, but the football will handle totally differently. I wait to see what Grant posts because I can't afford a new pistol. Also, there are people here with earned doctorates.

I think I've said pretty much all I have to say on this topic. There are definately significant variations in pressure/velocity when substituting different bullets of the same weight. A key ground rule that all reloaders should be aware of is that if you substitute ANY component in a given load...you should always back down the charge a little bit just to be safe before proceeding.

I have tested a lot of bullet/powder combinations in 5.7x28, but not very many 55gr loads. Sure, with a lot of experimentation one could find the best overall 55gr bullet and powder combo for 5.7x28...but as far as Im concerned I wouldnt waste my time with it. Even the best 55gr load wouldnt come close to what you could do with a 28, or 40-45gr bullet. If I had a bunch of extra 55gr bullets lying around because I was loading .223, it might be worthwhile to find a good load for them simply because its economical. Other than that, and outside of subsonic applications, I wouldnt have much use for them.

Who is online