So what's the general consensus on the FN Five-seveN?

[farscott]

I bought an IOM in 2005 and have a Bullberry barrel in the caliber, so I cannot be accused of either being a hater or having no experience with the round. That being said, I agree that the Brass Fetcher test as designed by the customer has some issues designed to show the 5.7 round in a favorable light:

1) The FN pistol has a 4.8" barrel. The .45 ACP pistol used in the test has a 4.0" barrel. A full-size 1911 with a five-inch barrel would be a better comparison from both barrel length and over-all size. The shorter barrel unfairly penalizes the .45 ACP round in the comparison. I also would have like to see a lighter, faster .45 round tested, perhaps the 185-grain +P round as that is a fair comparison to the 5.7 S4M, as the test report called it a "+P" round.

2) Both the of 5.7 test rounds have stopped in the test medium at less than eight inches of penetration while the .45 ACP is still transferring energy to the target medium at eight inches. The report should have the X-axis (penetration) continue until all of the rounds come to rest, but the customer requested that analysis only be run from 2.5" to 8".

3) The statement "From a penetration depth of 2.5” to 4.2”, the lethality of the S4M exceeds that of both the .45ACP JHP and FN SS-195" is an opinion based on the temporary cavities as opposed to accepted interpretation of ammunition effectiveness.

I like the 5.7, but I think of it as a modernized .22 K-Hornet. I could pull the bullet from the SS198LF round, load it in the K-Hornet, and get the same or better performance. That being said, the IOM is a fun pistol to shoot, and I have tried it on short-range (< 50 yard) varmint hunting.

 

[DmL5]

2) Both the of 5.7 test rounds have stopped in the test medium at less than eight inches of penetration while the .45 ACP is still transferring energy to the target medium at eight inches. The report should have the X-axis (penetration) continue until all of the rounds come to rest, but the customer requested that analysis only be run from 2.5" to 8".

If the S4M's penetration depth is really an issue to you, see EA's Pro II load, which (fired from the Five-seveN pistol) perforated a 16-inch block of calibrated ballistic gelatin, and was visibly expanded on exit. The temporary cavity created by the P2 bullet was still virtually identical to that of the .45 ACP, as well.

http://www.eliteammunition.net/f/5.7x28mm_Elite_Ammunition_ProtecTOR_II.wmv

I could pull the bullet from the SS198LF round, load it in the K-Hornet, and get the same or better performance.

You just critiqued a test that pitted a 4.0-inch barrel versus a virtually identical 4.8-inch barrel; and now you're trying to stack a 4.8-inch Five-seveN pistol barrel against a 24-inch .22 K-Hornet rifle barrel.

We aren't discussing a bolt-action rifle with a 24-inch barrel. We're discussing a lightweight, high capacity (30+1), low recoil semi-automatic pistol with a 4.8-inch barrel.

 

[farscott]

No, I did not stack performance of a handgun against a rifle. First, Contender barrels are available as short as five inches. Bullberry offers stubby barrels in sales very now and then, and these barrels are a good inexpensive way to get the equipment necessary to evaluate a round. My first K-Hornet was such a barrel as is my 5.7x28 barrel. In fact, both are 6.5-inch barrels, and the K-Hornet can shoot the same bullet somewhat faster.

Second, I was making a point that, perhaps poorly, that the distinguishing feature of the 5.7 ammo is the bullet, not the performance the round wrings out of it. The coolest thing, to me, about the 5.7x28 is that FNH was able to make it fit into a handgun with very soft felt recoil. That is what makes my IOM fun. It is a modern .22 K-Hornet handgun. On the other hand, I am not going to carry my IOM as I rather make larger holes with slower bullets than smaller holes with fast bullets with a carry gun.

You just critiqued a test that pitted a 4.0-inch barrel versus a virtually identical 4.8-inch barrel; and now you're trying to stack a 4.8-inch Five-seveN pistol barrel against a 24-inch .22 K-Hornet rifle barrel.

 

[DmL5]

Still apples to oranges, because the .22 K-Hornet is much larger than the 5.7x28mm; the same goes for the platform itself.

Regardless, a lightweight, high capacity (30+1), low recoil semi-automatic pistol that achieves .22 K-Hornet performance (it nearly does) in a 4.8-inch barrel is "distinguished." Definitely; and it is certainly at least as effective as any of the common pistol calibers. The same would be true of the .22 Hornet or .22 K-Hornet, but there is no viable pistol chambered in either of those calibers.

On the other hand, I am not going to carry my IOM as I rather make larger holes with slower bullets than smaller holes with fast bullets with a carry gun.

They all make relatively tiny holes. The difference is in the platforms. The Five-seveN is lighter, recoils less, shoots flatter, penetrates better, and carries more ammunition than any comparable pistol.

 

[G|0cKbYtE]

On the other hand, I am not going to carry my IOM as I rather make larger holes with slower bullets than smaller holes with fast bullets with a carry gun.

The only small hole created by the FiveseveN is the entrance hole. You should see some of the videos I've seen on interior damage as well as exit holes.

But there is no reason you should stop carrying your .45, it's a fine weapon. I however, feel like I enjoy a great advantage over other traditional calibers carrying the FiveseveN - which is why I do.

- large capacity

- extremely accurate

- diminished recoil

- ultra-light weight gun and ammo (5.7 ammo weighs 50% lighter than 9mm ammo)

- barrier/armor penetrating

- ballistics comparable to 230gr .45 ammunition

- demonstrated tissue/bone penetrator/destroyer (boar, deer, moose (skull), human, fish, clay, pork shoulder, Level IIIa, blah.. blah.. blah..

What the hell else could you ask for? I'm sold!

 

[farscott]

I like my IOM but have never seriously considered carrying it for the following reasons:

1) When I got it back in 2005, my holster provider of choice, Milt Sparks, did not offer holsters molded for the IOM. That may have changed due to the Secret Service adoption of the round and the ensuing increased popularity of the pistol. I need to check. If one is available, I may order a VM-2 to see how easy the IOM is to carry. At the very least, I can use it around my farm.

2) Ammo availability. Most of the ammo I shoot in my IOM is handloads, but I would want to carry factory ammo in a carry gun. 5.7x28mm ammo is available, but it is not commonly available. It does seem better today than it did in 2005.

3) Bad press associated with it. All of the "cop-killer" talk about the round meant a jury may not like it, even if a shoot was justified. Now that I have moved from metro Atlanta, that is less of a concern.

4) Just never thought about it. I may have to start thinking about it as the round does perform well and does offer some advantages.

Good thread as it forced me to reconsider.

 

[baylorattorney]

I hated it. I bought two thinking then Sen Clinton was about to ban them. Paid top dollar around $1k each. Played around with one in the field. Found it bulky and plasticky. Took a few rounds to adjust the sights. I hit a jack rabbit at 70 yards and didn't kill it. Same with hogs. I think if the original ammo were available it would have been different story. I sold both broke even. Won't buy again.

 

[G|0cKbYtE]

I hated it. I bought two thinking then Sen Clinton was about to ban them. Paid top dollar around $1k each. Played around with one in the field. Found it bulky and plasticky. Took a few rounds to adjust the sights. I hit a jack rabbit at 70 yards and didn't kill it. Same with hogs. I think if the original ammo were available it would have been different story. I sold both broke even. Won't buy again.

lol ...:banghead:

 

[burntgraphite]

FWIW... General Consensus is a redundancy. Consensus means the general opinion, so general general opinion. Now that the english teacher bit is done...

I love the 5.7. I've been thinking about buying one. Small backstory; I'm in the Coast Guard, and I shoot Expert (145-150 points out of 150) every time on the little Sig .40 that we use as a service pistol. I went through our course with the 5.7, shot 150/150. Of course, I went through it with the p228 that we use, and shot 149/150. I went through it again with a Taurus 1911, and shot 150/150. I love the ambidextrous features of the 5.7, because I'm ambidextrous.

I haven't ever had to shoot anyone with it, and I prefer not to shoot people if I can avoid it. Lots of paperwork, blah blah blah. There are also some things that I wouldn't do with it...

a). Hunt large game. I have a .308, an 8mm mauser, a .243 and a bow for that.
b). Self-defense. I'm a martial arts guy. If they are closer than 14 feet, I prefer to disarm or run, rather than shoot. So I really don't care about the penetration stats too much.
c). Home defense. I have a couple of tomahawks for that. They tend to scare people a little more. Don't know why. Could be the coyote scalp tied to the handle.

And now that I've listed all of the reasons why I wouldn't use it... they're the same reasons why I probably won't buy one. It's too expensive for me to use as a range gun.

 

[Thatguy686]

in response to member 481: where did you read this? because i have personally shot fn's factory 5.7 round into a level three vest and it went through both sides of the vest when it was shot with 9mm .40 .45 .357 .38 and .500 magnum none of them even penetrated one side of the vest so the factory ammo if more than sufficient for armor piercing

 

[Ben86]

a). Hunt large game. I have a .308, an 8mm mauser, a .243 and a bow for that.
b). Self-defense. I'm a martial arts guy. If they are closer than 14 feet, I prefer to disarm or run, rather than shoot. So I really don't care about the penetration stats too much.
c). Home defense. I have a couple of tomahawks for that. They tend to scare people a little more. Don't know why. Could be the coyote scalp tied to the handle.

a) makes perfect sense

You might want to re-think b) and c). Disarming even a mildly competent guy who really wants to hurt you is extremely difficult even in an ideal setting. I just hope you are being realistic with your approach and have sought some true RBSD training on this subject. Also, would you really choose tomahawks for HD over a firearm? Really?

 

[G|0cKbYtE]

Due to a misinformation campaign, this needs to be bumped...

 

[burntgraphite]

Ben86; In response to the disarm scenario, it comes down to reflexes. I've only been accosted "on the street" twice, and it hasn't happened since the Coast Guard saw fit to move me away from D.C.

But in a boarding scenario, which is my typical law enforcement, I've always been able to take them down before the perp can draw and aim. Obviously, in six or seven more years, all of this riding in rough surf will wear on my joints and my reflexes won't be as fast. Then I'll be more willing to escalate, rather than disarm.

As far as home defense; I absolutely would prefer to throw a hawk at someones head versus having to clean their blood out of the carpet (assuming the hawk missed). That doesn't mean that I don't have firearms ready if needed, or a good security system. I've had to use lethal force in high-speed drug interdiction cases, and I prefer to avoid it. That being said, I prefer a very accurate round, such as the five seven, to a "pretty good" .40 s&w.

And with a 200$ rebate for military from fn, it is mighty tempting...

However, not shooting people is an unpopular opinion for a gun nut to have; regardless, it's worked for me thus far.

 

[Slvrwrx]

in response to member 481: where did you read this? because i have personally shot fn's factory 5.7 round into a level three vest and it went through both sides of the vest when it was shot with 9mm .40 .45 .357 .38 and .500 magnum none of them even penetrated one side of the vest so the factory ammo if more than sufficient for armor piercing

Vests need to be backed with compressible media for viable tests. Water Jugs, Gel, Clay etc. Dressing them over a carboard piece is not sufficient. With that being said, I'm not that well versed in terms of body armor, but is a level III soft armor some how weaker than a stand alone level III plate? I was under the impression that Level rating is the same across the board. As far as I'm aware IIIA is what SS190 will penetrate. Level III is rifle class armor, and in this simple test, the SAPI Level III plate stopped SS190, and EA's P6, with minimal to no damage:

SS190:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sd1iMlC1ALk

P6:

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

perhaps you were thinking of II, or IIIA?

 

[DmL5]

Level III is rifle class armor, and in this simple test, the SAPI Level III plate stopped SS190, and EA's P6, with minimal to no damage:

EA's P6 (discontinued) only achieves about 2,100 ft/s according to their own data so that is not surprising; their T6 and S4 loads are much faster.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

Vests need to be backed with compressible media for viable tests. Water Jugs, Gel, Clay etc. Dressing them over a carboard piece is not sufficient. With that being said, I'm not that well versed in terms of body armor, but is a level III soft armor some how weaker than a stand alone level III plate? I was under the impression that Level rating is the same across the board. As far as I'm aware IIIA is what SS190 will penetrate. Level III is rifle class armor, and in this simple test, the SAPI Level III plate stopped SS190, and EA's P6, with minimal to no damage:

It still kinda says something if all those common calibers can't penetrate yet the measly 5.7 can. Then again I do find it hard to believe that 5.7 can defeat rifle rated vests. They are basically the same thing just that 5.7 is quite a bit less powerful. There is a video on Youtube that actually shows someone shooting one of these vests with a FiveseveN and it hardly makes a dent.

 

[Slvrwrx]

EA's P6 (discontinued) only achieves about 2,100 ft/s according to their own data so that is not surprising; their T6 and S4 loads are much faster.

I do believe the youtuber was looking for the hardest and fastest rounds against the plate. S4 only has an aluminum core, and the T6 while being as hard as P6, is segemented. I recall he even tested SS190 and P6 out of the PS90 against the same plate with the same results..

I'm not placing any distrust in 5.7x28mm ammo, just trying to clarify abilities, as I think level III one shot penetration seems very very far feteched.. That is unless someone has a video..

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=fiveseven+level+III&aq=f

Here are some videos. You can find SS190 fail to pierce the Level III plate along with EA P6.

 

[pisc1024]

Due to a misinformation campaign, this needs to be bumped...

 

[baylorattorney]

It still kinda says something if all those common calibers can't penetrate yet the measly 5.7 can. Then again I do find it hard to believe that 5.7 can defeat rifle rated vests. They are basically the same thing just that 5.7 is quite a bit less powerful. There is a video on Youtube that actually shows someone shooting one of these vests with a FiveseveN and it hardly makes a dent.

Isn't it the narrowness of the bullet that allows penetration of body armor?

 

[RX-178]

...After 9 pages of this, apparently there just /isn't/ a consensus...

 

[G|0cKbYtE]

...After 9 pages of this, apparently there just /isn't/ a consensus...

lol

 

[G|0cKbYtE]

I have seen aftermarket 5.7mm ammo penetrate Level IIIa (soft armor) out of the pistol. I have heard that a highly restricted 5.7mm round will penetrate a level IV ceramic SAPI plate after the first round.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

How can 5.7 somehow penetrate Level IV ceramic plates while rifle ammo can't? Last I checked, 5.7 x 28 is MUCH MUCH weaker than 7.62 x 54r and yet that can't even pierce it with the first shot.

I like the FiveseveN but its not a wondergun.

 

[G|0cKbYtE]

How can 5.7 somehow penetrate Level IV ceramic plates while rifle ammo can't? Last I checked, 5.7 x 28 is MUCH MUCH weaker than 7.62 x 54r and yet that can't even pierce it with the first shot.

I like the FiveseveN but its not a wondergun.

Many of those plates weaken dramatically after the first shot. Some do not. It varies with the make and manufacturer. The person that told me this story is well respected in the 5.7mm community. I've seen some level IV plates that I know a 5.7 wouldn't penetrate because it was shown to withstand multiple shots. But the ones that weaken after multiple shots to the same area.. look out.