FN 5.7 as home defense gun?

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

Well here's your chance to have a 5.7 pistol on the cheap. It's coming out next month.

Introducing, the Masterpiece Arms MPA57sst Semi Auto Pistol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is2GT...layer_embedded

Suggested retail will be around 600.00, so I think you could realistically get it for around 500-550.00.

Not quite the pistol I'm looking for, I'm looking for a more traditional service pistol but it is good to see another chambered in that round.

If Glock made a 5.7, I may actually buy one!

 

[481]

This one is perilously close to the same place. Please help steer it back from the edge. Thanks.

As I said in one of these threads, I have never seen a caliber polarize people as much as the 5.7x28. It's amazing.

Amazing and fun because the facts are on our side.... (See, I just made your point).

Taunting a Moderator is never a good idea. Nothing good can ever come of gloating.

 

[G|0cKbYtE]

Since polymer framed pistols in the service calibers have greatly similar characteristics (mass, recoil, capacity) that's not much of an advantage.

For instance, Glock pistols weigh about the same as the FN pistol in 5.7

Incorrect. A fully loaded Five-seveN (21 rounds) weighs as much as a Glock 17 EMPTY.

produces very little recoil (especially in 9mm)

Relative to what? .40S&W?

The Five-seveN not only has at least 30% less felt recoil then 9mm, the recoil itself is different due to the powder as well as the design of the firearm. There is hardly any muzzle flip. The recoil is more of a push than a snap allowing extremly fast and accurate follow-up shots. Go shoot a Glock 9mm and then a Five-seveN, there is NO comparison.

with 18 rounds aboard using the regular magazine, 20 rounds with a +2 mag extension and 33 rounds with the G18 magazines.

It is true you can put mag extensions on the Glocks, but you are misleading the reader by not comparing the size of the pistol after the extension. It is hilarious.. The Five-seveN is about an inch and a half taller with 31 rounds. The Glock?.. around 9 inches taller. A Glock with a 30 round mag looks retarded.

First the Five-seveN with 31 rounds:



And now the Glock with 30 rounds:

LMAO!

Penetration? All of the service calibers have plenty of that.

Penetration of what? Be more specific. Both the Five-seveN and the common calibers will penetrate to lethal depths in humans. But the Five-seveN makes body armor obsolete as well as penetrates many hard barriers in impressive fashion.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

Looks like a lock is incoming to this thread as well. Why can't we just have a nice thread about the 5.7 x 28 here on THR without the arguing?

 

[o Unforgiven o]

Watch the following video; it clearly illustrates what I am trying to describe to you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtisZ9lT9Vs

If you watch the main expansion cavity in the gel closely, that is basically the process for which a star dies.

I thought it was interesting...

 

[Skribs]

My penetration comment was to suggest that there isn't going to be a difference in penetration between the 9mm/.45 and the 5.7mm. The difference you experience in power is going to be between a 5.7mm bullet traveling at 2000+ FPS, and a 9mm-11.5mm bullet traveling at ~1000-1300 FPS. Which does more damage is up for debate, but they will all meet the minimum FBI requirement. Which means you can't say that the 5.7 will be ineffective...you can argue it will be less effective due to the smaller caliber, but you can't argue that it will not be an effective weapon.

In other words, if you take out the "power" of the bullet (which can't be quantifiably defined)*, you're looking at:
-Higher capacity in the same size magazine
-Lower felt recoil
-Lighter platform (make the Glock lighter, you increase felt recoil)
To....
-Availability

*Until you run computer simulations with a high quality program which details every possibility for single shots and multiple shots from different angles, you can't quantifiably say that the 5.7 is stronger or weaker than the 9mm, because they operate on two completely different principles. Many would even say they're equal, because it's not the size of the hole, but where the hole is that counts.

 

[481]

Incorrect. A fully loaded Five-seveN (21 rounds) weighs as much as a Glock 17 EMPTY.

OK, so it's a few ounces heavier. If a few ounces make that much of a difference to anyone then they would probably be unable to pick up the 5.7, too.

The Five-seveN not only has at least 30% less felt recoil then 9mm, the recoil itself is different due to the powder as well as the design of the firearm. There is hardly any muzzle flip. The recoil is more of a push than a snap allowing extremly fast and accurate follow-up shots. Go shoot a Glock 9mm and then a Five-seveN, there is NO comparison.

Not much difference at all. I've fired both and both offer very soft recoil.

It is true you can put mag extensions on the Glocks, but you are misleading the reader by not comparing the size of the pistol after the extension. It is hilarious.. The Five-seveN is about an inch and a half taller with 31 rounds. The Glock?.. around 9 inches taller. A Glock with a 30 round mag looks retarded.

I was unaware that "looks" played a part in a handgun's utility in home or self-defense. How do "looks" apply to the considerations one must give to a pistol intended for home and self-defense?

Penetration of what? Be more specific. Both the Five-seveN and the common calibers will penetrate to lethal depths in humans. But the Five-seveN makes body armor obsolete as well as penetrates many hard barriers in impressive fashion.

We are dsicussing the use of these calibers in self- and home-defense scanarios are we not? I thought that what these rounds would be encountering was pretty self-explanatory and so apparently did you since you clued right in on it.

Why the need to feign obtuseness?

Since armor of any sort plays a part in less than 1% of home invasions there isn't much to say for that capability.

 

[fallout mike]

Every thread glock has posted in except 1 has been locked. Every posts he has posted except 2 have been on this subject. He tells other people that what they say without documentation is heresay but when he is asked for his documentation it is secret and private and we are supposed to cringe while he chuckles or something??

 

[fallout mike]

Glock, please elaborate on the "powder being different" in a 5.7.

 

[Skribs]

I was unaware that "looks" played a part in a handgun's utility in home or self-defense. How do "looks" apply to the considerations one must give to a pistol intended for home and self-defense?

I look at the 5.7 with the 31 round mag and think "I could carry that." I look at the G17 with the 33-round mag and think "I couldn't carry that without being very conspicuous." The size of the platform actually matters a lot, especially when you're looking at a handgun. With something the size of a G17 with a 33-round magazine, you're giving up a lot of the advantages of a pistol to get those extra rounds.

If the size wasn't a valid consideration, nobody would ever sell compact pistols, snub-nose revolvers, or pocket pistols.

 

[481]

Every thread glock has posted in except 1 has been locked. Every posts he has posted except 2 have been on this subject. He tells other people that what they say without documentation is heresay but when he is asked for his documentation it is secret and private and we are supposed to cringe while he chuckles or something??

If he wants to stop playing and take his ball home, what does it really matter?

I get it, I really do, and so does everybody else, Mike. But you have to ask yourself: In the grand scheme of things does it really matter?

Anybody can say anything here (within reason, of course) and unsubstantiated hyperbole is just that; unsubstantiated hyperbole.

Let it slide, Mikey.

 

[fallout mike]

I'm gonna take my meds now.

 

[481]

I look at the 5.7 with the 31 round mag and think "I could carry that." I look at the G17 with the 33-round mag and think "I couldn't carry that without being very conspicuous." The size of the platform actually matters a lot, especially when you're looking at a handgun. With something the size of a G17 with a 33-round magazine, you're giving up a lot of the advantages of a pistol to get those extra rounds.

If the size wasn't a valid consideration, nobody would ever sell compact pistols, snub-nose revolvers, or pocket pistols.

This thread is about HD and not concealed carry on the street, so that issue is not within the scope of this topic.

A Glock 17 with the OEM manufactured 17, 19 or 33 round magazine is a perfectly serviceable pistol for the purpose of HD; it is as simple as that.

 

[Skribs]

A Glock 17 with the OEM manufactured 17, 19 or 33 round magazine is a perfectly serviceable pistol for the purpose of HD; it is as simple as that.

Ah, and so you've hit on the issue. The thread isn't "is a Glock 17 a good gun for HD", but rather, "is the 5.7 a good gun for HD." In essence, we are comparing it to a Glock, because the weapons have a lot in common (lightweight, high capacity, etc). However, just because a Glock is good, doesn't mean it can't get better. If "this works" was a good excuse, we'd all still be using big sticks, because "it works" back in the day.

I remember when I was looking at getting a semi-auto shotgun for HD, as an upgrade from my Benelli supernova. My first choice was a Saiga-12, because it's an AK shotgun, the price aint bad, and with box magazines it would be easy to reload (if I had spares loaded). What I realized was that with any decent magazine capacity, that thing was going to be so unwieldy due to the extra long magazine. I have since refined my search, and when I do get around to buying an SA Shotty, it will be a Benelli M2 instead of a Saiga 12, because of the tube magazine. (In contrast, an AR can easily fit 20-30 rounds in an acceptable-length magazine).

Even in the home, a G17 with a 33-round magazine has disadvantages over the 5.7 with a 31 round magazine that are directly related to size. I don't know if a 33-round Glock mag would even fit in my handgun safe detached from the gun, let alone inside the gun. It also looks like it would be cumbersome to hold in any direction other than straight or up. Drop down to the 17-round Glock mag and the 20-round 5.7 mag, and you've got a better comparison.

 

[481]

If "this works" was a good excuse, we'd all still be using big sticks, because "it works" back in the day.

Conversely, gambling with unknowns (the 5.7 is hardly "proven" and lacks the "track record" of the other rounds) can be quite costly when it involves the safety of us and our loved ones.

Even in the home, a G17 with a 33-round magazine has disadvantages over the 5.7 with a 31 round magazine that are directly related to size. I don't know if a 33-round Glock mag would even fit in my handgun safe detached from the gun, let alone inside the gun. It also looks like it would be cumbersome to hold in any direction other than straight or up. Drop down to the 17-round Glock mag and the 20-round 5.7 mag, and you've got a better comparison.

Since a 33 round magazine is much less than a foot in length, you might wanna get a bigger safe. Your safe must be very tiny.

As for holding it, it is no more a problem than any other magazine in terms of length since your arms will be up and away from it as they might with any other. If a few extra ounces bothers you, a light/toning exercise regimen might be in order.

 

[Prince Yamato]

I find that most people who complain about the 5.7 pistols, don't own one. They really are built "better" than most people think.

 

[G|0cKbYtE]

I'm gonna take my meds now.

That made me laugh out loud. Thanks for that.

 

[G|0cKbYtE]

I find that most people who complain about the 5.7 pistols, don't own one. They really are built "better" than most people think.

I don't think anybody is arguing that FNH builds a quality product. Their massive military contracts all over the world are a testament to that fact.

 

[Skribs]

Since a 33 round magazine is much less than a foot in length, you might wanna get a bigger safe. Your safe must be very tiny.

Okay...it would fit in my safe, but the only way to keep it attached to the gun would be long-ways. So either the pistol deep in the safe (bad idea) or with the barrel at the front of the safe (a bit unwieldy). The 57 I could fit in the way I have now - grip at the front - so I could grab-n-go. It doesn't change the fact that adding length to any dimension of a pistol takes away the biggest advantage of a pistol - the small size. Yes, I'd rather use a duty-size gun if I'm buying a handgun for HD, but any bigger and I might as well have something with more power.

Conversely, gambling with unknowns (the 5.7 is hardly "proven" and lacks the "track record" of the other rounds) can be quite costly when it involves the safety of us and our loved ones.

The 5.7 has the basic tools that everyone can agree on to get the job done (placement, controllable recoil, and >12" of penetration in gello). What's up for debate is whether or not it is MORE effective than a 9mm (due to the velocity increasing the effect of the shockwave), and if it is LESS effective in terms of PWC, is the difference in the other traits worth it?

My XDM doesn't have the track record Glock does, but I bought it and wasn't worried about its reliability. Just because something doesn't have history doesn't mean it's not a quality product. Remember, none of the calibers we use today had a "track record" when they were new.

 

[M2 Carbine]

Mine.



A little backyard penetration testing of wet phone books.
I'm not a fan of using phone books but a friend gave me a bunch of them.

Wet phone books apparently are good bullet stoppers.

Two good 45ACP defense loads penetrated only 2 1/4 inches.
The FN 5.7 penetrated over 6 inches. The SS 195 bullet turned sideways by a couple inches into the books and continued sideways until stopping.

 

[G|0cKbYtE]

Mine.



A little backyard penetration testing of wet phone books.
I'm not a fan of using phone books but a friend gave me a bunch of them.

Wet phone books apparently are good bullet stoppers.

Two good 45ACP defense loads penetrated only 2 1/4 inches.
The FN 5.7 penetrated over 6 inches. The SS 195 bullet turned sideways by a couple inches into the books and continued sideways until stopping.

Well you should be safe if you ever get attacked by a pile of wet phonebooks... Just wanted to say that before the detractors do. :banghead:

Seriously though, the SS195 annotation is incorrect. That bullet is a 28gr hollowpoint, not a 40gr V-MAX.

Also, did you shoot the books immediately after taking them out of the water? It's strange that the .45 went so shallow. Do you have a photo of the recovered .45 bullet?

 

[Gryffydd]

A fully loaded Five-seveN (21 rounds) weighs as much as a Glock 17 EMPTY.

Where did you get your numbers? They're practically tied when empty and the Glock 17 is a few ounces heavier when fully loaded (kind of obvious seeing as how 17x124 is a bigger number than 20x40).

 

[Gryffydd]

I find that most people who complain about the 5.7 pistols, don't own one.

That's always going to be true of most anything, especially with something that has as small of a market share as the 5.7.
A. Most people who own handguns (or most people posting to this board) do not own a 5.7
B. Most people who have reasons they don't like the 5.7 aren't going to buy one

 

[Skribs]

FiveseveN = 20.8 oz unloaded.
Glock 17 = 22.4 oz unloaded.

Just using the bullet weight isn't 100% comparison between the weights of the cartridge.

"Those who complain don't own one"...It's just like saying "I'd watch <television show> if nothing better was on." Duh! If something better was on, you'd watch that instead!

However, I think this is to mean that if someone had more experience with the 5.7, a lot of their complaints would go away.

 

[Gryffydd]

FiveseveN = 20.8 oz unloaded.
Glock 17 = 22.4 oz unloaded.

Depending on who you ask, that's within half an ounce or so on both of those. The point though is that it's nowhere near "a fully loaded 5.7 weighs the same as an empty Glock 17.

My comment on the bullet weight was just to illustrate why it makes sense that there's a wider variation between empty and loaded on the Glock side. And out of your average handgun round, the bullet makes up the vast majority of the cartridge weight.