FN 5.7 as home defense gun?

[Skribs]

Uh...that's actually 1.6 oz difference, not "a half ounce." A lot of bullets I see for 5.7 are 23-grain or 31-grain. My numbers are off the manufacturer's official website. Google search puts SS190 rounds at 93 grains, which is 4.25 oz. Okay, so maybe it's not quite as big an advantage as Glockbite says, but it's still an advantage.

It may or may not be that much of an advantage, but it does experience less recoil even while being slightly lighter. In terms of weight, and what weight largely affects (recoil), the 5.7 has win/win over Glock. (In other platforms, heavier is going to be more annoying to carry but easier to fire, so you get a tradeoff). How much of an advantage depends on your personal preference and capabilities. But you can't deny that it's an advantage.

 

[Gryffydd]

Sigh. I didn't say there was a half an ounce difference between the two guns. Anybody with half a brain can do that kind of subtraction. I meant the numbers you quoted were +/- half an ounce for each gun, depending on the source. For example, Glock's website says 22.05 for the G17, not 22.4. So the almost inconsequential 1.6 ounces may be even less than that

Nobody denies the lower recoil is an advantage, but there's no such thing as a free lunch.
On the weight side, it's so close it doesn't even warrant any attention.

I think the problem people have with the 5.7 is that it doesn't offer any real considerable advantages over proven platforms that cost half as much to buy and reload. Weight? a few ounces. Capacity? 1 more round than the 19+1 9mms. penetration? Usually about the same as your typical service calibers, depending on bullet type. Recoil? Most people who have practiced much at all can place 9mm rounds COM as fast as they can pull a trigger at any reasonable defensive distance.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it (though it does have some disadvantages mostly in the areas of cost and ammo/component availability), just that it doesn't offer anything that groundbreaking in return for its downsides. I wouldn't mind owning one myself, but only after I've purchased a few essentials first.

 

[Skribs]

http://www.glock.com/english/glock17_tech.htm

Ok, 22.04. I missed a 0.

You're right, and like I said a lot of it boils down to preference. But, I don't see how anyone can look at it and say that it is bad for HD. You might say not the best value, you might disagree as to its strengths, but if you honestly look at it, and at what you need for SD, it has all the needs.

 

[Gryffydd]

You might say not the best value, you might disagree as to its strengths, but if you honestly look at it, and at what you need for SD, it has all the needs.

I would agree with that with the caveat that you have to really pay attention to your ammo choices, but that's true of every other caliber as well--though some less than others. It seems like the smaller & faster the round gets the more important bullet construction is.

And really, the biggest downsides to the 5.7 platform have more to do with scarcity than anything else. The gun is expensive because only one company makes it, and the ammo and components are expensive due to lack of economies of scale.

If those things were taken out of the picture I think my only complaint would be that it'd be more time consuming to reload for than a straight walled pistol round.

 

[G|0cKbYtE]

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).

The Glock 17 empty w/ magazine: 25 ounces

The Five-seveN full (20 rds) w/ magazine: 26 ounces

And the gap keeps widening as you start to fill the G17 with ammo. One round of 9x19mm weighs twice as much as one round of 5.7x28mm.

 

[G|0cKbYtE]

The point though is that it's nowhere near "a fully loaded 5.7 weighs the same as an empty Glock 17.

In fact it does.

Make sure you weigh the G17 WITH it's magazine. It wouldn't be fair to take the weight of a fully loaded Five-seveN with its magazine and compare it to a G17 without its magazine.

Just go to your local gunstore and pick both guns up. The Five-seveN feels like a squirt gun and I am not exaggerating.

 

[G|0cKbYtE]

Okay, so maybe it's not quite as big an advantage as Glockbite says, but it's still an advantage.

Of ye of little faith...

 

[Gryffydd]

Ahh, Empty, but with the magazine I get it now.

If we're going to make this big of deal over a couple of ounces (for a HD scenario no less) I suppose we could also talk about how the FiveSeven is bigger in every single dimension than a Glock 17, but that would be equally pointless in the context of HD.

I guess that leaves just the goofy safety to talk about

One round of 9x19mm weighs twice as much as one round of 5.7x28mm.

And +1 to the 9x19

The Five-seveN feels like a squirt gun and I am not exaggerating.

And -1 to the Five Seven*
(I kid, I kid)

*And no, I'm not going to give it that goofy capitalization.

Edit to add:
For the sake of full disclosure, I should point out that my daily carry is a 5" GP100 weighing in at 42oz, so wheedling down to the lightest gun possible isn't something I'm terribly interested in.

 

[481]

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.

That is an excellent point, Gryff.

These breathless claims lose their "excitement" once a thoughtful examination of reality is undertaken.

A couple of ounces (literally two ounces) is highly unlikely to make a significant difference and will go unnoticed by all but the feeblest of feeble shooters and the gun itself is hardly a diminuitive proposition to begin with.

Just to keep this all in perspective, using GB's number, a fully laden (w/20 rounds) 5.7 weighs 26.0 ounces and a Glock 17 (mine weighs 703 grams with the magazine adding 78 grams) fully laden (w/18 124 JHPs) brings it to a weight of 32.3 ounces for a difference of 6.3 ounces. Sure it is lighter, but 6.3 ounces is not the huge difference it's being made out to be either.

 

[JHenry]

This abomination could be a nice alternative to the expensive FN gun but i dont thinks it actually being produced yet

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2012/01/09/masterpiece-arms-mac-10-in-5-7x28mm/

 

[Gryffydd]

That does get me thinking...you know where the 5.7 would really shine? Full auto!

 

[G|0cKbYtE]

That is an excellent point, Gryff.

These breathless claims lose their "excitement" once a thoughtful examination of reality is undertaken.

A couple of ounces (literally two ounces) is highly unlikely to make a significant difference and will go unnoticed by all but the feeblest of feeble shooters and the gun itself is hardly a diminuitive proposition to begin with.

You are a little behind. The point you are commenting on is inaccurate.

Here is the updated info:

The Glock 17 empty w/ magazine: 25 ounces

The Five-seveN full (20 rds) w/ magazine: 26 ounces

And the gap keeps widening as you start to fill the G17 with ammo. One round of 9x19mm weighs twice as much as one round of 5.7x28mm.

 

[Gryffydd]

A couple of ounces (literally two ounces) is highly unlikely to make a significant difference and will go unnoticed by all but the feeblest of feeble shooters and the gun itself is hardly a diminuitive proposition to begin with.

Glockbyte did make a good point that it's only fair to include the empty magazine in the Glock's empty weight, but I still fail to see how such a small weight difference is such a huge selling point. But like I said, I carry a boat anchor so what do I know?

 

[G|0cKbYtE]

I suppose we could also talk about how the FiveSeven is bigger in every single dimension than a Glock 17

Five-seveN height - 5.7"
Glock 17 height - 5.43"

Five-seveN width - 1.4"
Glock 17 width - 1.18"

Five-seveN length - 8.2"
Glock 17 length - 7.32"

The only dimension noticeable to the human eye would be the length and since the Five-seveN is a pocket rifle, I think it gets a pass...

 

[Skribs]

The gun I carry most is probably my Ruger LCP (hey, another ruger), so I can understand the weight issue.

However, with my SP101, I have to decide whether I want .38s or .357s. With the heavier GP100, I know I'd use .357s. That's why you want a heavier revolver - makes your hand hurt less. If you're using loads that don't recoil that bad, then you want a lighter gun to make carrying easier and more comfortable.

 

[G|0cKbYtE]

Glockbyte did make a good point that it's only fair to include the empty magazine in the Glock's empty weight, but I still fail to see how such a small weight difference is such a huge selling point. But like I said, I carry a boat anchor so what do I know?

The big issue for weight comes with fully loaded mags. If you put a loaded Five-seveN in your holster and then a loaded Glock, you will quickly see the difference. If you are on duty and carry a few spare mags, it gets even more apparent. If you carry the P90 and have to schlep along a few hundred rounds...even more. Sure the Five-seveN is a light pistol, but 5.7x28mm ammo is incredibly light yet potent enough.

 

[481]

Five-seveN height - 5.7"
Glock 17 height - 5.43"

Five-seveN width - 1.4"
Glock 17 width - 1.18"

Five-seveN length - 8.2"
Glock 17 length - 7.32"

The only dimension noticeable to the human eye would be the length and since the Five-seveN is a pocket rifle, I think it gets a pass...

It is interesting to note that when it serves your purpose, differences between the two are "written off" for reasons outside the attribute being considered as being "minor" or deserving of a "pass". Otherwise, they are serious detractions.

Very interesting.

Looks like both guns oughtta "get a pass".

 

[G|0cKbYtE]

The gun I carry most is probably my Ruger LCP (hey, another ruger), so I can understand the weight issue.

However, with my SP101, I have to decide whether I want .38s or .357s. With the heavier GP100, I know I'd use .357s. That's why you want a heavier revolver - makes your hand hurt less. If you're using loads that don't recoil that bad, then you want a lighter gun to make carrying easier and more comfortable.

I have a Ruger LCP as well. That darn thing is not fun to shoot.

 

[Gryffydd]

The only dimension noticeable to the human eye would be the length and since the Five-seveN is a pocket rifle, I think it gets a pass..

Have you ever noticed the enormous perceived difference in width between a Glock 17 and a Glock 21? A Glock 21 is only 1.27" wide, or roughly mid way between a G17 and the 5.7.

I haven't heard you defend that safety yet

 

[G|0cKbYtE]

Have you ever noticed the enormous perceived difference in width between a Glock 17 and a Glock 21? A Glock 21 is only 1.27" wide, or roughly mid way between a G17 and the 5.7.

I haven't heard you defend that safety yet

I like that safety because I didn't "grow up" with a 1911. Also, I have spent a lot of time with my gun so it is second nature. When I draw out of the holster my finger is right on the safety and all I have to do is flip my finger a little. It can be very weird to those seeing it for the first time, but in practice, it is very intuitive.

 

[saturno_v]

The 22 Remington Jet 45 years later...and we knoow how that ended.....

 

[G|0cKbYtE]

Have you ever noticed the enormous perceived difference in width between a Glock 17 and a Glock 21? A Glock 21 is only 1.27" wide, or roughly mid way between a G17 and the 5.7.

I guess... It's just that I own a Glock 17, and both it and the Five-seveN seem like full-size guns to me - granted the Five-seveN is clearly longer. But the Five-seveN feels ridiculously light in comparison. If you take the magazine out of a Five-seveN and hand it to somebody that doesn't know anything about them they will think it is a fake gun or airsoft.

 

[Gryffydd]

I like that safety because I didn't "grow up" with a 1911.....It can be very weird to those seeing it for the first time, but in practice, it is very intuitive.

I'd say the real standard these days are the guns with *no* external safety. Talk about intuitive.

But here's the real question. I need sufficient motivation to learn (that means practice...a lot) an entirely new safety configuration. I need a reason to buy an extremely expensive handgun. I need a reason to switch to a round that is difficult to reload and expensive to buy ammo & components. For people like me, there needs to be something that counterbalances those drawbacks. A couple of ounces and a little bit less recoil just don't seem like enough for me. So what else is there?

 

[481]

You are a little behind. The point you are commenting on is inaccurate.

Here is the updated info:

The Glock 17 empty w/ magazine: 25 ounces

The Five-seveN full (20 rds) w/ magazine: 26 ounces

And the gap keeps widening as you start to fill the G17 with ammo. One round of 9x19mm weighs twice as much as one round of 5.7x28mm.

Yes, 6.2 ounces is an incredible difference in weight.

Lifting a full can of pop must be challenging if that truly is the case.

 

[G|0cKbYtE]

The 22 Remington Jet 45 years later...and we knoow how that ended.....

A weird little cartridge. Here it is next to the 5.7x28mm.



It appears from Wiki that the factory promised 2,460fps in a 40gr bullet but only delivered 1,700fps. Interestingly, the watered-down factory FN SS197 40gr does about the same. The V-MAX ballistic tip however performs marvelously and has dropped 250lb hogs and deer as well as many, many humans. When loaded properly, a 40gr projectile out of the Five-seveN will hit 2,100fps (EA ProtecTOR).