I just want to compare these 2 fairly new firearms. I know the MP-7 is more of an Uzi style weapon with a compact design and the P-90 is of bullpup configuartion but which one has greater range because they both use different ammunition and which one has greater pentration. and if you want to which one do you prefer personally.
MP7 v. FN P90 Ammunition MP7 (4.6mm x 30) P90 (5.7mm x 28) Projectile weight: 24.7 grains 31 grains Muzzle Velocity: 2,378 f/sec 2,346 f/sec Muzzle Energy: 310 f/lb N/A Armor Penetration 1.6mm Titanium/20 layers Kevlar: > 200 m 150 m Max. Effective Range: > 200 m 200 m MP7 v. FN P90 HEAD TO HEAD COMPARISON Test: MP7 P90 Gelatine block at 50 m.* 280mm 230mm Energy Transfer thru armor**: 220 joule 180 joule Titanium/Kevlar Penetration* >200m 140m Energy xfer thru armor 100m** 115 joule 65 joule * 20 % Gelatine block 300mm long ** 1.6mm Titanium + 20 layers of Kevlar Source: HKPRO.COM Here is an interesting quote from the HKPRO website: "What appears upon first look to be a weapon design to compete with the FN series P90 in 5.7mm x 28, the PDW promises to be a huge improvement on that system. Though no one could fault the engineers at Fabrique Nationale for their vision, the P90 has one reported serious flaw. If you drop a partially loaded magazine, or the gun with a partially loaded magazine, rounds will go flying, get disoriented in the magazine and seriously jam the mechanism." Other than holding a P90 at the gunshop I have no expirience with either of these, nor the rounds they use as they are proprietary rounds and not in widespread use, The P90 has a good head start over the MP7 as its been around for a while now. The price of the P90 will prevent me from ever owning one ($2000 US), I imagine getting ahold of the HK will be near impossible. Both companies are known for producing top notch high quality weapons, If i had my preference it would be one of each LOL
Weren;t the PDWs designed with a pistol counterpart that fires the same round? Thus making logistics easier by carrying 1 type of ammunition.
Quite so. I have a very similar official summary from FN, which reaches the opposite conclusions. :lol: There were extensive NATO tests between the two rounds, and the general conclusion seems to have been (and not just from the FN report!) that the 5.7 has the edge on the 4.6 in most respects, but the differences aren't really significant. HK were rather naughty in the final tests, submitting a test gun with a much longer barrel than the MP7's and thereby artificially boosting the ballistics. Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
The sequence went something like this: FN started designing the P90 in the late 1980s. By the mid 1990s, NATO had realised that future opponents would probably start wearing body armour, which the existing 9x19 pistol/SMG round couldn't get through (they were still thinking in terms of big armies rather than insurgents). So they came up with the idea of replacing the 9x19 with a new "Personal Defence Weapon" round, which by definition would have to be usable in pistols as well as compact SMGs. FN assumed that selection of their 5.7x28 would be a formality, but then HK came along with a late bid for the 4.6x30. Several series of comparative tests (Germany kept protesting the outcome) resulted ina final recommendation of the working group in favour of the 5.7, but Germany (and the UK oddly enough) refused to accept it, and as such NATO decisions have to be unanimous, nothing was decided. FN introduced the companion Five-seveN pistol (I've fired one - nice gun) but HK are yet to launch their 4.6mm pistol - they seem to be having technical problems with it. You can read more about PDWs and their ammo HERE. The pic below is taken from that article, and shows (from top to bottom) the 4.6x30, 5.7x28 ((AP), 9x19 and .45 ACP. Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
LOL why am i not surprised LOL. I was unable to find a good source of unbiased data. I guess the old saying "dont believe anything you read and only believe half of what you see" is applicable here
