FN 5.7 Handgun
- Thread starter Ginny
- Start date
- Status
Sir, if you require a detailed medical treatise on the subject, I will gladly provide it (probably in a new thread).
@ MO
I read many threads, sir. And I made a comment that the destroyed pelvis is an exaggeration. I also specified that I would maintain that assertion regardless of the handgun specified. I don't have an agenda against the 5.7, but saying that you destroyed somebody's pelvis with one shot from a 5.7 is a gross exaggeration.
The value lies in educating third parties who otherwise might take what you have said as fact.
I read many threads, sir. And I made a comment that the destroyed pelvis is an exaggeration. I also specified that I would maintain that assertion regardless of the handgun specified. I don't have an agenda against the 5.7, but saying that you destroyed somebody's pelvis with one shot from a 5.7 is a gross exaggeration.
The value lies in educating third parties who otherwise might take what you have said as fact.
@ MO
Whether he can walk on one leg or two, or even if he has no legs, has nothing to do with an assessment of whether the pelvis is destroyed or not. You are approaching this from the viewpoint of a layperson and I am approaching this from the viewpoint of a radiographer who has seen more than 3000 gunshot wounds and many more thousands of traumatic injuries to the pelvis. The most serious injuries I saw to the human pelvis were as follows: a guy got run over by a cement mixer and he got churned up in the wheels; in a second incident a guy was thrown under a train and he arrived at hospital on two stretchers (one for his torso and the other had his body from the groins down). In neither case was the pelvis destroyed. There were significant fractures, yes and instability or discontinuity at parts of the pelvic girdle, but they were not destroyed. The same applies to every single gunshot pelvis I have ever seen. I X-ray them, I photograph them, I watch them being repaired in theatre. Is that good enough for you?
It's just as well I don't have the X-rays in your case, because it will be all that much easier to prove that the damage can be clearly defined and that the pelvis has not been "destroyed." The only hand weapon that can destroy a pelvis is a Star trek phaser and I haven't seen a real one yet.
There have been cases (and I have some examples in my research file) where a portion of a long bone, or an entire bone from an extremity (eg a metacarpel) has been declared clinically destroyed, but in those cases there isn't enough structural integrity to fix any part of that bone with even a small fragment set. Even so, the original constituents of the bone are still present, albeit displaced, and the area of bone destruction is small. The geometry and expanse of the pelvis makes such damage impossible with a single handgun shot.
Whether he can walk on one leg or two, or even if he has no legs, has nothing to do with an assessment of whether the pelvis is destroyed or not. You are approaching this from the viewpoint of a layperson and I am approaching this from the viewpoint of a radiographer who has seen more than 3000 gunshot wounds and many more thousands of traumatic injuries to the pelvis. The most serious injuries I saw to the human pelvis were as follows: a guy got run over by a cement mixer and he got churned up in the wheels; in a second incident a guy was thrown under a train and he arrived at hospital on two stretchers (one for his torso and the other had his body from the groins down). In neither case was the pelvis destroyed. There were significant fractures, yes and instability or discontinuity at parts of the pelvic girdle, but they were not destroyed. The same applies to every single gunshot pelvis I have ever seen. I X-ray them, I photograph them, I watch them being repaired in theatre. Is that good enough for you?
It's just as well I don't have the X-rays in your case, because it will be all that much easier to prove that the damage can be clearly defined and that the pelvis has not been "destroyed." The only hand weapon that can destroy a pelvis is a Star trek phaser and I haven't seen a real one yet.
There have been cases (and I have some examples in my research file) where a portion of a long bone, or an entire bone from an extremity (eg a metacarpel) has been declared clinically destroyed, but in those cases there isn't enough structural integrity to fix any part of that bone with even a small fragment set. Even so, the original constituents of the bone are still present, albeit displaced, and the area of bone destruction is small. The geometry and expanse of the pelvis makes such damage impossible with a single handgun shot.
Medula Oblongata: I have no dog in this debate and no valid opinion about this caliber...just trying to learn. I'll check out your recommended forum link.
That said, I have two questions:
1. Who in USSOCOM is using this pistol or this caliber?
2. Bullet yaw? Check...got it. But, how does the bullet achieve reliable fragmentation in flesh at 2000 fps vs. the 2700+ required (for example) for M193/M855 5.56?
That said, I have two questions:
1. Who in USSOCOM is using this pistol or this caliber?
2. Bullet yaw? Check...got it. But, how does the bullet achieve reliable fragmentation in flesh at 2000 fps vs. the 2700+ required (for example) for M193/M855 5.56?
M2 Carbine
member
Odd Job,
I respect your knowledge and experience and don't disagree with what you are saying but in the context that "destroyed" is used in this case, I believe that since the man's pelvis is damaged so badly that "he will never walk on that leg again", I think "destroyed" is an acceptable layman's definition.
I respect your knowledge and experience and don't disagree with what you are saying but in the context that "destroyed" is used in this case, I believe that since the man's pelvis is damaged so badly that "he will never walk on that leg again", I think "destroyed" is an acceptable layman's definition.
Your question is most welcome sir, and I appreciate fully that the attending physician may have resorted to the simplest explanation of the reason why the guy couldn't weight bear on that side. Without having the X-rays to view, I would say that judging by your explanation the guy had a hip joint injury that was severe enough that it could not be reduced to the point where the patient regained his mobility on that side.
Don't get me wrong: that is a serious injury. It is nothing to laugh at, and there are several 'high value' vessels in that area too. My point really, is that this damage could have been caused by another handgun/ammo combination. I will see what I can dig up, and post as a matter of interest.
Don't get me wrong: that is a serious injury. It is nothing to laugh at, and there are several 'high value' vessels in that area too. My point really, is that this damage could have been caused by another handgun/ammo combination. I will see what I can dig up, and post as a matter of interest.
@ M2 Carbine
It is too much of a stretch. The pelvis is a large structure, and this damage sounds like it was confined to the hip. It is kind of like asserting that because one wheel on a bicycle was buckled, the whole bicycle has been destroyed. I appreciate the bicycle can't be ridden anymore, but it isn't destroyed. Perhaps the original damage should have been described in terms of loss of mobility, or a specific list of what parts of the 'bicycle' were damaged.
It is too much of a stretch. The pelvis is a large structure, and this damage sounds like it was confined to the hip. It is kind of like asserting that because one wheel on a bicycle was buckled, the whole bicycle has been destroyed. I appreciate the bicycle can't be ridden anymore, but it isn't destroyed. Perhaps the original damage should have been described in terms of loss of mobility, or a specific list of what parts of the 'bicycle' were damaged.
dragongoddess
member
I have been to at least a dozen shoots in the last 20 years where someone was shot with a 45 that stopped on thier winter clothing.
Can someone explain the above statement to me as I find it somewhat suspect. Not saying it cannot happen but it does seem somewhat suspect.
Can someone explain the above statement to me as I find it somewhat suspect. Not saying it cannot happen but it does seem somewhat suspect.
I've been doing a little research on the net. It might not be the most accurate source for info, but it is powerful and it is all I have. I find myself falling into the anti-5.7 camp. It just doesn't all add up, here are a few points:
- I think the 5.7 is a practical gun to carry when you are already using a P90. I regard the P90 as superior to an MP5, but not an M4 or other 5.56 carbine.
- The argument of "How can you judge when you haven’t even shot one" is stupid. I can pick up any gun and shoot it all day and still know nothing about the rounds effectiveness.
- I think Fackler's conclusions hold more weight than a bunch of Backyard water jug and phonebook tests posted on fivesevenforums.com, and I am not sold on the "Dr. Fackler is in the pocket" conspiracy theory.
- A story about a one shot stop to the pelvis doesn't mean much either. I've heard plenty of stories about one shot stops with a 22lr too, but I am not sold on its effectiveness either.
- The 5.7 does not meet the FBI's minimum requirements for penetration. If you disagree with their requirements, then I tend to side with the FBI and not you.
- Fivesevenforums.com seems like they are full of a bunch of people that are trying to justify a purchase they have already made. They also think that when a bullet "tumbles", it is flipping over and over again in flesh. (lol)
- Fiveseven forums.com is the only place that I can find a positive review of the weapon. Everyone else seems to be disappointed. It's kind of like how people at topglock.com think that Glocks are god's gift to home defense.
In my searches, I couldn't see any 100% conclusive testing either way.
- I think the 5.7 is a practical gun to carry when you are already using a P90. I regard the P90 as superior to an MP5, but not an M4 or other 5.56 carbine.
- The argument of "How can you judge when you haven’t even shot one" is stupid. I can pick up any gun and shoot it all day and still know nothing about the rounds effectiveness.
- I think Fackler's conclusions hold more weight than a bunch of Backyard water jug and phonebook tests posted on fivesevenforums.com, and I am not sold on the "Dr. Fackler is in the pocket" conspiracy theory.
- A story about a one shot stop to the pelvis doesn't mean much either. I've heard plenty of stories about one shot stops with a 22lr too, but I am not sold on its effectiveness either.
- The 5.7 does not meet the FBI's minimum requirements for penetration. If you disagree with their requirements, then I tend to side with the FBI and not you.
- Fivesevenforums.com seems like they are full of a bunch of people that are trying to justify a purchase they have already made. They also think that when a bullet "tumbles", it is flipping over and over again in flesh. (lol)
- Fiveseven forums.com is the only place that I can find a positive review of the weapon. Everyone else seems to be disappointed. It's kind of like how people at topglock.com think that Glocks are god's gift to home defense.
In my searches, I couldn't see any 100% conclusive testing either way.
It would help if you actually knew what you’re talking about. It was the 10mm Based BOZ round that came out years before the 357SIG. It in part inspired the 5.7. The guns at the time chambered in it were destroyed due to the recoil impulse. Enter FN refine the design and create a blow back pistol that won’t be blown uprockstar.esq said:
just another pic. I would if you can find the time show me where a 22lr or 22mag could do this to a crisat plate
Now its we started this forum to justify purchasing a 5.7. Funny when it first came out I looked at the specs, analyzed for myself and like the round. I just could not deal with the round trigger guard. The USG solved this.
There is allot to be said about the short comings of 38spl. But getting shot by one of Corbons HP would leave a mark. Not my kind of round but still effective
Now its we started this forum to justify purchasing a 5.7. Funny when it first came out I looked at the specs, analyzed for myself and like the round. I just could not deal with the round trigger guard. The USG solved this.
There is allot to be said about the short comings of 38spl. But getting shot by one of Corbons HP would leave a mark. Not my kind of round but still effective
Medula Oblongata, I have heard the same thing about large slow caliber rounds. At defeating layers of clothing the 5.7 should excell. Any fast round can do the same. I have mentioned it before but the Mauser round or the Soviet version or it, the 7.62x25 can attain speeds which enable it's steel cored bullet to penetrate layers of felt and denim. Call the Tokarev, with it's military ammunition, the poor man's 57.
Or load your own 45's or 357's or whatever,with saboted rounds. It is not the platform nor the casing thad does the work but the bullet. Proper bullet selection in any casing with whatever propellent capacity is the important factor.
It just so happens that FN came up with a hassel-free combination of pistol and ammunition.However after fifteen years on the market they have not really made their mark on the shooting public. This is not that their product is useless but because they stated that they intended the 5.7 family of weapons to be for military/LEO only. Only recently have they changed this policy and so only recently have the public been able to get their hands on them.
I want one myself but the money I have saved is earmarked for a stainless guide gun in 45-70 Government(would that round using Garretts' hammerhead load be enough to shatter a pelves Odd Job? Just kidding.That argument was only about semantics. A shot to the pelvis from any gun would put the BG on his posterior).
The 57 is a good carry gun for the winter when people are bundled up in layers and layers of fabric. And who knows what the BG's are wearing under their bulky jackets, Kevlar? Every specialist has his equipment and car-jackers are no exception.
Or load your own 45's or 357's or whatever,with saboted rounds. It is not the platform nor the casing thad does the work but the bullet. Proper bullet selection in any casing with whatever propellent capacity is the important factor.
It just so happens that FN came up with a hassel-free combination of pistol and ammunition.However after fifteen years on the market they have not really made their mark on the shooting public. This is not that their product is useless but because they stated that they intended the 5.7 family of weapons to be for military/LEO only. Only recently have they changed this policy and so only recently have the public been able to get their hands on them.
I want one myself but the money I have saved is earmarked for a stainless guide gun in 45-70 Government(would that round using Garretts' hammerhead load be enough to shatter a pelves Odd Job? Just kidding.That argument was only about semantics. A shot to the pelvis from any gun would put the BG on his posterior).
The 57 is a good carry gun for the winter when people are bundled up in layers and layers of fabric. And who knows what the BG's are wearing under their bulky jackets, Kevlar? Every specialist has his equipment and car-jackers are no exception.
IMHO it is a ballsy move to design a handgun around the 5.7x28, especially in what is essentially the era of the 1911.
With something as new as this in a generally conservative market there is bound to be some controversy, this is healthy. I can't wait to try one out, unfortunately they are a rare as hen's teeth 'round here.
However, that FiveseveN had better shoot, because it is F'N ugly.
With something as new as this in a generally conservative market there is bound to be some controversy, this is healthy. I can't wait to try one out, unfortunately they are a rare as hen's teeth 'round here.
However, that FiveseveN had better shoot, because it is F'N ugly.
Part of FN's 5.7 slow start is for the longest time they ignored the civilain market for so long. The first IOM's were only sold to LEO departments. I never understud thier ignoring the civilian market for so long. They P90 has been around for years but they are just as of late coming out with the Civy PS90 and they are selling them to no end. I first read about the 5.7 in Janes for years before FN sold anything to the public.
Go Figure what goes through Corp. minds
Go Figure what goes through Corp. minds
Last edited:
NORTEXED
Member
Medula Oblongata, I do not know the gun or round, I am very familiar with the 5.56 though. And this is not an attack on you or the weapon please rest assured, but doesn't the reduced velocity of the round in the handgun bring it into the realm of the M4 performance debate when they were used in Somalia with less than glowing effect against human targets? I know the reports from combat soldiers (1 is a personal friend who served in Desert Shield), was that there was a noticeable difference in terminal performance between the std 16 and the M4's. I have heard a lot of opinions from people I tend to trust though, that a lot of the M4's "short comings" (little joke there) was due to over stabilization of the projectile with the SS109 rounds. Theory being that the added velocity of the std barrel would cause the rounds to destabilize in soft tissue. I do realize that the 5.7 uses a lighter/shorter projectile, and I'm not sure what the twist rate of the pistols barrel is. Do you think this is the cause of more dynamic wound effect from this round?
NORTEXED the piont of the 5.7 is to replace the M9 berretta not the M4.
It is to give chopper pilots and drivers more fire power since in the current battlefield they stand as much of a chance of seeing combat as a line unit. The PS90 was designed to be no wider than the average soldiers shoulders so as to be on them and not get in the way as they do there jobs and not in the back of the truck when the SHTF
Again the 5.7 was never ment to replace the M4 the FN SCAR L and SCAR H are doing that
It is to give chopper pilots and drivers more fire power since in the current battlefield they stand as much of a chance of seeing combat as a line unit. The PS90 was designed to be no wider than the average soldiers shoulders so as to be on them and not get in the way as they do there jobs and not in the back of the truck when the SHTF
Again the 5.7 was never ment to replace the M4 the FN SCAR L and SCAR H are doing that
NORTEXED
Member
I was just wondering if the lighter, shorter bullet, possibly slower twist rate, corrected some of the problems they had with the M4's. I did not mean to insinuate that the 5.7 in the pistol was a replacement for the M4, just wondering if they had gone back a step in bullet design to correct problems from a similiar round.
TimboKhan
Member
MO,
Sorry buddy. Say what you want, but the Fiveseven is an ugly pistol. If you think it's cool, well, good for you. I have had to put up with listening to people for years calling my P90 ugly, and thanks to the FiveseveN, that abuse has tapered off.
On a different note, you have said repeatedly that this gun is being issued to all sorts of American agencies. I don't want to be argumentative, and I am not even calling you a liar, but I want to know what your sources on that info are. I ask because I have been googiling for the last 10 minutes trying to confirm what you said and I can't find anything that confirms it at all. However, just because I can't find it doesn't mean it's not true, so I would like to know your sources.
Sorry buddy. Say what you want, but the Fiveseven is an ugly pistol. If you think it's cool, well, good for you. I have had to put up with listening to people for years calling my P90 ugly, and thanks to the FiveseveN, that abuse has tapered off.
On a different note, you have said repeatedly that this gun is being issued to all sorts of American agencies. I don't want to be argumentative, and I am not even calling you a liar, but I want to know what your sources on that info are. I ask because I have been googiling for the last 10 minutes trying to confirm what you said and I can't find anything that confirms it at all. However, just because I can't find it doesn't mean it's not true, so I would like to know your sources.
According to the slide rule guys at FN a compact version of the IOM/USG does not function correctly as shortning a blowback pistol drasticaly changes how it functions.
To the twist issue I believe M.O. would have the answer as he has spent a large amount of time developing all sort of custom loadings for the 5.7.
To the twist issue I believe M.O. would have the answer as he has spent a large amount of time developing all sort of custom loadings for the 5.7.
- Status
Similar threads
