Opinions on FN 5.7

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MattInFla

The real-world experience shows that the 9mm FMJ is more highly rated as a stopper than the 5.7.

---

Yet despite that claim, the Fort Hood gunman using a 5.7 killed more than double the number of people that the Tucson shooter using a 9mm did. And a person even shot through the brain at Tucson with a 9mm survived.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MattInFla

In fact, according to the article above, several police agencies that bought the 5.7 got rid of them after a few officer involved shootings demonstrated that the round is a very poor man stopper.

---

However, that article contains no actual specific information or data in it at all. It is completely vague in nature, and does not even mention the name of one single police agency.

I cannot accept any person's opinion as being "fact", when they don't provide any evidence at all to back up their claims. It is just his opinion, that is all.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LanceORYGUN

Yet despite that claim, the Fort Hood gunman using a 5.7 killed more than double the number of people that the Tucson shooter using a 9mm did. And a person even shot through the brain at Tucson with a 9mm survived.




However, that article contains no actual specific information or data in it at all. It is completely vague in nature, and does not even mention the name of one single police agency.

I cannot accept any person's opinion as being "fact", when they don't provide any evidence at all to back up their claims. It is just his opinion, that is all.

.

---

I believe that DocGKR has forgotten more about terminal ballistics than either of us will ever know, my friend. He has a great deal of credibility on this topic.

Matt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LanceORYGUN

Yet despite that claim, the Fort Hood gunman using a 5.7 killed more than double the number of people that the Tucson shooter using a 9mm did. And a person even shot through the brain at Tucson with a 9mm survived.




However, that article contains no actual specific information or data in it at all. It is completely vague in nature, and does not even mention the name of one single police agency.

I cannot accept any person's opinion as being "fact", when they don't provide any evidence at all to back up their claims. It is just his opinion, that is all.

.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Timmy:
The 5.7 pistol as a carry gun is a mistake for all the reasons Doc stated. There are far more effective weapons and ammunition combinations out there.

The only factor that comes close to equalizing the P90 (not the 5.7 pistol) is it's full auto capability: 900 rpm of very controllable fire. Even this advantage is limited to close-in, CQB type engagements. I can put more rounds on target faster with the P90 than with my M4 in close contact engagements. Unfortunately you may HAVE to put more rounds in the threat due to the lack of damage the projectile causes.

We have been using 30 P90's for five years now. There have been three BG's shot with them. We will not be buying more ;)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Timmy:
Never mind then you got it all figured out. For those still intrested in listening to real world experience with the P90 and SS190 ammo. The round is far less effective than 5.56 and many other widely used defensive loads. You want to wrap your life around the 5.7/P90 system knock yourself out. I am not trying to be a dick to you but my agency has more operation experience with the system then ANY and our verdict is it is far less effective than advertised.

Take care,

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DakotaLawDog:
One of our area SWAT teams uses P90s on entries. I have heard of two instances where they had to shoot somebody over the last few years.

One guy was shot 6 times, lived.

The other guy was shot 10-12 times before he told the officers "stop shooting me" and gave up. He lived as well.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Timmy:
To add to the 5.7x28 fire one of our guys shot a gunman the other day with the P90 at about 7 yards. One round failed to penatrate the rib. Thats right, the SS190 AP round stuck into the rib just under the skin.

---

From here. Them again, some POS whackjob managed to shoot a bunch of unarmed people trapped in a room with a 5.7, and a few died. Guess it's good to go!:rolleyes:

I frankly do not believe some of the statements made on this thread. Someone had to say it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Texag

From here. Them again, some POS whackjob managed to shoot a bunch of unarmed people trapped in a room with a 5.7, and a few died. Guess it's good to go!:rolleyes:

---

That link requires that we give that website our email address.

I, for one, am not going to give out my email address to some website that I've never heard of just to read something that might possibly be relevant.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MattInFla

I believe that DocGKR has forgotten more about terminal ballistics than either of us will ever know, my friend. He has a great deal of credibility on this topic.

Matt

---

I'm sorry, but if a person is not willing to take the time to make a case in support of their argument and provide some specific documentation, I'm not impressed. Not by any means.

In effect, he is saying: "I am the God of handgun ballistics, and you need to trust whatever that I say."

That just does not cut it for me. Not when it comes to guns, not when it comes to anything that is under discussion, no matter what the topic is.

Now if he had actually put in some effort and had cited some information from his various sources to back his conclusions up, and gave a few details about these police agencies that supposedly tested and rejected the FiveseveN, then that would be something entirely different. Doing that would give him some real credibility.

But he failed to do any of that. Either out of laziness, or because he is full of himself, and doesn't feel that he needs to.

.

I've shot the Fn 5.7. It's a very pleasant pistol to shoot, accurate,light recoil and large mag capacity. Don't know about the balistics or even balistics in general,but anything that will throw a projectile the weight of a marble at 2100 fps is bound to cause a lot of hurt.

The 5.7 is fairly speedy for a handgun round but doesn't "set the woods on fire" if this link is to be believed. The column showing the lower velocities is realistic as the ballistic figures in the other column were generated out of a custom 22-inch barrel.
http://www.gunsandammo.com/content/57x28-fn

The .22 Magnum fired from a rifle for comparison. Found within this all-encompassing .22 rimfire ballistics chart. My chronographed velocities of various .22 Magnum ammunition fired through my dad's rifle correspond closely to these figures.
http://www.ruger1022.com/docs/22lrballistics.htm

The .22 Magnum fired from a rifle whips the 5.7 fired from the handgun. The 5.7 won't be any more magical in performance than a good .22 Magnum rifle on critters. It also wouldn't be expected to offer anything special against human targets that any decent round can't offer, assuming good hits.

Clever in a way, the 5.7X28 is also a bit of a yawn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LanceORYGUN

I'm sorry, but if a person is not willing to take the time to make a case in support of their argument and provide some specific documentation, I'm not impressed. Not by any means.

In effect, he is saying: "I am the God of handgun ballistics, and you need to trust whatever that I say."

That just does not cut it for me. Not when it comes to guns, not when it comes to anything that is under discussion, no matter what the topic is.

Now if he had actually put in some effort and had cited some information from his various sources to back his conclusions up, and gave a few details about these police agencies that supposedly tested and rejected the FiveseveN, then that would be something entirely different. Doing that would give him some real credibility.

But he failed to do any of that. Either out of laziness, or because he is full of himself, and doesn't feel that he needs to.

.

---

Did we read the same article?

The one I linked discusses the results of 6 papers:

Quote:

---

--Dahlstrom D, Powley K, and Gordon C: “Wound Profile of the FN Cartridge (SS 190) Fired from the FN P90 Submachine Gun". Wound Ballistic Review. 4(3):21-26; Spring 2000.
--Fackler M: "Errors & Omissions", Wound Ballistic Review. 1(1):46; Winter 1991.
--Fackler M: "More on the Bizarre Fabrique National P-90", Wound Ballistic Review. 3(1):44-45; 1997.
--FBI Academy Firearms Training Unit. FBI Handgun Ammunition Tests 1989-1995. Quantico, U.S. Department of Justice--Federal Bureau of Investigation.
--Hayes C: “Personal Defense Weapons—Answer in Search of a Question”, Wound Ballistic Review. 5(1):30-36; Spring 2001.
--Roberts G: “Preliminary Evaluation of the Terminal Performance of the 5.7 x 28 mm 23 Grain FMJ Bullet Fired by the New FN P-90 , Using 10% Ordnance Gelatin as a Tissue Simulant”, AFTE Journal. 30(2):326-329, Spring 1998.

---

Do some research, and I believe you will find that DocGKR has a great deal of credibility.

Matt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LanceORYGUN

That link requires that we give that website our email address.

I, for one, am not going to give out my email address to some website that I've never heard of just to read something that might possibly be relevant.

.

---

That, or you're looking for an excuse to dismiss statements about real world use against hostile people because it doesn't jive with your opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmcgilvray

The 5.7 is fairly speedy for a handgun round but doesn't "set the woods on fire" if this link is to be believed. The column showing the lower velocities is realistic as the ballistic figures in the other column were generated out of a custom 22-inch barrel.
http://www.gunsandammo.com/content/57x28-fn

The .22 Magnum fired from a rifle for comparison. Found within this all-encompassing .22 rimfire ballistics chart. My chronographed velocities of various .22 Magnum ammunition fired through my dad's rifle correspond closely to these figures.
http://www.ruger1022.com/docs/22lrballistics.htm

The .22 Magnum fired from a rifle whips the 5.7 fired from the handgun. The 5.7 won't be any more magical in performance than a good .22 Magnum rifle on critters. It also wouldn't be expected to offer anything special against human targets that any decent round can't offer, assuming good hits.

Clever in a way, the 5.7X28 is also a bit of a yawn.

---

It depends what 5.7x28 you're shooting. The factory FN stuff is a bit bland, but some small manufactures such as elite ammunition make much larger claims

http://www.eliteammunition.net/civilian_data_sheet.html

35 grains at 2100fps is nothing to sneeze at. Neither is 50gr at 1800fps. Given those numbers it doesn't seem like a 22mag from a rifle whips the fiveseven's butt. Rather it seems there neck in neck.

Oh how I pine for the days of 9mm vs. .45! :danceban:

As for the 5.7, in 99% of instances any of us would face whie carrying, it will be JUST fine. The 9mm round penetrates like heck and we don't sit hear warning people about overpenetration every time. Personally, I like the FN but then I have never been a crowd-follower...my pistols are: Beretta Cheeta, S&W Bodyguard380, Steyr S40, Taurus PT09 Slim, and Glock 30 (the Glock was free but even then I choose the model that is amongst the least common). My experience with going with unusual choices? Fun but frustrating. Getting accessories and armorer help is more difficult.

So, to the OP, while the FN would be a fine choice, you might be better served buying a less expensive 9mm to get most of the effectiveness at a reduced cost...might I suggest the 17 round Beretta PX4 or even the S&W M&P?

To the OP:

Have you considered a glock 19C? The C models are ported on the top of the barrel. Load with speer gold dot 124 grain non +p. I'd say that's a more effective and concealable tool than a 5.7.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Texag

That, or you're looking for an excuse to dismiss statements about real world use against hostile people because it doesn't jive with your opinion.

---

Just posting a link to other websites like you did, without actually discussing any issues in any meaningful way, is also against the forum rules for this website. So just by making your post, you violated the terms of posting here. Just look at rule #7, if you don't believe me. Your post fits the last description in that rule to a tea.

If you have a real point to make, then why not just spit it out and actually say it, instead of playing coy games like this?

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MattInFla

Did we read the same article?

The one I linked discusses the results of 6 papers:

Do some research, and I believe you will find that DocGKR has a great deal of credibility.

Matt

---

I'm afraid that you have totally mischaracterized this post by DocGKR.

The proper thing to do in presenting any research information is to first cite the information from any documents that you reference, and then attribute its source. However, DocGKR never did that at all in his post. All he did was throw out a bunch of references, without directly citing any of them. That is a totally vague way for him to go about things, to the point of the references actually becoming totally meaningless.

Besides, most of his references are from the Wound Ballistic Review, a publication that has been defunct for many years now. Since the organization that originally created those documents is now history, there is also no way at all for anyone to now get access to those old reports and be able to read them themselves, as you have suggested.

Did you not even notice that one of the articles cited was from the year 1991, a date long before the FiveseveN pistol was even under development, and many years before it came on the market??? I sure would like to see how on earth it could possibly be relevant to discussing the FiveseveN pistol.

Matt, I think that you are the one here that needs to take a harder look at this, not I.

Accepting another person's word just by itself is not good practice in my opinion. I tend to think for myself. If someone wants to convince me of something, then they need to provide solid arguments with some evidence to back it up.

But DocGKR does not do that in his post. It was very sloppily written in my opinion. It certainly convinces me of nothing.

.