Carrying a Five-Seven?

[m2steven]

I'll carry my 5.7 in the winter if I'm wearing a nice coat. The gun is light and it's reliable as heck. It's a tad larger than some poly pistols, but that's ok if you've got the right clothes/holster.

In addition to shooting straight (not much bullet drop even at 100 yards) - followup shots are super easy to control. I think it's a super SD pistol because it's so easy to shoot and it packs enough firepower to help you get out of whatever you might find yourself into (hopefully).

 

[chrt396]

I would tend to agree. Over $1000 for the piece..and ammo ain't cheap! It is a devastating round however. The down side at a range is that you can't see the holes very well! You don't have that instant gratification of blowing out the center of the target..unless you shoot 40 or 50 of the little boogars!

 

[DmL5]

if indeed you believe that no more damage is done from an expanding bullet than it's non expanding counterpart, then are you suggesting that the damage done by hydrostatic shock is irrelevant?

Hydrostatic shock is generally a non-factor with pistol bullets.

Energy transfer I would think DOES have it's values when talking of wounds. The shock from a larger caliber pistol bullet hitting soft tissue and bone (ie: BG) can kill in itself, even if a vital organ was not hit.

This isn't true. Police officers wearing body armor are shot on a daily basis and their armor causes them to take the full energy transfer of the bullet, which fails to inflict serious injury.

Fragmenting bullets, on the other hand, do what their name implies, they're frangible. Jacket seperation means more tiny projectiles passing through flesh and causing damage, more so than the FMJ.

Absolutely.

It is illegal to hunt with FMJ's in most places for the same reason.

It is illegal to cut down the barrel length of a rifle (without registration), even though said rifle becomes less powerful in the process. What is your point? Legal/illegal is not proof of anything.

I have my own eyes and have seen the damage done to a squirrel with FMJ 22's compared with hollow point stingers.

You can't extrapolate from wounds in squirrels to wounds in humans.

I have seen the damage done by expanding bullets on deer.

We aren't talking about expanding rifle bullets; that is quite another subject.

I have seen fmj wounds on men.

Perhaps, but you haven't compared them to JHP wounds in human bodies, from the same caliber.

One doctor does not equate fact. Ever.

Actually, in the field of terminal ballistics it's common knowledge that wounds caused by FMJ handgun bullets are indistinguishable (in terms of appearance and extent) from wounds caused by JHP handgun bullets; all of the prominent wound ballistics authors agree on that (including Dr. Fackler). The benefit is purely theoretical.

I haven't seen anything that says it has any compelling ADVANTAGE over any other defensive pistol in convenience, concealability, accuracy, or stopping power that would justify getting one over any other defensive pistol in 9mm, 10mm, .40, or .45 calibre, though.

A Five-seveN pistol loaded with 20 rounds weighs the same as an empty Glock 17 pistol. The Five-seveN also has a higher flush-fit magazine capacity, shoots flatter, recoils less, and with EA's ammunition has the ability to penetrate any type of soft body armor.

Particularly considering its price, and the price and limited availability of its ammunition.

5.7x28mm ammo prices run about the same as .45 ACP.

 

[Cards81fan]

Man, this thread has gotten way off track. Let's examine the original poster's three questions:

1. Is it done? (do people already do this?)

I personally do not know of any, but sure. I imagine many out there carry these.

2. Would it be practical?

This is a matter of personal preference. To me, no as the pistol is too large. However a Glock 17/22 or Beretta 92 or 5" Government 1911 are equally impractical. If they work for you, then by all means don't allow others to dissuade you!

Practicality regards to self-defense effectiveness is another matter (see the last 70+ posts). I wouldn't personally select the 5.7 (for various reasons), but if handed one I would carry it with confidence. I would not feel under-gunned with 20 rounds of high-velocity cartridges on tap.

3. Practice 5.7x28mm ammo can be found where?

I would reckon you would be best to order it online, as it's not common in stores. I have seen it, but the stores only had that FN branded "sporting" ammo on hand. The FN branded, made by Federal (I believe) though with 40 gr. Hornady bullets. I haven't seen an inexpensive (comparatively) target round on retail shelves. But I admit I have not looked closely.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Well, I was done, but I'm waiting on parts and I'm bored, so.....

It is illegal to hunt with FMJ's in most places for the same reason.

It is illegal to cut down the barrel length of a rifle (without registration), even though said rifle becomes less powerful in the process. What is your point? Legal/illegal is not proof of anything.

It is in regards to hunting regs. Not that I believe you've ever shot a living thing, based on your statements, but the requirement to use expanding bullets and having certain energy minimums is intended to keep hunters from using cartridges or bullets that are unlikely to kill humanely.

Likewise, when hunting for pelts, most of us use FMJ or other non-expanding bullets, because we want to keep the pelt as in-tact as possible.

NFA regs about SBR's and SBS's, on the other hand, are completely arbitrary, unless one considers the original purpose of them; The original text meant to restrict anything concealable, but handguns were struck from the NFA list last minute. The language for short rifles and shotguns remained)

Fragmenting bullets, on the other hand, do what their name implies, they're frangible. Jacket seperation means more tiny projectiles passing through flesh and causing damage, more so than the FMJ.

Absolutely.

So you'll agree with the one erroneous statement? Bullets fragmenting is generally not a good thing, as it typically results in insufficient penetration. Basically, you end up with what amounts to a very small shotgun wound. Would you defend yourself with .38 shot shells? I don't think so. Similarly, you do not want bullets to come apart in the target when talking hunting or self defense.

Do some reading on Glaser Safety Slugs and some of those ridiculous Extreme Shock rounds. Absolutely Abysmal performance.

You can't extrapolate from wounds in squirrels to wounds in humans.

Why not? It's a better substitute than Gelatin. Squirrels and most other quadrapedal mammals have the same basic physiology we do, just different scales, and horizontal instead of vertical. The only real difference is in their skeletal limb structure.

We aren't talking about expanding rifle bullets; that is quite another subject.

Not really. Expanding is expanding, regardless of the platform and cartridge. The principle is the same, just increased power. Many rifle rounds are still too slow to cause temporary cavity stretch and permanent crush cavity, as well. In point of fact, the .45-70 only slightly exceeds 2,000 FPS with very hot loads. Of course, I'm sure you'll argue that because it's still a relativly slow and "thimble-sized" bullet, it is no more effective than a .25 ACP or 5.7x28mm.

Actually, in the field of terminal ballistics it's common knowledge that wounds caused by FMJ handgun bullets are indistinguishable (in terms of appearance and extent) from wounds caused by JHP handgun bullets; all of the prominent wound ballistics authors agree on that (including Dr. Fackler). The benefit is purely theoretical.

Actually, Dr. Martin Fackler found that absent the velocity often associated with rifle cartridges, the wounding mechanism of a bullet is only direct contact with tissue. This means that an expanded bullet does more damage by contacting more tissue. I already mentioned this, but of course, you chose to ignore it.

I already linked the book I've been citing; it was published in 1999.

The book may have been published then, but a little searching has indicated that his findings and the resulting quote are quite a bit older (like, early '80s). As I said, quite a lot has changed the last 30 years with handgun bullet design (well, rifles, too). Remember, there was a time the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it.

 

[DmL5]

requirement to use expanding bullets and having certain energy minimums is intended to keep hunters from using cartridges or bullets that are unlikely to kill humanely.

Again, we aren't talking about hunting or expanding rifle bullets; that is quite another subject.

So you'll agree with the one erroneous statement? Bullets fragmenting is generally not a good thing, as it typically results in insufficient penetration.

No, your reading comprehension is erroneous. I agreed with the statement that fragmenting bullets (specifically, fragmenting rifle bullets) obviously have much greater wounding potential than FMJ bullets that do not fragment.

I am well aware of the fact that fragmentation is generally undesirable with handgun bullets because it can cause penetration to be insufficient.

Why not? It's a better substitute than Gelatin.

No, it isn't. Ballistic gelatin is designed and tested to replicate human tissue. You cannot extrapolate from wounds in squirrels to wounds in humans.

Not really. Expanding is expanding, regardless of the platform and cartridge.

No, it isn't. At rifle velocities, bullet effects are altered dramatically because fragmentation/temporary cavitation become significant factors.

In point of fact, the .45-70 only slightly exceeds 2,000 FPS with very hot loads. Of course, I'm sure you'll argue that because it's still a relativly slow and "thimble-sized" bullet, it is no more effective than a .25 ACP or 5.7x28mm.

No, because the .45-70 is a rifle caliber and is actually capable of creating a massive temporary cavity.

http://www.brassfetcher.com/federal4570.html

Actually, Dr. Martin Fackler found that absent the velocity often associated with rifle cartridges, the wounding mechanism of a bullet is only direct contact with tissue.

In concept, of course; in reality, the FMJ/JHP wounds are essentially identical. To quote Fackler:

(emphasis added)

"Frequently, forensic pathologists cannot distinguish the wound track caused by a hollow point bullet (large temporary cavity) from that caused by a solid bullet (very small temporary cavity). There may be no physical difference in the wounds."

--Fackler, M.L., Surinchak, J.S., Malinowski, J.A.; et.al.: "Bullet Fragmentation: A Major Cause of Tissue Disruption", Journal of Trauma 24: 35-39, 1984.

The book may have been published then, but a little searching has indicated that his findings and the resulting quote are quite a bit older (like, early '80s).

Cite your source.

As I said, quite a lot has changed the last 30 years with handgun bullet design

Hollowpoint bullets used in handguns did not improve dramatically in the mid-to-late 1980s, let alone the 1990s.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Again, we aren't talking about hunting or expanding rifle bullets; that is quite another subject.

You said:

Legal/illegal is not proof of anything.

I demonstrated that it is. This is independent of the handgun/rifle issue.

I agreed with the statement that fragmenting bullets (specifically, fragmenting rifle bullets) obviously have much greater wounding potential than FMJ bullets that do not fragment

I know what you agreed with. And it's wrong. Expanding bullets work better than non-expanding bullets, and non-expanding bullets perform better than bullets that stop being bullets shortly after entering the target. Even if some of the fragments reach minimum penetration depths, they do so little damage that it is often inconsequential.

No, it isn't. At rifle velocities, fragmentation/temporary cavitation become significant factors.

Depends on the rifle round. With slower cartridges, the permanent crush cavity in excess of bullet diameter is not present. It's also not present once the faster bullets are slowed by the tissue; Once they've dropped below that threshold, they perform as handgun bullets do. This is often evident on large game animals, especially when the bullet impacts bone before entering the body cavity.

No, because the .45-70 is a rifle caliber and is actually capable of creating a massive temporary cavity.

It is still too slow to cause the large permanent crush cavity associated with high velocity rifle rounds. Slow handgun bullets can also create a large temporary cavity. The cavity that remains after the bullet passes and the elastic tissue contracts back down is what matters. And expanding bullets leave a bigger one than non-expanding bullets. It ain't rocket science.

"Frequently, forensic pathologists cannot distinguish the wound track caused by a hollow point bullet (large temporary cavity) from that caused by a solid bullet (very small temporary cavity). There may be no physical difference in the wounds."

You've twisted "Frequently" and "May be" into "Always" and "will be"

Cite your source.

Cite yours. I will as soon as I can ascertain that the quote was, in fact in the second edition of Spitz And Fisher's Medicolegal Investigation Of Death Guidelines For The Application Of Pathology To Crime Investigation I believe published 1980. It was in the 3rd, published 1993.

Hollowpoint bullets used in handguns did not improve dramatically in the mid-to-late 1980s, let alone the 1990s.

What, have you been under a rock the last 2 decades? The expanding bullets we have today vastly outperform those of the Reagan era. As I mentioned before, it was not uncommon for JHP's of that time to fill with cloth and flesh and behave as round nose or FMJ bullets. They were not the Gold Dot's and FTX's of today.

 

[Strykervet]

It was designed to defeat armor and wound someone and to be used as a backup to the P90. Nothing more. It's like an icepick. At close range I'd rather have a compact 9mm with fmj.

In a defensive shooting, I'm not looking just to wound. I'm looking to stop. Now. If wounding does the trick fine, but it needs to do it fast. I just don't see this round doing it. I was interested in this pistol too, I really would like rifle ballistics in a handgun... But this isn't it. This is just a .22mag that is centerfire and can handle special bullets. BTW, Grendel Arms made a .22mag that had a 30rd magazine back in '94. Almost identical ballistics, check it out.

My preference, if I'm going to hide something that large (I don't care about the weight, just the overall size) then I'm packing a Glock G20. I usually carry a G29. The 10mm round is MUCH more suited to defense than the 5.7. You just can't go wrong with the 10mm, even the weakest stuff is a little better than .40. The 135gr. bullet can be pushed to 1600fps (just as fast as the 5.7 but bigger dia. and 2-3x the weight). The 180gr. at 1350-1400fps is just awesome, and the 200gr. at 1200 ain't no joke.

It may not go through armor, but I don't care. Armor doesn't protect the head or the pelvis area, and the 10mm can cause significant damage to both of those areas. In fact, using the heavier 10mm round, the pelvis actually becomes a good target. It causes tremendous pain, is easy to hit, drops them instantly, and also hits an organ not to mention bone. Usually this area is a rifle target, but the 10mm can do it too.

I've done a lot of research, reading, testing on my own, etc., and I keep coming to the conclusion that the 10mm may be the ideal round for defense. It has it all --velocity, kinetic energy, weight, diameter, density, penetration, and it can be loaded from super light to super hot. The bullet weights are ideal --the lightest one is similar to the "best" .357 load but wider and heavier, and the heaviest one is similar to the "best" .45ACP load but better cross sectional density and velocity. Velocity from 1200-1600fps. depending on weight. Energy around 600-800lbs. Flat shooting and accurate. Seriously, given the choices, what more can you ask?

Politics slowed the 10mm down, but it seems to be making a comeback. Just can't keep a good round down!

 

[bigfatdave]

hurrrrrrrrrrr

no, it is actually durrrrrrr"

imma firin my laaaaaaaaazor

no, can not has laaaaaaazor

but but but OLD BOOKS!!!

OLDER BOOKS!!!

===

come on, the wall of quoting and refuting is nearly unreadable, and I still haven't seen the pictures of a well-worn FIvESeVeNNNNN carry rig, and I'm beginning to doubt it exists.

Is the FiveishSevinish in some video game or something? Why the rabid following for an overly expensive boutique round and the interesting but overpriced platform it is launched from?
I mean, what runs on 5.7mm? The P90 and variants, the FiVeSeVeNNNNNNN handgun, and an occasional AR converted over to a top-feed bottom-eject*?
Nothing else? Nobody else is making a gun in this amazing wonder-caliber since 1991?[/B]


for the record, I think bottom-eject is a fantastic design

 

[HOOfan_1]

Is the FiveishSevinish in some video game or something?

All the Splinter Cell games

 

[bigfatdave]

Oh, I see ... I bet it is really duper-duper effective without the blinding muzzle-flash imposed by reality.

Not that big wine-bottle size/shape muzzle blasts aren't fun, I just seem to remember Splinter Cell being a "creep around in the dark" type game, and shooting the FiVeSeViN in the dark was fun, but less effective every shot. Tokarev, too, of course. Comrade Tokarev developed basket-ball fireballs at the muzzle, enough to light up the range.

 

[DmL5]

I demonstrated that it is. This is independent of the handgun/rifle issue.

No, you didn't. Legal/illegal is not proof of anything; especially since we're not discussing hunting or expanding rifle bullets.

non-expanding bullets perform better than bullets that stop being bullets shortly after entering the target

In the field of terminal ballistics it is established fact that fragmenting rifle bullets create much more severe wounds than FMJ rifle bullets that do not fragment; but I guess it goes without saying that someone who tests bullets in "ballistic clay" has zero knowledge of terminal ballistics anyway.

Congratulations; you have created yet another completely pointless tangent in this discussion.

Depends on the rifle round. With slower cartridges,

My point was quite clear. At typical rifle velocities, bullet effects are altered dramatically, as fragmentation/temporary cavitation become significant factors; and such effects are not relevant to this discussion in any way, shape, or form.

And expanding bullets leave a bigger one than non-expanding bullets.

Per all of the prominent wound ballistics authors, that is incorrect.

You've twisted "Frequently" and "May be" into "Always" and "will be"

We can play that game. Find a "may be" in one of the following quotes:

http://books.google.com/books?id=VbrDbbHAflsC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

"In regard to charges that hollow-point ammunition is “more lethal”, in an unpublished study of over 75 fatalities from hollow-point ammunition by the author, he was unable to demonstrate any death that would not have occurred if the bullet had been an all-lead bullet. As to increased severity of wounding, this is purely theoretical. To this day, the author cannot distinguish a wound by a hollow-point bullet from that by a solid-lead bullet of the same caliber until recovery of the actual bullet."

"First, it should be said that hollow-point bullets do not mutilate organs or destroy them any more than their solid-nose, all-lead counterparts of the same caliber. The wounds in the skin, as well as those in the internal organs, are the same in appearance and extent for both types of ammunition."

Cite yours.

I did cite my source more than once.

I will as soon as I can ascertain that the quote was, in fact in the second edition of Spitz And Fisher's Medicolegal Investigation Of Death Guidelines For The Application Of Pathology To Crime Investigation I believe published 1980.

It is not. The book is searchable online and searching the book's name in combination with pieces of the quotes will not give you any results.

What, have you been under a rock the last 2 decades? The expanding bullets we have today vastly outperform those of the Reagan era.

No, they don't. The examples are countless, but no, hollowpoint bullets today are not dramatically different from their 1985-1990s counterparts. See, for example:

http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Fackler_Articles/winchester_9mm.pdf

The 28 bullets in the article all expanded to about .50-.55 inch diameters passing through actual human tissue, as well as ballistic gelatin. The same goes for other loads that were produced at that time.

Dove's 9mm 115-grain Silvertip JHP bullet failed to penetrate deep enough to strike Platt's heart in the 1986 FBI Miami shootout, because the JHP bullet expanded, just like any JHP bullet expands today.

it was not uncommon for JHP's of that time to fill with cloth and flesh and behave as round nose or FMJ bullets.

In the quotes I've posted it is quite clear that the authors are not discussing clogged JHP bullets; that was your fabrication.

Nobody else is making a gun in this amazing wonder-caliber since 1991?

Actually, there are six new 5.7x28mm firearms being developed at the moment. CA-based Excel Arms is developing four different 5.7x28mm rifles/pistols, and Savage Arms will be selling two of their rifles in 5.7x28mm:

http://www.savagearms.com/firearms/model/25+LVT
http://www.savagearms.com/firearms/model/25WV

In the meantime, Federal indicated at the NRA convention that they are planning on introducing two new 5.7x28mm loads sometime in the near future (they currently distribute 5.7x28mm but don't produce it).

It was designed to defeat armor and wound someone

No, it wasn't. It was designed to replace the 9x19mm in NATO service. It was designed to be an overall improvement over the 9mm.

It's like an icepick.

All of the common pistol calibers wound like icepicks. See, for example, the tiny permanent cavity (in dark) produced by 9mm JHP, in ballistic gelatin:

http://www.brassfetcher.com/index_files/Page2449.htm

BTW, Grendel Arms made a .22mag that had a 30rd magazine back in '94. Almost identical ballistics, check it out.

We already went through this. In a pistol-to-pistol comparison, with 40-grain bullets, the 5.7x28mm EA loads achieve a muzzle velocity roughly 700 ft/s faster than the .22 Magnum.

When 30-grain bullets are compared pistol-to-pistol, the 5.7x28mm EA loads achieve a muzzle velocity roughly 1000 ft/s faster than the .22 Magnum.

http://www.gunblast.com/KelTec-PMR30-2.htm
http://www.gunblast.com/FN-FiveseveN.htm

 

[meanmrmustard]

Mach and dml5, you guys are funny. The two of you have used big words and fancy quotes trying to trump each other this entire thread. If I'm picking a PISTOL round for self defense, I want an expanding bullet that transfers energy, because pistol bullets can and DO cause hydrostatic shock which is NOT theoretical, but a factual cause of death. I want a bullet that expands it's sectional density to cause more tissue trauma, and if the bullet happens to separate in the perp's body, so be it. I'd rather a "shotgun" reminiscent wound that ups my chances of an intruder not getting back up, not an FMJ that passes cleanly through. All it takes is a shot placed well, but I'd rather up my own odds with a bullet designed for mushrooming, energy transfer, and even fragmentation. Human skin is thin, and even though BGs can wear bullet proof vests, I bet they don't wear em as often as you think. Give me a TAP round or silver tip over FMJ anyday. Good luck in your argument.

 

[bigfatdave]

CA-based Excel Arms is developing four different 5.7x28mm rifles/pistols,

Oh boy! "Coming Soon"
http://www.excelarms.com/newproducts.html
Tell me when they have a <$500 pistol and rifle sharing magazines actually on the market
I bet Taurus is going to have a revolver out in 5.7mm any day now, too.

Savage Arms will be selling two of their rifles in 5.7x28mm

A Savage Bolt gun? Hardly a superior platform taking advantage of this exciting NEW (from 1991) cartridge.
I bet you can get a Thompson Contender single shot 5.7, too

 

[DmL5]

this exciting NEW (from 1991) cartridge.

5.7x28mm has only been offered on the civilian market for about five years; even then, the round wasn't commonly available for civilian use until Fiocchi started making it in late 2006.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Dml5, there is so much misrepresentation and self contradiction in your posts its gone past funny. You believe you know all there is to know about wound ballistics, even though that "knowledge" has come from cherry-picking data you like and dismissing the rest, even from the same source. I really am done now. It's like arguing with an anti. Pointless and aggravating, because logic does not work. Good luck with your wonder pistol and with convincing the rest of the world that they're all wrong about terminal ballistics

 

[GCBurner]

Still not sold that I'd want or need one, nor that it would do a better job as a defensive handgun than the Glock 30 .45ACP, or the S&W .357 I already have and carry as defensive weapons.

I shoot both of these in IDPA competition for practice, too. I'm not sure where an FNH 5.7mm would fit in there, but since the rules limit magazine capacity to 10 + 1, its larger capacity wouldn't offer any competitive advantage. I don't think it would meet the minimum "power factor" of 125,000 to compete in IDPA, anyway. The SS197 (40 grain bullet * 1700 fps) has a power factor of 68,000, and the SS109 (31 grain * 2130 fps) has a power factor of 66,030. A 124 grain 9mm at 1100 fps has a power factor of 136,400, for comparison.

 

[Cards81fan]

Someone lock this tactical disaster of a thread.

 

[9mmepiphany]

I think this thread has gone on beyond any further usefulness to the OP...if he thinks there is more to be gained, I invite him to PM me