Good posts Danny, reminds me a lot of my best friend and father, one of whom was a Canuck in 2 Para through the 90's and early 2000's and the 2003 Iraq invasion, the other who was a police officer for 37 years.
My friend Rob Semrau, the Canadian officer who was charged with murder after mercy killing a wounded Taliban soldier after Afghan National Army guys had tortured him for 2 hours before he got on scene, no morphine/medic left, and no evac given for the wounded enemy after several radio calls for it - he joined the British army in 1993, and was in 2 Para for 10 years. He did tours in Northern Ireland as wall as Iraq, and used both the early version and the upgraded one you're talking about of the L85 rifle. His description is identical to yours, the early rifle had terrible everything, it was incredulous to him that somebody would allow such a poorly functioning weapon to exist. The later one was excellent, after all the upgrades and political fiasco it took to get there.
My father was a cop in Canada, and with the RCMP was part of a nation wide hostage/ert response teem for years, but the other 25 years of his career, he often told me he thought along the same lines as you - the extra weight and discomfort of having a holstered handgun in a car is a giant PITA, and it is, I'm sure all L/E here like Rich and all will agree with that, and mainly the low threat level in Canada where he drew his firearm exactly twice in 37 years, made him wish he didn't have it issued most days. They had rifles, and shotguns, and later C8 carbines in their patrol units, and if you're going to a call or violence erupts, he just figured a rifle was far better than a pistol anyhow, and should be deployed instead. I'm not advocating no pistols for l/e in the USA, I know a lot of guys down there, and they often pull their pistols more than my father did in decades in a single day, it depends on the threat level and area IMO.
Having a shoulder supported weapon is always preferable to a handgun in virtually any situation except perhaps extremely close quarters, which you try to avoid obviously as much as possible (time - distance - cover, continuum of combat). The physiological effects of the startle response when violence or a threat of some kind happens, which includes ocular constriction, auditory exclusion, time compression, rapid increase in adrenaline which increases heart rate and has the effect of draining some of the regular blood flow to the extremities, which is the most important issue. When you hands and fingers numb out because of this, fine motor skills are greatly affected, and then operating a pistol is far more difficult than a shoulder supported weapon in such circumstances as well. Plus the stuff Danny, Rich, and others have mentioned regarding accuracy and lethality.
edit - And Gsholsz - yes, you never expressly said that 5.7 would defeat lvl 3 or 4 in a single shot, it just seemed you advocated it's acceptance due to your first statement that penetration was critical due to armor, and my point is that it's irrelevant regarding such armor, as it will defeat it - even when taking multiple hits, as you suggested as the option/alternative with it - I won't quote it again, but you know the post I'm talking about with the multiple shots in the same spot that you suggested. I agree with everything else you have and are saying, always respect your posts regarding most everything here. Regarding hits on unprotected areas, that's part of the entire issue to be considered, and there are rounds out there that do more damage than 5.7 in that regard, such as 357 Sig, so since neither 5.7 or 357 Sig or .45 is getting through hard armor, shouldn't the best performing round vs unarmored spots be the best option? I realize some, just some, of the armor systems out there have integrated 3a soft armor into spots and small attachment panels, and 5.7 would defeat those where other pistol calibers can't, but many, many nations and companies are replacing every single little attachment piece with lvl 3 or mostly 4 small armor panels. That being the case, it would make the entire area covered by armor rated high enough to stop 5.7 with great effectiveness. Then that being the case, we're back to what's going to perform best vs unarmored areas of the threat, right?
I know people working diligently on this specific issue, armor vs ammo, with a few of the larger companies of both, including Sig where I worked for many years, RUAG in Europe, and a few of the armor companies. Every point you've brought up G is being widely considered and worked on, I'm just parroting things I've heard from many of them, as I'm an end user, not a creator in any capacity. I know the guys at Sig who first came up with the 357 Sig round, and they are working on a blending of high velocity performance and penetration types of rounds like a marriage of 5.7 and .45 so to speak. Again, as I said earlier, everything is being considered, from extreme hardened penetraters, to explosive ammunition, blended metal technology regarding super cavitation - all kinds of neat stuff. All based on your original premise, which is correct, that most threats out there are becoming more and more protected vs not just pistol now, but high velocity AP rifle rounds.
I'll digress for one more paragraph, and then stfu, I promise. Tundra security is a company that formed in Canada from a guy I worked for who is a good friend, and became one of the largest private companies operating contractors in Afghanistan. They had the contract to provide security, sometimes with local ANA guys, IMO a terrible idea, but the US gov wanted it because they were trying to make things look like "we're all working together" using locals, right. One of these guys was a planted Taliban and got through security checks some how, and a few years ago used his weapon to attack American troops he was guarding and killed some and wounded many more. Due to the media/lawsuit, I won't go into specifics other than to say he was wearing lvl 4 armor provided to him, and after his initial attack on guys who were either unarmed or had unloaded weapons, it took a lot of shots to stop this guy, he wounded at least 3 more people and killed another AFTER being engaged and shot at many times once the US guys were able to regroup after seeking cover and engage this planted enemy threat. It's a perfect example of exactly what is being discussed, how up armored threats are going to be a lot harder to take on with this type of armor, and it certainly was in this case, as the armor kept this guy in the fight a lot longer than he otherwise would have been. You can google it and read about it yourself, many docs are online regarding this.
