5.7x28mm Elite Ammunition Tests -- Doc

200RNL · September 3, 2011, 3:58am

Interesting, are the test results available online?

DocGKR · September 3, 2011, 4:12am

I put quite a few of them online around 1999-2002, but don’t know if they are still available.

Regular_Guy1 · September 3, 2011, 7:31pm

200RNL:

I appreciate your efforts. What you’re doing is a lot of work.

If you would like to break some new ground perhaps this may be of some interest.

In the context of handgun ammunition, I have been trying to get a better grasp of this quality known as ‘effectiveness’.

I would like to see tests of the older arms that were involved in the discussions of handgun effectiveness during the last century and compare them with the current body of thought on the subject… The .36 and .44 cap and ball revolvers, .45 Colt and .38 Colt US Army Service cartridges used against the Moros. The .38 Special 158 and 200 gr Police loads, 9MM and .45 FMJ Military cartridges, etc.

It would be interesting to look at the old cartridges that were considered effective or ineffective and compare their performance with the current thought on effectiveness. As far as I know, no one has done this…yet.

Yes, it is a lot of work considering I have full time employment with the IRS and a family. I have folks traveling from 3 states to help me out which is a co-ordination nightmare considering they all have jobs as well.
Yes, one thing I’d personally like to test are those ol’timey calibers and loads. Not sure if I can get my other testers involved because they are interested in the modern stuff. As for myself, if it goes bang, I like it.
One of the testers sons is a Cowboy Action shooter and has all the cowboy gear. I’ll get in touch with him next time they are here and see what he has.
Thanks for the suggestion.

YVK · September 10, 2011, 4:24pm

This is some interesting info; does make one think again about 5.7.
Thanks for doing this.

Two guestions:

Since you’ve said this we made some mistakes with out initial rd of testing and we have stepped up our testing protocols, I can’t decipher: did you correct initial mistakes as you went and you feel that your 5.7 data was collected according to standards of ballistic testing [or as close to them as possible], or you plan on re-testing it?
The best performer seems to be S4M. I went to Elite’s website and didn’t see it. Am I missing something, or is it a restricted load? Disregard this part, I found it there

Regular_Guy1 · September 11, 2011, 2:07am

The mistakes were in the video, coordination and some of the blocks lost too much elasticity. However, all the blocks in the video were of the proper temp. So the extra blocks were just used for fun.
I feel the tests we used and the tests of the rds was valid. While I’m not a firm believer in the 5.7 rd the S4m imo is a valid rd for self defense. Imo there are better but I wouldn’t feel inadequately armed with that rd.