Fnh 5.7

This is a discussion on Fnh 5.7 within the Defensive Carry Guns forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; I know it would not be a small carry gun, but does anyone have any experience with it?...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 27

Thread: Fnh 5.7

  1. #1
    Senior Member Array bunker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    work
    Posts
    797

    Fnh 5.7

    I know it would not be a small carry gun, but does anyone have any experience with it?

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Ex Member Array Ram Rod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fayetteville, AR
    Posts
    13,687
    Personally, no. But I think I walked past an armored car guy clearing out an ATM machine on my way out of the store yesterday. His sidearm grip was unfamiliar to me and well exposed while he had both hands inside the machine, and I almost thought about asking. When I got home, I was almost sure it was an FN 5.7. I guess I just could have just taken it off him right then and there and checked it out myself. Then again, I thought better of it since I'd never want to be in the headlines for tomorrow's newspaper. I've picked up plenty of once fired brass at the range for the 5.7. I'm sure it's popular in some way, and there are a few here that carry it I'm sure. The round and the capacity combination seemed to be a good selling point. Not sure how far things have gone lately. Don't hear much about it even though it's an interesting option.

  4. #3
    Senior Member Array bunker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    work
    Posts
    797
    mods, i accidentally put it in the wrong part of the forum here... could you move it to the carry guns section. Thanks. Bunker

  5. #4
    Member Array leibdav1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    21
    I carried the five seven at work a few times a week (worked in a gun shop) not only to show that there was potential to carry it, but also because of the significant capacity, accuracy and very low recoil. Very light, and the grip wasn't any bigger than the glock 22, so it wasn't all that challenging to conceal it inside my waistband when I wasn't at work. I have the double mag carrier from blade tech that I'd also carry. It was a pretty nice carry gun.

  6. #5
    Member Array 120mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Afghanistan
    Posts
    448
    Except for the part where it won't reliably actually kill/incapacitate a person, it seems to be a pretty well-made gun.

    Seriously. The 5.7mm is a very specialized round, designed to penetrate body armor. It has a horrendously bad history with the few professionals who have had the bad luck to have purchased it for duty carry.

  7. #6
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    14,598
    Factory ammo election is extremely limited. Handloading would increase its potential, but most shooters use factory ammo.

    The "vest penetration" was pushed by the Brady Bunch. When subjected to standardized testing, it didn't penetrate any better than any other cartridge.
    Retired USAF E-8. Avatar is OldVet from days long gone. Oh, to be young again.
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  8. #7
    Senior Moderator
    Array Tangle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chattanooga
    Posts
    9,647
    I think vest penetration may depend on the specific ammo used. I mentioned this very thing to a gunstore guy, and he claimed he sold legal ammo, that had been tested and demonstrated that it would effectively penetrate a vest.

    My cousin, when he was with a PD, carried the FN 5.7 on some drug 'operations' because of its capacity and his ammo does penetrate vests, but as I understand it, civies can't buy the ammo he used.

    I got to shoot his gun and it is sweet! Hardly any recoil, good trigger as I remember, pretty impressive as the gun per se goes. I can't speak to it's fight stopping effectiveness, but it makes me think 3 or 4 rounds in the COM or one or two in the head would be effective, but that's just a thought, not fact.
    I'm too young to be this old!
    Getting old isn't good for you!

  9. #8
    Senior Member Array bunker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    work
    Posts
    797
    0i have seen the round at the store, and i can tell you it looks mean... long like a rifle cartridge. The hornady rounds had a blue polymer tip to help with expansion i think... you gotta remember, these rounds are supposedly approaching 2000 feet per second... that fast man, really fast. Bunker

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array nedrgr21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    KCMO
    Posts
    3,106
    ICE stopped using it b/c the wounds inflicted were essentially like stabbing someone with an ice pick.

  11. #10
    Senior Moderator
    Array Tangle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chattanooga
    Posts
    9,647
    Quote Originally Posted by nedrgr21 View Post
    ICE stopped using it b/c the wounds inflicted were essentially like stabbing someone with an ice pick.
    eeech! This pertains more to an ice pick as a weapon, really has nothing to do with the 5.7 round, but when I was taking an edged weapons class at Gunsite, Steve Tarani, the instructor, said an ice pick is a popular weapon. It seems they ram it in and 'crank' it around, ripping and tearing internals and is very effective - Brrrrr!

    Again, just an aside, has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the 5.7.

    Although, I have heard the 22 magnum is a pretty effective round, seems like the 5.7 would be at least equally effective. If the 5.7 has a muzzle velocity of 2000 fps, doesn't a 5.56 out of an M-4 only run about 2700 fps at the muzzle? Of course that is a significant difference in energy, but that would be true also for about all major handgun rounds. Is the 5.7 problem it doesn't expand? It just seems like it ought to do more than we're hearing.
    I'm too young to be this old!
    Getting old isn't good for you!

  12. #11
    Distinguished Member Array ripley16's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Quantico/ F'burg, VA
    Posts
    1,369
    All I know is, I don't want to be catching rounds from a 5.7.

    Here's the, always excellent and well done, Brassfetcher take on the round.
    http://www.brassfetcher.com/SS195%20...clothing).html

  13. #12
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    14,598
    Quote Originally Posted by Tangle View Post
    I think vest penetration may depend on the specific ammo used.
    My cousin, when he was with a PD, carried the FN 5.7 on some drug 'operations' because of its capacity and his ammo does penetrate vests, but as I understand it, civies can't buy the ammo he used.
    But any caliber, when loaded with the proper, non-civilian bullet, will penetrate vests, so it's not really a matter of the 5.7 being capable above and beyond others. And the available "civilian" 5.7 ammo is very limited in selection.
    Retired USAF E-8. Avatar is OldVet from days long gone. Oh, to be young again.
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  14. #13
    Senior Member Array usmc3169's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    866
    I think the round has an amazing amount of potential. With the right rounds it could potentially put all other standard pistol rounds out of business in the future. You are looking at rifle velocity rounds down range, and by all acounts a 55gr 5.56 is gonna do alot more damage than a 230gr .45 out of a colt. So now we are looking at a pistol that is firing at near 5.56 velocities..... With good TAP ammo, this is very exciting. I hope it catches on and is developed further.
    "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

  15. #14
    Senior Moderator
    Array Tangle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chattanooga
    Posts
    9,647
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    But any caliber, when loaded with the proper, non-civilian bullet, will penetrate vests, so it's not really a matter of the 5.7 being capable above and beyond others. And the available "civilian" 5.7 ammo is very limited in selection.
    First, lets be clear that the desire for a vest penetrating bullet is for defense against 'armored' assailents.

    I'm not so sure that's exactly accurate. The larger rounds require a different bullet because there is so much surface area on the larger caliber, i.e. 9mm+, bullets. I think that 'different' bullet has to be far more than just a lead bullet and hence the civie issue.

    OTOH, the 5.7 mm bullet is of course much smaller and traveling much faster and may just require a solid lead, heavy jacketed bullet that falls outside the banned type of bullet. Wonder how the all copper bullets would fit in here.

    The difference is, it appears that there are at least one commercially available, civilian legal round that would penetrate a BG's vest. Plus if the 5.7 starts to 'catch on', more bullets will become available. Unfortunately, I am concerned that even if it does catch on and it becomes known that this round is capable of penetrating a vest, the law will be changed to specify that all rounds sold to civilians can NOT penetrate a vest.

    Quote Originally Posted by usmc3169 View Post
    I think the round has an amazing amount of potential. With the right rounds it could potentially put all other standard pistol rounds out of business in the future. You are looking at rifle velocity rounds down range, and by all acounts a 55gr 5.56 is gonna do alot more damage than a 230gr .45 out of a colt. So now we are looking at a pistol that is firing at near 5.56 velocities..... With good TAP ammo, this is very exciting. I hope it catches on and is developed further.
    True, but there's probably about 700-800 fps difference in velocity between a 5.7 and a 5.56. I don't know for sure, but isn't the velocity of a 5.56 out of an M-4 about 2700-2800 fps? It appears from the link above, the velocity of the 5.7 mm is about 2000 fps. I presume the 5.56 bullet is heavier so that gives it both more energy and momentum, plus since kinetic energy of a bullet is proportional to the square of it's velocity, even small increases in velocity create much larger increases in kinetic energy. Hence the 5.56 would have a whole lot more energy than a 5.7 mm.

    I really like the gun and concept. But if we're hoping for a handgun that will penetrate the vest of a BG, I'm quite sure once the powers that be get wind of this, they'll outlaw it for civies.
    I'm too young to be this old!
    Getting old isn't good for you!

  16. #15
    Senior Member Array Freedomofchoice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Wesley Chapel, Florida
    Posts
    1,028
    I read somewhere that the Muslim military psychiatrist that was involved in the mass shootings on the American military base used the FNH 5.7 in that massacre. Undoubtedly, it's lethal.

    There are two things that I don't care for: first, the gun is quite pricey. My LGS is selling them for $750, which is quite high in comparison to FN's other models. Secondly, is the availability and variety of ammo. I have only seen that ammo actually produced by FN.
    .

    Too light for heavy work, too heavy for light work!

    pb

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

5.7 effectiveness
,
chatanioga gun stores fn 5.7
,
fn ss197lf
,
fnh 5 7 outlawed
,
fnh 5.7 effectiveness
,
fnh 5.7 problems
,
glock in 5.7 coming soon
,
history of the fnh 5.7
,

ss197lf

,

ss197lf ammo

,
ss197lf ammunition
,
ss197lf fps
Click on a term to search for related topics.