Speaking of five-seven

[jstyer]

Hey moderators/p-f gurus,

I want to read what the forum has to say about the five-seven in generally and knowing this place I'm pretty much a thousand percent sure this gun has been covered here before. But I can't seem to get the search function to work for me. Even directly typing five-seven into the search bar yields zero results. Even though there is a thread with that title right under this one!

If anyone has a link handy I'd be much obliged. Or maybe just some tips for searching.

[F-Trooper05]

I don't recall ever seeing a specific thread about the Five-Seven here, but I'm pretty sure most everyone would agree that it has a very limited role (if any?) as a serious use defensive handgun.

[Long tom coffin]

I don't recall ever seeing a specific thread about the Five-Seven here, but I'm pretty sure most everyone would agree that it has a very limited role (if any?) as a serious use defensive handgun.

I haven't either. Firstly, lets just say that on here (and M4C as well), FN's past forays into the pistol market are generally viewed as less favorable than other more prominent platforms. I do not own a Five Seven, or any FN pistols, but I have shot one several times, as one of my local ranges (Top Gun) has a large amount of FN fanbois on staff. I was completely underwhelmed.


Honestly, I don't even think the Five SeveN is of even niche use, unless you are a hardened criminal trying to sell them for the purported $5000 a pop they go for among our little amigos south of the Rio Grande. There are better, more proven rounds and platforms out there; those, as well as training to use them effectively, are the general focus of this board.

[TCinVA]

The 5.7 cartridge is anemic. I know of a department that used the 5.7 in the P90 not long after the weapons first came out and experience multiple disturbing failures with the weapon. As an example of "disturbing", when you shoot someone in the chest with a burst of automatic fire because he poses a lethal threat, you want him to drop...not stand there complaining about what you shot him with. Some claim that it's only the "old" ammo that had those problems and that the new ammo works much better. I don't know of any real-life uses of that ammo, so color me skeptical.

The weapons themselves didn't prove to be durable. Every agency I know of that bought the FN PDW's ended up having major reliability problems and didn't get much in terms of support from FN.

In addition to that, the specimens of handgun I shot exhibited very low recoil, but I found the controls awkward, the sights sucked, and the trigger was not to my liking. I also had concerns about the durability of the weapon given where they decided to use plastic.

If I had someone that was extremely recoil sensitive to the point where they won't shoot anything more than a .22, I'd consider FN's 5.7 pistol for them. Otherwise, I have no use for it.

Certain military units have been using H&K's PDW very effectively in the GWOT, but their application for the weapon generally involves being very close to their intended target and shooting him in the face multiple times. Of course, they do this generally as a part of an offensive action and are typically backed up by considerably more firepower than just the PDW's...so there's not a whole lot of crossover potential from their application to the guy who is looking to protect himself from getting robbed at the ATM.

[jstyer]

I don't really have a horse in this race... Mainly due to the fact that if i'm spending that much coin, it's on a long gun!

So is it the round the biggest problem? Because on the surface it seems kind of cool. Accuracy at ridiculous ranges, very mild recoil, if the internets are to be believed the fragmentation is pretty spectacular, and most people shot with it seem to die.

That being said, I handle one pretty much every day at work and for me at least it's an ergonomic nightmare.

[orionz06]

A PDW like the P90 is designed to spray rounds, the Five-Seven pistol sold at your local gun shop is not. When something does not work well for guys who have zero issues mag dumping bad guys in the chest the appropriate response is not to buy the same thing and much less of it.

The ammo issue, to me, seemed to be you either get penetration or you get tumbling. People seemed to want to lump it in with a good 5.56 round when the ass just wasn't there. Sure, it zings out of a short barrel, but so do other rounds that people don't use. I am no ballistics expert and perhaps Doc can chime in, but there seems to be a minimum bullet weight, regardless of design, that sits around 55gr. Just not happening with the 5.7.

[TCinVA]

So is it the round the biggest problem? Because on the surface it seems kind of cool.


I'm sure that as a varmint caliber it's probably superb.



if the internets are to be believed the fragmentation is pretty spectacular, and most people shot with it seem to die.


The internet is a swirling torrent of ignorance when it comes to many topics...firearms among them. To the best of my knowledge one police agency in the United States has had more experience shooting people with the 5.7 than anyone else...and having met multiple members of their tac team I can tell you they were not fans of the weapon's effect on bad people. It's rather strange to me how I meet people who have first hand experience with the weapon and hear from them facts that line up exactly with what I hear from genuine experts on terminal ballistics like DocGKR (whose credentials are verifiable) and yet "the internet" says it's awesome. I can only surmise that I've either become a victim of a bizarre and highly coordinated conspiracy, or that "the internet" people don't know their rectum from a hole in the ground.

As I mentioned earlier, there are some military units that have used the H&K PDW with success, but a good bit of that success is due to the way they employed the weapon. Your average citizen, police officer, and even SWAT ninja won't be using the pistol chambered in 5.7 in quite the same fashion.

[LHS]

If I were going up against armored sturmsquirreltruppen, I'd be all over a PS90 and a Five-seveN pistol.

[RoyGBiv]

I can't seem to get the search function to work for me.
I find that Google usually works pretty well when a forum search is having trouble...

LINKY (http://bit.ly/z1gx0I)

[jstyer]

Thanks for the search help Roy.

And thanks for all the info on the five-seven guys. I'm in gun retail so I like to stay informed on products so that I can in turn be ignored by 99% of the gun buying populace :)

[jkm]

I attended a Cor-Bon ammo test session this past fall. One of the local Depts carried the five-seven. I had heard big things thru the local rumor mill about the round, but hadn't read anything, and really didn't know anything about it. The testing, which was done with handguns, convinced me that it might be ok for shooting groundhogs or the like, but in my world, nothing more than that.
I still don't know much about it, but it seemed to me that it's just a fancy 22 magnum. Maybe one of you guys who know alot about it can clear that up for me....jkm

[F-Trooper05]

Here's Doc's write up on the cartridge...

http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19913

[ToddG]

The 5.7mm: a .22-caliber round with the recoil of a .380 and the terminal effectiveness of an angry stare.

[orionz06]

But the Secret Service uses it... :(

[dookie1481]

Be careful if you go slumming at ARFCOM; you will be assaulted by a bunch of fans who will show you a couple of awesome test results in uncalibrated gel.

[jetfire]

I'm sure that as a varmint caliber it's probably superb.

Actually, it pretty much sucks for anything bigger than a fox. I hit a coyote right behind the right front leg with one in Indiana and he just sort of wandered off until I shot him again in the head with it. If I had put a 55 grain 5.56 round in the same spot he most likely would have been DRT. Having to shoot a coyote more than once is really annoying.

I realize that coyotes != people, but any caliber that's suspect for rolling up a 30 lb Indiana coyote isn't something I'd really want to bet my life on. On the flip side, if you happen to be inside 20 yards, a 124 grain Ranger T-Series will wreck the hell out of a coyote. Since I can have a 9mm handgun that will hold 17-19 rounds, I don't really see the purpose of a .22 that holds...1 more round than my 9mm.

[Nephrology]

The 5.7mm: a .22-caliber round with the recoil of a .380 and the terminal effectiveness of an angry stare.

I had a guy argue that 5.7mm was awesome and that 9mm was weak and wouldn't deliver "one shot stops" and told me to go "ask some combat vets" who knew what they were talking about.

Yeah. Combat vets. Who shoot people with 5.7mm....OK....

[TCinVA]

But the Secret Service uses it... :(

Not anymore. :)

[orionz06]

Not anymore. :)

Just to be clear that was sarcasm. To my knowledge it is merely on their list of approved guns, or was. Just like Navy Seals us the Mark 23 and pop bottles are as good as a suppressor.

[jstyer]

That link by doc was excellent! It was exactly the kind of info I was looking for. Thanks guys!

[fuse]

But the Secret Service uses it... :(


I occasionally work at the white house, and its a very odd thing to see the secret service ninjas covered in various black gear walking around with P90's. I *think* many of them have the 5.7 as a sidearm, but many also have the sig 228/229. I think. They seem to know when you're staring at their weapons, which is not a nice feeling.

I think I'd take an MP5 or UMP-45 over a P90, personally.

[TGS]

There's a bit of a mob mentality based on incomplete info going on here.

Do earlier loads of 5.7 suck against IWBA standards? Sure.

1) There are current loads that are markedly different, with 14-15" penetration, tumbling and fragmentation out of the Five Seven pistol. The thing is they're extremely expensive, and not likely procured by agencies.

2) Saying the 5.7 sucks, and basing that statement on the experiences and performance of crap loads from yesteryear is just as ignorant as saying 9mm sucks for reasons of 1980's ammo performance and OIS from that time period.

3) And no, not all of these tests that fan-boys cite are uncalibrated. http://www.brassfetcher.com/5.7x28mm%20Performance%20Summary.pdf

Also, keep in mind the reason the cartridge was designed and its purpose. IWBA standards are not critical to this endstate when your alternative is a legacy service caliber that won't even penetrate armor.

As to the pistol, the build quality didn't strike me as anything to write home about. The manual safety is of terrible design and function. The pistol is, however, incredibly easy to shoot accurately, very quickly, with little effort, training or proper technique needed. For the purpose it was designed, it's pretty good. The HK UCP would probably be even better if they could get the throat erosion issue under control (barrel won't last more than 20,000 rounds).

Slamming the 5.7 based on incomplete info, and because some idiots bought it for the wrong purpose with anemic loads that have been surpassed in performance and don't perform well in a role it wasn't purposed or designed for, is pretty silly, and no more objective, intelligent or correct than the guys who praise it as the best answer to every problem using whatever evidence, credible or not, that they can get their hands on.

[fuse]

I think I'd take an MP5 or UMP-45 over a P90, personally.


Also I'd like to point out I reached this expert opinion via countless combat hours on the xbox.

[jstyer]

Fuse, I gotta respectfully say you're dead wrong. EVERYBODY knows you gotta go with P90 plus acog... Put five shot groups right on BG's head. That's ten BG per mag!!! ;)

[Zhurdan]

Also I'd like to point out I reached this expert opinion via countless combat hours on the xbox.

Rented a UMP45 and P90 on the same day once. The P90 seriously sounds like a chainsaw. The UMP45 sounds more like a broken furnace fan on slow... KUCHUNK... KUCHUNK... KUCHUNK... KUCHUNK in comparison to the P90.


Both are very controllable and fun as hell to shoot and even though I own an SBR'd PS90, I'd probably sell a testicle for a converted USC45.

[fuse]

even though I own an SBR'd PS90

Do you watch alot of stargate?

[Zhurdan]

Do you watch alot of stargate?

Never did. Just wanted one. Cool concept, but all in all, it really is/was designed for full auto. It was just one of those "I will own one of those" guns.

[pangloss]

Hi everyone. I'm new to the forum, and I've really enjoyed reading here so far.

Regarding the Five-seven, I believe the Ft. Hood shooter used one to murder a dozen+ people a couple of years ago. That single incident is sufficient for me to not be dismissive of the pistol. (Though the counterargument might be that had he been using a G17 with 33rd mags, even more people would have died.) Having said that, I don't own a Five-seven, have never shot one, and am very happy with my Glocks.

[Byron]

Regarding the Five-seven, I believe the Ft. Hood shooter used one to murder a dozen+ people a couple of years ago. That single incident is sufficient for me to not be dismissive of the pistol. (Though the counterargument might be that had he been using a G17 with 33rd mags, even more people would have died.)
Frankly, I don't think anyone here would really feel like having that argument. Beyond that, I'm speechless...

[pangloss]

Frankly, I don't think anyone here would really feel like having that argument.

That's good to know. (I'm not argumentative.)

[F-Trooper05]

Hi everyone. I'm new to the forum, and I've really enjoyed reading here so far.

Regarding the Five-seven, I believe the Ft. Hood shooter used one to murder a dozen+ people a couple of years ago. That single incident is sufficient for me to not be dismissive of the pistol. (Though the counterargument might be that had he been using a G17 with 33rd mags, even more people would have died.) Having said that, I don't own a Five-seven, have never shot one, and am very happy with my Glocks.

There's a big difference between indiscriminately firing upon a crowd of innocent people with absolutely zero expectations of being shot at; and defending yourself against a gang of motivated, jacked up, meth heads with zero regard for human life and absolutely nothing to lose.

[pangloss]

There's a big difference between indiscriminately firing upon a crowd of innocent people with absolutely zero expectations of being shot at; and defending yourself against a gang of motivated, jacked up, meth heads with zero regard for human life and absolutely nothing to lose.

Agreed. I'm not defending or promoting the pistol. I think defensive pistol selection reduces to two basic factors: shootability and terminal ballistics. Since I've never shot a five-seven (or even handled one), I have no first hand knowledge about how well it handles. It looks kind of big and clunky to me. As for terminal ballistics, I speculate that a sizable percentage of all the people who have ever been shot with that caliber out of a pistol, were shot at Ft. Hood. As tragic as that event was, it still provides data on the effects of the cartridge against able-bodied adults.

[TGS]

defending yourself against a gang of motivated, jacked up, meth heads with zero regard for human life and absolutely nothing to lose.

Hmmm......exactly what the 5.7x28 was not designed for.

[JodyH]

Hmmm......exactly what the 5.7x28 was not designed for.
Here is what it WAS designed for, Japanese Embassy crisis in Peru (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_embassy_hostage_crisis).
A controlled full auto burst into the head/body of someone who's wearing light body armor.
A 5.7 pistol is a football bat.

[will_1400]

It never ceases to amaze me how many people want to argue against physics. 5.7x28 flings a bullet that is about half the weight of a typical 5.56 NATO round at a velocity roughly 1000 fps slower (according to the numbers from Wiki FWIW). Add in the terminal performance data Doc's shared with us and this all makes me ask "why does this round exist?" As an idea/concept, it sounds good on paper: rifle-like ballistics in a tiny package. However, like a lot of good-sounding ideas, it failed the "kicked in the nuts by reality" test.

[derekb]

A 5.7 pistol is a football bat.

New favorite phrase.

[TGS]

Here is what it WAS designed for, Japanese Embassy crisis in Peru (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_embassy_hostage_crisis).
A controlled full auto burst into the head/body of someone who's wearing light body armor.
A 5.7 pistol is a football bat.

Are you sure that's what it was designed for?

Are you sure it wasn't designed as a cartridge for second line troops so they could punch through the body armor of Russians as they swept through Europe, when that second line troop's other option was a 9mm pistol or SMG?





It never ceases to amaze me how many people want to argue against physics. 5.7x28 flings a bullet that is about half the weight of a typical 5.56 NATO round at a velocity roughly 1000 fps slower (according to the numbers from Wiki FWIW). Add in the terminal performance data Doc's shared with us and this all makes me ask "why does this round exist?" As an idea/concept, it sounds good on paper: rifle-like ballistics in a tiny package. However, like a lot of good-sounding ideas, it failed the "kicked in the nuts by reality" test.


The 5.7x28 was not designed to meet IWBA protocol and ensure the most reliability in stopping a threat as soon as possible.

It was designed for those who would've otherwise been issued a 9mm pistol or SMG on a battlefield of combatants wearing body armor.....in which case their 9mm was near useless. The idea of being able to punch through that body armor and injure a Russian crossing Germany is a lot better than hitting him without effect with a 9mm. It was designed to make YVK's day really bad. :p

We don't really have a need for it in the US since our 2nd line troops are issued a 5.56 weapon, anyway. Lots of militaries issue or use to issue 9mm SMG's or pistols to 2nd line troops instead of a full size rifle or carbine. The 5.7x28 was developed for this role, at the request of those militaries.

This isn't arguing against physics......this is realizing what the cartridge was made for, and not being an idiot and using it for something it wasn't made for, like fending off meth-heads while stopping by the 7/11 or dynamic entries on unarmored targets. In those roles it sucks.....but it also wasn't made for those roles, and that doesn't mean it doesn't have a purpose, is stupid, or sucks in what it's intended to do.

[JodyH]

Are you sure that's what it was designed for?

Are you sure it wasn't designed as a cartridge for second line troops so they could punch through the body armor of Russians as they swept through Europe, when that second line troop's other option was a 9mm pistol or SMG?
For all intents and purposes the Russian threat did not exist at the time the 5.7 was developed.
The Berlin wall fell in 1989 and Russia effectively collapsed in 1991.

Designed for or not, the Peruvian embassy hostage situation was exactly the role the 5.7 was marketed to fill from 1991 to around 2000.
During that time the MP5 9mm SMG was the counter-terror and SWAT weapon of choice, but with the prevalence of body armor and the scarcity of M4 5.56 weapons (introduced around '94 and not really utilized for CQB until 2000 or so) something to defeat light armor was needed, hence the P90 5.7x28.

[TCinVA]

When the P90 didn't sell to a bunch of militaries, FN tried to market it to anyone they could in any way they could because they wanted to make money on a gun they'd invested a bunch of money into.

The people in LE who bought the weapon and employed it and found out that it sucked were not "idiots", TGS.

[JDM]

When the P90 didn't sell to a bunch of militaries, FN tried to market it to anyone they could in any way they could because they wanted to make money on a gun they'd invested a bunch of money into.

You'd think they'd offer a factory SBR* then.

*the last time I checked this was a couple years ago so if FN does offer an SBR now, disregard the above.

[TGS]

For all intents and purposes the Russian threat did not exist at the time the 5.7 was developed.
The Berlin wall fell in 1989 and Russia effectively collapsed in 1991.


Last time I checked, the cartridge and P90 were developed in 1986.

The formal NATO request came a couple years later in 1989.

Is this incorrect?

Although the impetus for the development was essentially the Russians, does the fact that the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 make the need for these militaries any less? I'm certain that other European countries besides Russia use body armor.

[TGS]

The people in LE who bought the weapon and employed it and found out that it sucked were not "idiots", TGS.

If "idiot" is too harsh to describe policy makers that make bad choices, fine. Recently I've seen a lot of P-F rally behind Kyle Defoor for calling policy makers idiots for choosing the SERPA to issue to their employees, so I don't see why this should be any different.

The largest US user of the P90 also selected the .38 110gr +p+ JHP as their duty load until the .357 SIG rolled around...so they've got a history of making bad decisions on how their employees should be armed. Maybe they weren't idiots, but they were certainly making ill-informed decisions. Thankfully, that's no longer true.

[TCinVA]

If "idiot" is too harsh to describe policy makers that make bad choices, fine. Recently I've seen a lot of P-F rally behind Kyle Defoor for calling policy makers idiots for choosing the SERPA to issue to their employees, so I don't see why this should be any different.


There are plenty of documented issues with the Serpa that make it rather difficult to argue as a rational choice. The same was not true when FN was marketing the P90 as a general utility weapon suitable for lots of roles.



The largest US user of the P90 also selected the .38 110gr +p+ JHP as their duty load until the .357 SIG rolled around...so they've got a history of making bad decisions on how their employees should be armed. Maybe they weren't idiots, but they were certainly making ill-informed decisions. Thankfully, that's no longer true.

They may be the largest agency in terms of manpower that used the P90, but to my knowledge they never shot anyone with it. I know of a local LE agency that has had a number of OIS incidents with the P90...more, I believe, than anyone else inside the US. They had lots of issues with the weapons, the magazines, and finally with the effectiveness when used on bad people.

[TGS]

There are plenty of documented issues with the Serpa that make it rather difficult to argue as a rational choice. The same was not true when FN was marketing the P90 as a general utility weapon suitable for lots of roles.

I guess I can see that. A case of 20/20 hindsight on my end?




They may be the largest agency in terms of manpower that used the P90, but to my knowledge they never shot anyone with it. I know of a local LE agency that has had a number of OIS incidents with the P90...more, I believe, than anyone else inside the US. They had lots of issues with the weapons, the magazines, and finally with the effectiveness when used on bad people.

I never said their experience said otherwise, but I don't think it's useful for arguing the 5.7 sucks since that's not what it was designed for.

Example:

Person A: The 75mm Pack Howitzer sucks. I came to this conclusion in my time of utilizing the 75mm Pack Howitzer as my CCW, in which it failed miserably.

Person B: I don't think that means the 75mm Pack Howitzer sucks, since that's not what it was made for. Since it sucked as a CCW does not mean that it sucks, it means that it sucks in a role it wasn't designed or purposed to be used in. The 75mm Pack Howitzer may have filled its intended role much better.

See what I'm steppin' in?

[JodyH]

Last time I checked, the cartridge and P90 were developed in 1986.
Maybe in the conceptual stage in '86.
The 5.7x28 cartridge was patented in 1989
The P90 was introduced in 1990... the "90" in P90.

[TGS]

Maybe in the conceptual stage in '86.


Meaning it was being designed in response to the ________ threat.

[jetfire]

.38 110gr +p+ JHP as their duty load

I'd rather have a k-frame with this load than an FN 5.7 as my carry gun.

[TGS]

I'd rather have a k-frame with this load than an FN 5.7 as my carry gun.

If it weren't for the safety on the Five-Seven, and the fact that it's a bit large for everyday carry, I'd disagree with you.

Still, the Treasury load has a much less chance of disrupting vitals than a good, well-picked load out of the 5.7. Even the crappy 5.7 loads will have a greater chance of disrupting vitals than the Treasury load.

7.5" of penetration in BG, or 14"? I don't know how less objective and "it's cool to slam the 5.7 cuz' it's cool, yo" you could get....especially when the one option has 21 opportunities for that 14" of penetration, whereas the other only has 6-7 opportunities for 7.5".

Of course, if I were using the weapon for it's intended role, I'd pick it any day of the week over any other pistol out there...getting through the body armor of my aggressor will always result in more chances of saving my bacon that not getting through the body armor. :)

[fuse]

No 4.6mm no care.

HK = way cooler than FN

[Byron]

Slamming the 5.7 based on incomplete info, and because some idiots bought it for the wrong purpose...


...defending yourself against a gang...

Hmmm......exactly what the 5.7x28 was not designed for.


Are you sure that's what it was designed for?....

I never said their experience said otherwise, but I don't think it's useful for arguing the 5.7 sucks since that's not what it was designed for.

Of course, if I were using the weapon for it's intended role...

TGS,
You're beating the hell out of this red herring.

Head on over to FNH USA (http://www.fnhusa.com/le/products/firearms/model.asp?gid=FNG001&fid=FNF003&mid=FNM0004):

The FN Five-seveN® single-action autoloading pistol fires the low-recoil 5.7x28mm cartridge making it ideal for personal protection

If FNH USA wants to claim that the the FN Five-seveN is "ideal for personal protection," then the members of this forum have every right to criticize it as a personal defense weapon. The people you're calling idiots -- those who bought the pistol for self protection -- must have been misled by the written product description.

[will_1400]

Are you sure that's what it was designed for?

Are you sure it wasn't designed as a cartridge for second line troops so they could punch through the body armor of Russians as they swept through Europe, when that second line troop's other option was a 9mm pistol or SMG?



The 5.7x28 was not designed to meet IWBA protocol and ensure the most reliability in stopping a threat as soon as possible.

It was designed for those who would've otherwise been issued a 9mm pistol or SMG on a battlefield of combatants wearing body armor.....in which case their 9mm was near useless. The idea of being able to punch through that body armor and injure a Russian crossing Germany is a lot better than hitting him without effect with a 9mm. It was designed to make YVK's day really bad. :p

We don't really have a need for it in the US since our 2nd line troops are issued a 5.56 weapon, anyway. Lots of militaries issue or use to issue 9mm SMG's or pistols to 2nd line troops instead of a full size rifle or carbine. The 5.7x28 was developed for this role, at the request of those militaries.

This isn't arguing against physics......this is realizing what the cartridge was made for, and not being an idiot and using it for something it wasn't made for, like fending off meth-heads while stopping by the 7/11 or dynamic entries on unarmored targets. In those roles it sucks.....but it also wasn't made for those roles, and that doesn't mean it doesn't have a purpose, is stupid, or sucks in what it's intended to do.

In that case why not just issue MP5K-PDWs loaded with AP rounds? That gives the armor defeating capability without clogging the logistics train with a completely different cartridge.

[Tamara]

I'll admit that the FiveseveN pistol never made any sense to me.

The P90? Sure. It was designed to give minimally-trained people something with an optical sight and a shoulder stock that would give them a chance of hitting distant targets. How a weapon that was originally intended for truck drivers and cannon cockers wound up getting marketed to ninjas is beyond me, but there you go.

The pistol, though, always struck me as an afterthought.

[JSGlock34]

How a weapon that was originally intended for truck drivers and cannon cockers wound up getting marketed to ninjas is beyond me, but there you go.

Eh, it can happen. Arguably, the M4 Carbine followed a similar path, as the original requirement was written for personnel who would normally be limited to carrying the M9 pistol (or even the M3A1 submachinegun) before being adopted as the standard Army rifle (though there was a history of SOF personnel using the earlier shorter barreled CAR-15/XM177).

[TGS]

TGS,
You're beating the hell out of this red herring.

Head on over to FNH USA (http://www.fnhusa.com/le/products/firearms/model.asp?gid=FNG001&fid=FNF003&mid=FNM0004):


If FNH USA wants to claim that the the FN Five-seveN is "ideal for personal protection," then the members of this forum have every right to criticize it as a personal defense weapon. The people you're calling idiots -- those who bought the pistol for self protection -- must have been misled by the written product description.

Gotcha. I'll stop.

[Zhurdan]

It was never a front line gun, even tho some people think it was. Aka fanboi's.

[JRas]

watched a Top Gun on the PS90

at 15 yards it was a tack driver

out to 39 yards ( I think it was ) shot very high, combination of the optic being so high and round being light.

no one seemed to care for it, when comparing to the AUG and BAR..

I wonder why Secret Service Agents would use it to protect the president though, if It was inadequate I highly doubt it would be in use.

[JodyH]

I wonder why Secret Service Agents would use it to protect the president though, if It was inadequate I highly doubt it would be in use.
They have Tackleberry's in the procurement process just like every other large agency.
A few strippers and dinners on FNH's dime, some glossy brochures, a cool video and the P90 starts looking pretty good.

[ToddG]

Unless something has changed very recently, the 5.7 pistol was never authorized by USSS. If that has changed, I would certainly appreciate a PM from anyone in a position to know officially. The last time I talked to folks I know involved in such decision making, there was no whiff of it.

The P90 serves a certain role. It does that better than a MP5 and, in some ways, better than an M4. Both the MP5 and M4 serve far better than the P90 in a multitude of other roles. If you understand exactly what the agency in question wanted to P90 for -- and what they didn't want it for -- then you understand it's not anyone's idea of an ideal weapon if other options are available.

I'd rather have a G19 as a home defense weapon than a semi-only P90. But my neighborhood is relatively free of goa'uld home invasions...

[JodyH]

I think I've seen the Capital Police with a P90 and people often confuse them with USSS.
I've never heard of them issuing the pistol.
Here's USSS with a P90:
626

[EricP]

626

Holy height over bore! That looks like 6" from the Aimpoint to the barrel.

[YVK]

It was designed to make YVK's day really bad. :p


Bad vodka makes YVK's day really bad; usually the next day, or whichever day that I wake up on..:p Little pussy bullets - not so much :cool:




I'd rather have a G19 as a home defense weapon than a semi-only P90. ..

That, in bold, is a subtle hint about the way I was told P90 and MP7 were intended to be run.

On a separate note, FNH 5.7 must be the least ergonomic pistol I've ever shot.

[HCM]

I think I've seen the Capital Police with a P90 and people often confuse them with USSS.
I've never heard of them issuing the pistol.
Here's USSS with a P90:
626

The U.S. Federal Protective Service http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1253889058003.shtm, also sometimes mistaken for USSS, issued the P90 for several years. The FPS P90s have since been phased out in favor of Colt M-4's. Not sure about the U.S. Capitol Police use of the P90 though their negative experiences with the HK G-36 also lead them to adopt M-4's.

As Todd stated, it's a niche weapon and it fits that niche (armor piercing replacement for an SMG) relatively well. I've fam fired the P90 a few times. It was reliable and easy to shoot effectively at close range but the .22 mag equivalent ballistics didn't inspire great confidence.

I have never heard of any of these agancies issuing the 5.7 pistol.

[Chuck Haggard]

Last time I checked, the cartridge and P90 were developed in 1986.

The formal NATO request came a couple years later in 1989.

Is this incorrect?

Although the impetus for the development was essentially the Russians, does the fact that the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 make the need for these militaries any less? I'm certain that other European countries besides Russia use body armor.

The 5.7 was invented in response to the NATO perceived need for a PDW for 2nd line troops, regardless of the exact math of what date happened when..

[Tamara]

Holy height over bore! That looks like 6" from the Aimpoint to the barrel.
Given how next-to-useless the factory optic is, I'll go with the sight offset. ;)

(Seriously, I'm surprised some FNH engineer hasn't been found face-down in a gutter, bludgeoned with the factory optic from a P90...)

[jslaker]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong as I'm on my phone at the moment, but I seem to remember reading on Todd's blog a couple years ago that the reason HK canceled the UCP project was because they decided the ballistics sucked in handgun form? I think it was from a discussion with HK USA's president?

[TCinVA]

I wonder why Secret Service Agents would use it to protect the president though, if It was inadequate I highly doubt it would be in use.

Firearms are like any other tool: They all have a purpose. You could potentially drive a brad nail with a sledge hammer, but generally it's not the right tool for that job.

Let's think carefully about the job those folks are charged with: If one of the major threat profiles you deal with is the possibility of somebody in a crowd of well wishers producing a pistol and shooting at your man, it might be of considerable benefit to produce a compact high-capacity firearm that shoots a lot of small bullets that will stay inside of a bad guy and that can penetrate body armor to boot. It might be considerably better than trying to screw around with...oh, I don't know...the folding stock on an Uzi.

For that purpose...namely close range, highly accurate fire on a specific target with minimal risk to lots of bystanders...the weapon might make a lot of sense.

Outside that niche it doesn't make much sense. That fact is why it's not the backbone of the USSS arsenal. They have other toys at their disposal, it's just that you don't often see them in pictures.

[BaiHu]

Full Disclosure: I own an FNPS90 and I use the SS197SR ammunition, which is only 1 of 2 available cartridges for commercial/civilian use to my knowledge.

That being said, I could care less what anyone thinks about my lowly PS90, it is a fun gun to shoot and being of small stature, I enjoy it differently than I enjoy my M1 Garand.

Now, on to my surprise that in 7 pages, NO ONE has discussed the different cartridges available to the MIL/LEO community. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_5.7%C3%9728mm


......For that purpose...namely close range, highly accurate fire on a specific target with minimal risk to lots of bystanders...the weapon might make a lot of sense.

Outside that niche it doesn't make much sense. That fact is why it's not the backbone of the USSS arsenal. They have other toys at their disposal, it's just that you don't often see them in pictures.

This, IMO, is the lynch pin that holds this platform together. It is a niche platform that is a) easy to shoot on full auto, b) it is tiny and c) its strength real or imagined was coming from it's cartridge.

For instance, this is a study done comparing a commercial 5.7 cartridge SS195 vs 230 gr .45 ACP ( I do not know the integrity of this test ):
http://www.brassfetcher.com/Elite%20Ammunition%20S4M%20Kinetic%20Energy%20Perf ormance%20Summary%2016APR11.pdf

However, I can't not find data for the other non-commercially available cartridges, but here is some 'data' on all of the cartridges that I cannot say is right:

http://www.fivesevenforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=55

All I'm saying is that if we are going to break down the characteristics of a platform, let's make sure we make a distinction b/w breaking down its civilian issues versus its MIL/LEO issues. As TGS said, this is not a front line troops platform and if secret service or local DC Capitol PD is using it, let's a) hope it's the right decision for them and b) they are using non-civilian rated cartridges, which I heard were more effective.

[Chuck Haggard]

In Doc's posting on the PDW rounds, in the noted M4carbine forum post, he was speaking towards only the ammo available to LEOs/.mil

The Brassfetcher "test" and conclusions is a joke. That guy/those guys have jumped on the old and debunked ideas from the '70s of temp cavity of rounds in this range of wounding ability being somehow important.

There was a similar thread over at Lightfighter that Doc posted in, and where a 5.7 fan boy tried to argue wound ballistics with Doc. The whole mess ended up closed and in the Hall of Fame, but there were some decent postings made in that thread ref 5.7 info.

Regardless of ability to get through soft armor, if the 5.7 consistently fails to put bad guys down then it fails as a weapon, in whatever role it has been chosen for.


I'll note that in the grand scheme of things if they lose a couple of Secret Service guys because the 5.7 is slow at putting bad guys down, but the President is saved from injury and evac'd from the scene, that would be a mission accomplished win at the end of the day.

Most of us are not in similar circumstances.

[TGS]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong as I'm on my phone at the moment, but I seem to remember reading on Todd's blog a couple years ago that the reason HK canceled the UCP project was because they decided the ballistics sucked in handgun form? I think it was from a discussion with HK USA's president?

From reading what has been written by G3Kurz over on HKPRO, a retired HK employee (example: he designed the PDW part of the MP5K-PDW and lead the testing of why NJSP's P7's got a trooper killed), I was under the impression that they stopped because the barrel suffers excessive throat erosion and is toast by 20,000 rounds. In addition, they had concerns about the gun being able to shoot with an obstructed bore, which is currently something that all HK's can do. They plug the bore, shoot a round, and then test to see if it still makes their accuracy testing at 25m (by the way, which is still twice as tight as a brand new, in-spec M&P). So, given that capability they've come to expect of themselves, you could see why they'd be unhappy that the gun has trouble with an obstructed bore.

This all makes sense.......especially since the 4.6 can penetrate CRISAT at 300m instead of 150m like the 5.7! That edge over the 5.7 can't just be coming from a 1mm smaller projectile. Imagine if bubbas started reloading 4.6.....the 5.7 is already on the edge, and at its operating pressure only 4000psi away from blowing out primers and whatnot.

The UCP was designed to German Bundeswehr requests to replace their USP9. I highly doubt they dropped it for ballistic reasons when the cartridge is already outperforming the 5.7 with a large lead. Rather, they couldn't get the gun to meet their standards that most other companies don't even try for.

[TGS]

The Brassfetcher "test" and conclusions is a joke. That guy/those guys have jumped on the old and debunked ideas from the '70s of temp cavity of rounds in this range of wounding ability being somehow important.

The point isn't that they hop on old theories and what not.

If the round is still getting over 12" penetration with some other stuff going on, like yawing and/or fragmenting, then that's the valid info you can take from the test. We don't need to take his conclusions.....we can look at the test and make our own based on IWBA standards. No?

[ToddG]

The UCP was designed to German Bundeswehr requests to replace their USP9. I highly doubt they dropped it for ballistic reasons when the cartridge is already outperforming the 5.7 with a large lead. Rather, they couldn't get the gun to meet their standards that most other companies don't even try for.

My info came from the president of HK-USA, who has been a friend almost as long as I've been in the industry. While there may have been technical difficulties with the gun, development stopped because they determined that the terminal performance out of a short (pistol) barrel, in semiauto only, were inadequate. If you understand who is using MP7 and how they are using it you'll understand that no one is excited about the "stopping power" of a single 4.7mm round. Putting half a dozen icepick holes through someone's head in the blink of an eye at room distance, though, does apparently have some measurable effect.

[TGS]

Good to know, thanks!