"FN Five-seven" - a gun without minuses?

qwerty53

Banned
Joined
Aug 7, 2011
Messages
82
Likes
1
Location
MA
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
Hi,
I just discovered
FN Five-seven

seems like a gun without minuses.
Low recoil, 20 rounds can penetrate a vest.........

What's the catch?

Anyone had extensive experience with it?
 
"Can penetrate a vest..." Seriously dude?

One of the design intents for the standard 5.7×28mm cartridge type, the SS190, was that it have the ability to penetrate Kevlar protective vests—such as the NATO CRISAT vest—that will stop conventional pistol bullets.[36] Fired from the Five-seven, the 5.7×28mm SS190 has a muzzle velocity of 650 m/s (2,130 ft/s) and is capable of penetrating the CRISAT vest at a range of 100 m (109 yd), or 48 layers of Kevlar material (roughly equivalent to two stacked Level II Kevlar vest panels) at a range of 50 m (55 yd).[27][35] It is also capable of penetrating a PASGT vest at a range of 300 m (328 yd) or a PASGT helmet at a range of 240 m (262 yd).[27] FN states an effective range of 50 m (55 yd) and a maximum range of 1,510 m (1,651 yd) for the 5.7×28mm cartridge when fired from the Five-seven pistol.[10]
 
One of the design intents for the standard 5.7×28mm cartridge type, the SS190, was that it have the ability to penetrate Kevlar protective vests—such as the NATO CRISAT vest—that will stop conventional pistol bullets.[36] Fired from the Five-seven, the 5.7×28mm SS190 has a muzzle velocity of 650 m/s (2,130 ft/s) and is capable of penetrating the CRISAT vest at a range of 100 m (109 yd), or 48 layers of Kevlar material (roughly equivalent to two stacked Level II Kevlar vest panels) at a range of 50 m (55 yd).[27][35] It is also capable of penetrating a PASGT vest at a range of 300 m (328 yd) or a PASGT helmet at a range of 240 m (262 yd).[27] FN states an effective range of 50 m (55 yd) and a maximum range of 1,510 m (1,651 yd) for the 5.7×28mm cartridge when fired from the Five-seven pistol.[10]

Old news...when the pistol was first introduced this was one of FN's selling points. What is it that you want to know exactly? Do you honestly think that if it were perceived as the ideal weapon, then why hasn't it been universally adopted by police and military forces, like Glock, Sig and to a lesser (but again re-surging) Smith and Wesson?
 
I would think it would be difficult to get any pistol to penetrate a vest. You'd have to push REALLY hard.
 
well for different purposes.
It cannot shoot as far and as accurate as mark 23 or be put in the water and shoot...
But I am trying to understand exactly why wasn't it adopted.
So according to what you said you do not think the vest thing is true?
But for self defense... for shorter range.....
And also LOW recoil.
So I want to know if someone has first hand experience with it. To know how it feels
 
oh nonno. I am not comparing. Nothing can compare to mark 23.
I am just saying that this one is light, low recoil and can allegedly penetrate a vest. Now if all those statements are just gimmicks then this is useless. That is what I am trying to figure out. I know no one tested it with vvests but the super low recoil....
 
A .22LR also has super low recoil. So what? The only thing the five-seven has going for it in my opinion is the large magazine capacity relative to it's small(ish) size. The round itself is under powered, has very limited range, and is hard to find (and expensive.)

I'm pretty sure you're a troll, but just in case you're not: Using Brady Campaign propaganda statements to support the idea that a particular gun is "without minuses" is generally not going to lead to productive discussions on the site.

Nothing can compare to mark 23.

[troll]
 
Last edited:
Guys. But my point is why not get more capable pistol for the same money.

Why not get a pistol that you are comfortable with, and which you can shoot well? Best thing to do is find a range where you can rent one. I don't know if Manchester Firing Line has one, but you should make the inquiry.

Handguns are very subjective, unless you are issued one that you have to use, use the one that you can use the best. For some that might be a .22 and for others it might be a .500 magnum. A miss with a .45 is lot more ineffective than a hit with a .22.

NO HANDGUN HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE A RELIABLE FIGHT STOPPER 100 PERCENT OF THE TIME !!!!!

Generally speaking, no handgun is a substitute for a center fire caliber rifle, either.
 
A .22LR also has super low recoil. So what? The only thing the five-seven has going for it in my opinion is the large magazine capacity relative to it's small(ish) size. The round itself is under powered, has very limited range, and is hard to find (and expensive.)

I'm pretty sure you're a troll, but just in case you're not: Using Brady Campaign propaganda statements to support the idea that a particular gun is "without minuses" is generally not going to lead to productive discussions on the site.

What the heck is troll? Someone for the gun control?
 
qwerty53,

The whole forum users actually having a hard time following your writing style. Can I offered to send you a free webster dictionary? Don't try to make us suffered with your writing skill/style. Save us and type your question/word properly.
 
Last edited:
Ballistics are similar to a 22 Mag and the ammo is expensive and IIRC the armor piercing ammo is restricted to military and LEO use any way. If your thinking self defense why not a 9 mm or 45 caliber carbine of some kind.
 
What the heck is troll? Someone for the gun control?

Seriously, you're joking right.

Troll : "Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."
 
.17 HMR will go through a vest. I wouldn't recommend carrying it though.

If you're really concerned about stopping someone with a soft vest learn to aim at the pelvis or head, or carry a .45 and the broken ribs will slow them down.
 
Back
Top Bottom