Smith & Wesson M&P 5.7

S&W has won my allegiance with their comprehensive M&P product line.

Now that has me interested in the 5.7 again.

I put in an initial order for the PSA 5.7 but backed out immediately after I researched ammo and reloading prices/availability but I really like the M&P 2.0 platform.

Hopefully ammo cost will come down a bit more to make it more cost friendly to own/shoot.

I have no interest in the 5.7 x 28mm cartridge, but this is definitely an interesting take on it with an actually unique feature.

As opposed to all the new and expensive pistol-caliber carbines that are... wait for it... simple blowback guns.

I am very impressed with the new gas operated rotating bolt action that this gun uses! It's exciting to see a pistol using something other than a Browning locked breech, or straight blowback action.

Somebody posted that the head diameter of .30 Super Carry is not all that much larger than 5.7FN and would be a good fit to that action.

Jim Watson said:

Somebody posted that the head diameter of .30 Super Carry is not all that much larger than 5.7FN and would be a good fit to that action.

Click to expand...

True, but there's no point. The recoil of 30SC is about equivalent to 9mm. The reason why every other real pistol (FN, PSA, and Ruger) uses the M2 .50cal action is because it allows to harvest the tiny recoil of 5.7 more effectively than the other Browning action with a tilting barrel (that Browning guy made a ton of various actions for all applications). They all tried a tilting barrel first and it didn't work. So S&W decided to employ a complex system with a sleeved barrel - how's the accuracy BTW? The only other pistol that is gas operated - not gas delayed - is Desert Eagle. And the only rifle that uses a smoothbore barrel extension is SVT-40. It's ingenious, but expensive and completely unnecessary in 30SC.

Since we're on topic, I think the other recoil system that nobody yet tried in 5.7 is a long recoil. It can reliably go into lower recoil calibers. We know that because of Frommer Stop. A crazy company like LWRC might want to consider such action in their 5.7 pistol. Here, I give it to them for free.

What's the fascination with 5.7? I was keen on it myself many years ago when I thought it might have achieved the objective for which it was developed and been a more advanced replacement for 9x19 and that the only reason it didn't catch on with NATO was because H&K and the Germans were butt hurt. When I studied it more carefully, I found the 5.7 could only ever be effective as a niche cartridge.

But Ruger and PSA and S&W et. all are no doubt simply producing it because it was demonstrated that it would sell. Why does it sell? Is it the reputed favor with the cartels presumably based on its ability to penetrate soft armor? It's performance on IIA is marginal at best even with SS198. Is it the low recoil? There's 22 magnum that's a lot more affordable to shoot. So is it cartel sales or just novelty?

There sure are a lot of offerings for a round that people said would never go anywhere.

22mag out of a 5 inch barrel about equal to 22lr out of a rifle length barrel.
22mag only equal 5.7 when the 5.7 is fired in a handgun and the 22mag from a rifle.

No doubt the 57 is more than a 22 mag. But does it do anything with the difference? All the evaluations of 57 terminal ballistics I've seen show it falling short of standard goals, so it cannot be considered a viable self-defense cartridge. It is a substandard one, just like 22 WMR. It may not be as far below the standard, but it's not adequate either.

I'll concede that centerfire is far more attractive than rimfire. It is more reliable, but I'm also a handloader and I find loading 57 unattractive, so the fact that it's centerfire is not as attractive as it could be.

The 50-round PDW mags had remarkable capacity in the day (1990) but 22 rounds in a pistol magazine is not remarkable. I remember proposing bringing 32 ACP back from obscurity for this reason years before 30SC. I thought the 32ACP case should be extended and the pressure limit raised to 40,000 psi. They came out with 30SC instead, which is fine and accomplished at least as much. I think 57 is a lesser cartridge, but I wouldn't even consider the super carry. I still consider the 9x19 marginal.

I absolutely see the value of low-recoil. It is best accomplished with a heavier gun rather than a lighter bullet.

I can't unsee the gap and drop at the front

JeeperCreeper said:

I can't unsee the gap and drop at the front

Click to expand...

Is this a final production model or just a demo model for shot show? Looks horrible.

I'll be interested if they make it in shield size.

Man, S&W is certainly covering covering the bullet umbrella with their M&P line! .380ACP, 30 Super, 9mm, 40S&W, .45ACP, 10mm, 5.7. I say good on you S&W, the M&P line is a good one, no doubt about it.

He does not understand the other 5.7 pistols on the market.

They are not Browning type short recoil operated. They are lever delayed blowback. That's why they don't need (and in fact work poorly with) recoil boosters in suppressors. Rigid direct thread mounts are used with the Five-seveN, Ruger 57 and PSA Rock.

zaitcev said:

The reason why every other real pistol (FN, PSA, and Ruger) uses the M2 .50cal action

Click to expand...

M2 is not lever delayed blowback

westernrover said:

All the evaluations of 57 terminal ballistics I've seen show it falling short of standard goals, so it cannot be considered a viable self-defense cartridge.

Click to expand...

Evaluations that I've read present that 5.7 actually works better than 9mm and all the usual quotes by highly experienced cops were a total bunk. Although I hasten to note that it applied to P90 used by police. Having the handling of a rifle, the weapon offers an easier marksmanship than a typical duty pistol, and its barrel is significantly longer than Five-seveN's.

MachIVshooter said:

M2 is not lever delayed blowback

Click to expand...

Neither are the 5.7 pistols. All of them have moving barrels that recoil together with the slide for a short distance before unlocking. Then, they use the accelerator lever to stop the barrel. This allows the energy of the moving barrel to be transferred to the slide, instead of dissipated uselessly when the barrel reaches the end of its travel. The lack of recoil of 5.7 is why this type of recoil operation is chosen.

The key taxonomical characteristic is the movement of the case when firing. If the case moves, it's a blowback (either delayed or not). If it does not move, it's a locked breech action of some kind.

The use of this or that suppressor type is a superficial characteristic.

UPDATE: This was a little curt; a certain merit in talking about the lack of Nielsen device exists. The main issue is, one cannot tell if the case moves or not by looking at the gun from the outside. This is why we are reduced to considering how suppressor attaches, and then deducing how the action works, instead of documenting how it works from primary observations.

Fortunately, a definitive way to sort them exists. You can simulate the bolt thrust. So, one can take an FN Five-seveN, clamp its barrel in a vise (using a suppressor's adapter if needed), load an empty brass case, lock the slide in the battery, drive a bronze rod down the barrel, and whack it with a hammer. If the slide opens, the action included a blowback element.

zaitcev said:

Evaluations that I've read present that 5.7 actually works better than 9mm and all the usual quotes by highly experienced cops were a total bunk. Although I hasten to note that it applied to P90 used by police. Having the handling of a rifle, the weapon offers an easier marksmanship than a typical duty pistol, and its barrel is significantly longer than Five-seveN's.

Click to expand...

General Geoff said:

What standard goals? Last I checked, SS197SR 5.7x28 offers 14-15" of penetration in 10% ballistics gel covered with denim, which is right in the sweet spot of what the FBI wants out of a pistol cartridge.

Speer also offers Gold Dot 5.7 now, which performs similarly well in 10% ballistic gel tests.

Click to expand...

Whose evaluations are those?

I read the evaluation in the Internation Wound Ballistics Association Journal referencing Martin Fackler's study:

"The measured fissures of the gelatin as produced by the temporary cavity are not significantly different than those produced by handgun bullets, and are substantially smaller than previously measured rifle bullets. As a result, the wounding profile of the bullet must be based on the depth of penetration and the size of the permanent cavity produced. The SS 1 90 31 grain bullet as fired through the FN P90 submachine gun has a very limited penetration profile with no bullet deformation as tested and is probably not as effective as many hollow point handgun ammunitions, except in its ability to defeat soft body amour. Fackler, contradicting FN'S claims, best describes the performance of the ammunition relative to the 9 mm, stating " ... the expended 9 mm bullet strikes about three times as much tissue as the P-90 bullet at 90° of Yaw - and does it throughout most of its path. Thus, the permanent cavity volume produced by the expanded 9 mm bullet is many times longer than that produced by the nondeforming P-90 bullet."*

*Martin L. Fackler, Corrections on the Wound Ballistics of the Current Fabrique Nationale (FN) P-90 Bullet IWBA Wound Ballistics Rev, 1 998;3(3):36-37

In the accompanying chart, it showed the average depth of five shots through the heavy-clothing and calibrated 10% ballistics gel test resulted in an average penetration of 11.73" at 3 meters and 9.95" at 25 meters.

I understand the SS190 is older and the SS197 may have achieved a little higher velocity, but all that is negated by the 5" barrel of a pistol versus the 10" barrel of the P90 that was evaluated by Fackler.

Oh no, sorry. That's an amateur test in clear silicone.

This is what happens to gel at different temperatures: Effect of Gelatin Block Temperature on Penetration Depth Measurement (brassfetcher.com)

I noticed that Clear Ballistics claims their gel doesn't need to be refrigerated, but what happens to its performance at different temperatures? They do claim it can be re-used by melting it. I wonder what temperature the Youtuber's block was at.