FN P90/5.7 Discussion

[ObliqueApproach]

You are missing the '03, but I am jealous of the BAR. Does the Tommy Gun work? Ours is plugged not that I woul have wanted to carry it. It is like carrying a boat anchor.

BTW on modern weaponry, anyone ever use the FN P90 or the FN Five 7 Nine pistol? Standing off-hand, 150 meters, all rounds in Figure 11 target is easy. Sweet!

[The Reaper]

BTW on modern weaponry, anyone ever use the FN P90 or the FN Five 7 Nine pistol? Standing off-hand, 150 meters, all rounds in Figure 11 target is easy. Sweet!

Yes.

Not a fan.

TR

[ObliqueApproach]

Yes.

Not a fan.

TR

TR,

Curious what you didn't like about it? I was first introduced to it at FN Herstal on their range and have been around it several times since. It penetrates standard kevlar body armor at 200 meters, you can fire it full auto one handed and put all 50 rounds in an e-type at 100 meters. It was designed to be a support unit weapon like drivers, clerks, etc and would provide them something smaller than a standard assault rifle, but with more range than SMGs.

Granted, it is funny looking.

The pistol using the same 5.7 X 28 ammo was a little clunky in the first two prototypes, but is now down to the size of the BHP and carries 20 rounds. It is also effective out to 200 meters.

Just wanted you .02?

[The Reaper]

Well, I first fired one about seven years ago, and have shot them periodically since then. The weapon design prevents much flexibility for rail mounted devices.

The anemic round is the real problem though. It will penetrate light body armor, but not hard armor, nor does it do very much terminally when it does. The round creates a very small narrow wound channel reminiscent of an icepick injury.

I believe that the 5.7 rounds are inferior to a good .22LR in the terminal ballistics arena.

Lots of fun for punching paper and having fun though.

TR

[ObliqueApproach]

Well, I first fired one about seven years ago, and have shot them periodically since then. The weapon design prevents much flexibility for rail mounted devices.

The anemic round is the real problem though. It will penetrate light body armor, but not hard armor, nor does it do very much terminally when it does. The round creates a very small narrow wound channel reminiscent of an icepick injury.

I believe that the 5.7 rounds are inferior to a good .22LR in the terminal ballistics arena.

Lots of fun for punching paper and having fun though.

TR

TR,

Thanks for the comments and your perspective. I agree, but if it were used for support troops, who it was originally designed for, I think it is better than a 9mm any day.

Cheers!

[barney_rubble]

Well, I first fired one about seven years ago, and have shot them periodically since then. The weapon design prevents much flexibility for rail mounted devices.

The anemic round is the real problem though. It will penetrate light body armor, but not hard armor, nor does it do very much terminally when it does. The round creates a very small narrow wound channel reminiscent of an icepick injury.

I believe that the 5.7 rounds are inferior to a good .22LR in the terminal ballistics arena.

Lots of fun for punching paper and having fun though.

TR

I'd have to challenge your knowledge as to the terminal performance of the 5.7mm; anyone who compares it to a .22 simply is not fully conversant with its potential. There seems to be a general malaise regarding small calibre projectile, yet the designers at Herstal have understood the requirement completely.

I'm nonplussed that you believe its wound track resembles an 'ice-pick' when it clearly is a three dimensional haemorraghic nightmare; far superior to the girlie .45!

The P90 was born from the US driven concept that only Infantry require a full size rifle with the usual acoutriments; support elements require something more compact and portable (they are really saying they need a modern derivative of the submachine gun). P90 fits that 'Personal Defence Weapon' criteria completely and, one could argue, is the 'type example'.

This calling requires technical knowledge as well as robust language. Have a chew on that if you would care to.

[The Reaper]

I'd have to challenge your knowledge as to the terminal performance of the 5.7mm; anyone who compares it to a .22 simply is not fully conversant with its potential. There seems to be a general malaise regarding small calibre projectile, yet the designers at Herstal have understood the requirement completely.

I'm nonplussed that you believe its wound track resembles an 'ice-pick' when it clearly is a three dimensional haemorraghic nightmare; far superior to the girlie .45!

The P90 was born from the US driven concept that only Infantry require a full size rifle with the usual acoutriments; support elements require something more compact and portable (they are really saying they need a modern derivative of the submachine gun). P90 fits that 'Personal Defence Weapon' criteria completely and, one could argue, is the 'type example'.

This calling requires technical knowledge as well as robust language. Have a chew on that if you would care to.

Challenge away. My knowledge is based on personal experience and research. You profile is too vague to determine if and when you ever served. Did you get your info from a gun mag?

The ballistic testing I have seen indicates that the bullet remains intact and yaws base forward after a few inches of tissue and continues on a single small track. The .45ACP FMJ round disrupts a far wider permanent wound cavity than the 5.7, the .45 hollow points do even better.

In my opinion, the P90 might be an adequate weapon for pilots in lieu of the MP5 PDW, especially if it came in a more effective caliber or with a better bullet. I do not see it working as a replacement for the M-4 for most support soldiers. It also has very little real estate for mounting any additional hardware, like a light, laser, etc.

What "calling" would you be referring to? If you came here to stir up trouble and to troll for arguments, you might be biting off more than you would care to chew. This is an SF board, owned and operated by SF. If we offend you, move out and draw fire.

TR

[Peregrino]

I'd have to challenge your knowledge as to the terminal performance of the 5.7mm; anyone who compares it to a .22 simply is not fully conversant with its potential. There seems to be a general malaise regarding small calibre projectile, yet the designers at Herstal have understood the requirement completely.

I'm nonplussed that you believe its wound track resembles an 'ice-pick' when it clearly is a three dimensional haemorraghic nightmare; far superior to the girlie .45!

The P90 was born from the US driven concept that only Infantry require a full size rifle with the usual acoutriments; support elements require something more compact and portable (they are really saying they need a modern derivative of the submachine gun). P90 fits that 'Personal Defence Weapon' criteria completely and, one could argue, is the 'type example'.

This calling requires technical knowledge as well as robust language. Have a chew on that if you would care to.

This forum is for professional discussion among informed and experienced (usually) soldiers. Given the British experience with the L85 and its varients and our own much greater experience with various types of 5.56 mm ammo I would recommend you adopt a less confrontational attitude. You might want to start with your profile. It's out of line. Your grasp of ballistics is also deficient. The 5.7 is inferior to current issue ammo. Yes the P90 does what it was intended to do. It also looks really good on Stargate SG1, especially in Amanda Tapping's hands. I don't know of any combat units using it in the real world. FWIW - Peregrino

[longrange1947]

Barney - That weapon was the answer to an unasked question in 88 when I first saw and played with the prototype. My answer then a is now, no thank you. The round is a joke, please do not attempt to put on airs and pass the round off as anything other than it is , an anemic pistol round in the guise of an assualt weapon round.

Indeed, knowledge of ballistics. Now that is a giggle.

[barney_rubble]

Challenge away. My knowledge is based on personal experience and research. You profile is too vague to determine if and when you ever served. Did you get your info from a gun mag?

The ballistic testing I have seen indicates that the bullet remains intact and yaws base forward after a few inches of tissue and continues on a single small track. The .45ACP FMJ round disrupts a far wider permanent wound cavity than the 5.7, the .45 hollow points do even better.

In my opinion, the P90 might be an adequate weapon for pilots in lieu of the MP5 PDW, especially if it came in a more effective caliber or with a better bullet. I do not see it working as a replacement for the M-4 for most support soldiers. It also has very little real estate for mounting any additional hardware, like a light, laser, etc.

What "calling" would you be referring to? If you came here to stir up trouble and to troll for arguments, you might be biting off more than you would care to chew. This is an SF board, owned and operated by SF. If we offend you, move out and draw fire.

TR

I'm not in agreement with your assessment of the wounding potential of the 5.7mm v .45; the older technology of the .45 is just that 'old'. 5.7mm is far more effective.

When you cut to the bottom line, shot placement is the key. A .22 LR will do just as good a job at close quarters if you put it in the right place; a .45 in the wrong place will still be ineffective.

My information comes from a 22 year association with weapons, shooting them, trialling them, operational research and learning about what is going on there. Don't make the mistake that others do - it's the UK, what do they know about weapons because they don't have any. The Army is quite flush with them and we know what we are doing.

I'm certainly not going to publish my credentials on the net; anyone here who is stating their past is letting themself wide open under opsec.

[Smokin Joe]

I'm not in agreement with your assessment of the wounding potential of the 5.7mm v .45; the older technology of the .45 is just that 'old'. 5.7mm is far more effective.

When you cut to the bottom line, shot placement is the key. A .22 LR will do just as good a job at close quarters if you put it in the right place; a .45 in the wrong place will still be ineffective.

My information comes from a 22 year association with weapons, shooting them, trialling them, operational research and learning about what is going on there. Don't make the mistake that others do - it's the UK, what do they know about weapons because they don't have any. The Army is quite flush with them and we know what we are doing.

I'm certainly not going to publish my credentials on the net; anyone here who is stating their past is letting themself wide open under opsec.

Even the FBI says the 5.7mm has less than acceptable terminal ballistics after it impacts a water mass.

I'm not saying the FBI is the end all be all of ballistical data (because they defiently are not) but if even they are saying it is unacceptable. I'll stick with the .45 acp. Because there is no way that a 5.7mm will make the same size hole as .45acp. And the round doesn't have enough energy to create the hydrostatic shock channel equal to a .45.

[The Reaper]

I'm not in agreement with your assessment of the wounding potential of the 5.7mm v .45; the older technology of the .45 is just that 'old'. 5.7mm is far more effective.

When you cut to the bottom line, shot placement is the key. A .22 LR will do just as good a job at close quarters if you put it in the right place; a .45 in the wrong place will still be ineffective.

My information comes from a 22 year association with weapons, shooting them, trialling them, operational research and learning about what is going on there. Don't make the mistake that others do - it's the UK, what do they know about weapons because they don't have any. The Army is quite flush with them and we know what we are doing.

I'm certainly not going to publish my credentials on the net; anyone here who is stating their past is letting themself wide open under opsec.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree then. I do not think that the year of development of a specific round or weapon is necessarily indicative of its efficacy. If that were true, the SA 80 would be tremendously better than the FAL, and I do not believe that it is.

Agree on shot placement, which was the point on your other comments about the 5.56 and M-4. If you hit what you are aiming at, it is effective out to several hundred meters. Not too many people walking off head shots, even one where the bullet passes straight through.

If you don't want to state your creds, or send them to an admin, your role in these discussions is going to be seriously limited. All of the QPs here have been vetted as Special Forces personnel, we get a lot of kids and Airsofters joining up and spouting off their opinions as Gospel. This is the internet and if we do not know where you are coming from, we are going to have to treat your information as unvalidated.

You may have noticed that several of us have experience with the 5.7 and its terminal ballistics. If you are not going to back up your claims with data or tell us what real experience you have with it, I am going to have to ask you to stay out of the weapons discussions.

We had a poster a few weeks ago purporting that her son was in a spec ops unit in the British Army and had been extracted from a sticky situation by a U.S. jet bomber snatching his team off the ground with a single Fulton-type recovery system. If her son wants to tell tall tales, fine, but she should not be spreading them around on the internet as true.

BTW, this is an M-1 Garand thread, let's try to stay on topic.

Have a very SF Day.

TR

[CoLawman]

[QUOTE=barney_rubble]I'm not in agreement with your assessment of the wounding potential of the 5.7mm v .45; the older technology of the .45 is just that 'old'. 5.7mm is far more effective.

Location: Bedrock
Icon: Sidekick
Mentor: Fred Flintstone
Era: Stoneage

Your position is excusable, can't find defensible positions... watching cartoons:rolleyes:

[barney_rubble]

Even the FBI says the 5.7mm has less than acceptable terminal ballistics after it impacts a water mass.

I'm not saying the FBI is the end all be all of ballistical data (because they defiently are not) but if even they are saying it is unacceptable. I'll stick with the .45 acp. Because there is no way that a 5.7mm will make the same size hole as .45acp. And the round doesn't have enough energy to create the hydrostatic shock channel equal to a .45.

I definitely agree that the FBI 'haven't a clue' regarding ballistics of handgun rounds; it was their organisation that coined the term 'Relative Incapacitation Index' in the 80s when they were evaluating rounds for their next generation handgun.

Their criteria of an effective bullet was how it performed against water (hydrostatic shock) given that 75% of our bodies if composed of water. It sounds plausible, but hold on. The Feds further concluded that the way forward as a light bullet travelling at high velocity, they decided that the optimum was a 10mm 125 grain bullet for their new S & W 1076 DAO pistols.

Unfortunately they discovered, during a bank shootout, that this was the biggest mistake of their lives. Several agents achieved good hits into the chests of robbers and were bemused that they didn't drop, so they fired again and again. I believe finally a 12g shotgun did the job!

The autopsy found that the 10mm 'Light' rounds had penetrated 3-4 inches maximum; indeed they had dumped their energy and created some hydrostatic shock. Not one 10mm killed.

Oddly enough the US Army devised a similar criteria when they were evaluating their new pistol, which turned out to be the Beretta M9 in 9x19mm. It was a classic 'anti-9' lobby at work.

I wonder why, given the hatred in the US (only) for the 9mm, that it is the pistol round of choice for near every Army, Police and Counter Terrorist organisation in the world. Even the US has adopted it for most Police departments. The only people who are decrying the 9mm are in the US; in the rest of the world we're using it quite effectively.

So coming full circle back to the original critique of 5.7mm; the foundation for stating that it is ineffective because of what happens when it hits water is shakey at best, complete crap at worst.

I've taken part in more .45 verses every other calibre debates than I would care to admit to; everytime we get inside the science from guys with rather high foreheads and practical experience from guys who have 'been there and got the T-shirt', we conclude that the .45 is no better than many other calibres, where the round enters in the body is significant not its diameter.

The comment, in conclusion, that the 5.7 does not have the energy to create the hydrostatic shock channel equal to the .45 is wrong. Why? The hydrostatic theory of judging wound ballistics effectiveness is wrong.

[Peregrino]

Way too much internet myth/misinformation being propogated to allow this to continue in it's original thread. Our European ally is advancing his position with typical "bulldog tenacity" so I've decided to create a new thread that won't distract from other discussions. Peregrino

[The Reaper]

barney:

You are coming across as a walking encyclopedia of misinformation. From now on, I want a source for your "facts". You seem to be regurgitating what you have read, rather than what you know. Several previous requests for demonstrated proof for your claims have gone unanswered. This is not a board for speculators and those who would use it as a forum for their opinions. Follow the rules or hit the road.

To my knowledge, the FBI has never used water as a test media, they use 10% ballistic gelatin.

There have been efforts to develop a basis for comparison between terminal ballistic performance in water and ballistic gelatin, for people without access to ballistic gelatin. The FBI was not involved in this.

The 10mm never figured into a prominent FBI gunfight. In fact, it was selected AFTER failure of ineffective duty rounds in a major gunfight, notably, the infamous Miami shootout. During this shootout, the agents used duty weapons consisting of primarily 9x19mm (53 rounds), .38 (6 rounds), .357 Magnum (24 rounds of .38+Ps), and 12 gauge shotgun (5 rounds #00 Buck). The 9mm failed utterly, which lead in part to the 10mm being adopted. The bad guys used a 5.56mm carbine, a 12 gauge shotgun, and two .357 Magnum pistols. All injuries to the officers (2 killed, 5 seriously injured) were inflicted by the 5.56mm Ruger carbine. The two felons took six hits, and 12 hits respectively from 9x19, .38, and 12 gauge befiore they died. They were finally killed by a .357 Magnum with .38 +P rounds.

The 10mm as adopted by the FBI in the S&W 1076, soon turned out to be more pistol than many officers, especially "small-statured" ones could handle. It did make the penetration performance requirement of the FBI, which IIRC, was 10"-12". That requirement was due to the poor 9x19mm and .38 Special performance noted above in Miami. Most probably in response to lower qualification scores, the FBI ordered the ammo downloaded to "minus P" specs. This load approximated the performance of the current .40 S&W, but was still in a large handgun which many could not grip properly. This sequence of evolution lead to the development and adoption of the .40 S&W, which would fit in most of the smaller 9mm framed handguns with a beefed up slide.

The popularity of the 9mm globally is primarily due to the number of service weapons chambered for it, the reduced grip size and recoil, and the cheap ammunition available for it. You do realize that the 9x19 is OLDER than the venerable .45 ACP which you seem to feel is ancient. It is merely the even older .30 Mauser case blown out to max diameter. Since neither of the rounds may be used in any configuration other than FMJ in combat against those protected by the Conventions, why would I want to make a .355" hole in a bad guy when I can make one .451"? Neither round is going to produce any expansion beyond the loaded diameter except when it yaws and reverses to continue base forward.

If you believe ballistic gelatin (rather than water) is an adequate test medium, the IWBA has stated that the 31 grain 5.7x28mm SS190 is a woefully inadequate performer, producing results similar to a .17 to .22 rimfire. Not sure what you are on about with it, it has been out for many years and no significant forces have adopted it for combat troops. It launches a small, light bullet, at a moderate velocity which enters and penetrates to 15cm without yawing, creating a small permanent cavity and an insignificant temporary cavity. It is judged to be significantly LESS effective that the 9x19mm FMJ, which is itself a poor performer. Read all about it:

--Dahlstrom D, Powley K, and Gordon C: “Wound Profile of the FN Cartridge (SS 190) Fired from the FN P90 Submachine Gun". Wound Ballistic Review. 4(3):21-26; Spring 2000.

--Fackler M: "Errors & Omissions", Wound Ballistic Review. 1(1):46; Winter 1991.

--Fackler M: "More on the Bizarre Fabrique National P-90", Wound Ballistic Review. 3(1):44-45; 1997.

--FBI Academy Firearms Training Unit. FBI Handgun Ammunition Tests 1989-1995. Quantico, U.S. Department of Justice--Federal Bureau of Investigation.

--Hayes C: “Personal Defense Weapons—Answer in Search of a Question”, Wound Ballistic Review. 5(1):30-36; Spring 2001.

BTW, hydrostatic shock is a discredited figment of the imagination, and has been for years. The FBI never used it, and no known handgun rounds produce it.

I will still agree that shot placement is key. Speed is fine, but accuracy is final.

What are you bringing to this board, other than vitriol, innuendo, and a bad attitude?

TR

[Peregrino]

Thanks TR. I'm not sure it was worth it but you do provide a quality synopsis. At least you saved me some effort. :p Peregrino

[Team Sergeant]

Speed is fine, but accuracy is final.

TR

I like this, is it yours?

Nothing like watching folks clear leather in 3/10's of a second only to miss the target.....:rolleyes:

TS

[rubberneck]

given that 75% of our bodies if composed of water. It sounds plausible, but hold on. The Feds further concluded that the way forward as a light bullet travelling at high velocity, they decided that the optimum was a 10mm 125 grain bullet for their new S & W 1076 DAO pistols.

Unfortunately they discovered, during a bank shootout, that this was the biggest mistake of their lives. Several agents achieved good hits into the chests of robbers and were bemused that they didn't drop, so they fired again and again. I believe finally a 12g shotgun did the job!

The autopsy found that the 10mm 'Light' rounds had penetrated 3-4 inches maximum; indeed they had dumped their energy and created some hydrostatic shock. Not one 10mm killed.


10 seconds of google time and I was able to come up with this:

http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs7.htm

[The Reaper]

I like this, is it yours?

TS

The quote is attributed to Wyatt Earp, circa 1888, and Bill Jordan in years since then.

TR

[Chris]

Since you are the last to produce it, and I cannot ask Mr. Earp, may I use use it in my sig line?

[Smokin Joe]

Thank you TR... it is always a pleasure to read your informed and evolved responses.

[zeroalpha]

I'm certainly not going to publish my credentials on the net; anyone here who is stating their past is letting themself wide open under opsec.

Then PM me your "credentials" and we can see if you have the qualifications to speak with such knowledge.

[jbour13]

Thanks TR!

I've got a manager at the gunstore that readily admits he's got more money than brains. He's already purchased the five-seven, and has ordered the PS-90 (civvie version). His purchasing has nothing to do with it's claimed performance, he just wants to be an uber-geek and have the toys that Stargate SG-1 has. :D

He'll readily admit that the round would be best served quelling the uprising of squirrels and other rodents, or to put down the zombie hoard.

Infatuation seems to keep this round alive. I hear more about its supposed ability to penetrate body armor from airsofters that come into the store than any combat troopers. So it can penetrate body armor. Lots of ammunition variants can. Penetration of body armor is not what PVT Snuffy typically worries about down-range. He worries about will his ammo drop the insurgent so he can move on to the next one.

We've sold 3 since November, resold 2 of the original 3 to the same type of buyer. FN Herstal brought a few to play with as a demo to the store and the only thing good said by the employees that it was easy and comfortable (recoil wise) to shoot. Accuracy was fine at close range, indoors, at 25 yards. These controlled conditions allow for acceptable accuracy. Let's take that lightweight, under charged round into a windy condition and see how well it bucks the wind. There is no propellant charge that'll compensate for a stiff cross wind. A round that is supposed to be the solution to the 9mm cartridge that has half the weight and twice the speed seems more like snake oil than a solution. This round seems to be pushed more towards the LEO community. Their rep was quick to point out more and more criminals are wearing body armor, especially in barricade situations. OK so Perp #1 is barricaded. He's not going anywhere, so you've got plenty of time to get a marksman/sniper team in place to use high caliber options. Situation for the 5-7 is null then.

This round is like the 45GAP, an idea that was perpetually pimped to the point that it'll fall into the gutter, unwanted, abused, and possibly forgotten.

[Smokin Joe]

Their rep was quick to point out more and more criminals are wearing body armor, especially in barricade situations. OK so Perp #1 is barricaded. He's not going anywhere, so you've got plenty of time to get a marksman/sniper team in place to use high caliber options. Situation for the 5-7 is null then.


Hence why god created the continous burn CS canister.

[catd11r]

Thank you gentleman, for the very enlightning information on the 5.7.

[Basicload]

Totally concur with the poor terminal effects of the 5.7 and HK 4.6 for that matter based upon discussions with SME's in this field.

I do believe that the peruvian(sp?) SEALs used some P-90's during the Japanese embassy raid. I could be wrong about that though.

I have low-banwidth at this location but a little googling might find some pics of the SEALs running for the breach points with P-90's during the hit. I'm almost positive that I saw them during the media footage of the raid.

[Tuukka]

Totally concur with the poor terminal effects of the 5.7 and HK 4.6 for that matter based upon discussions with SME's in this field.

I do believe that the peruvian(sp?) SEALs used some P-90's during the Japanese embassy raid. I could be wrong about that though.

I have low-banwidth at this location but a little googling might find some pics of the SEALs running for the breach points with P-90's during the hit. I'm almost positive that I saw them during the media footage of the raid.

They did utilize the P90, but if recall correctly the Peruvian Naval FOES was handling other duties during the siege and the majority of the forces engaged in the raid were Army special operations forces, with some Marines also involved.

Attached is a photo of the P90 in use during the raid

[Bravo1-3]

I briefly considered buying a PS-90 as sort of a riding carbine, but it doesn't offer anything that my M-Forgery isn't already capable of. The "sexy" ammo capabilities I keep hearing about aren't available on the civilian use ammo, so I don't see a reason to spend that kind of money on what is at best a marginal round. If I ever decide that I simply HAVE TO have something that fires that round, I guess I'll buy one of these uppers instead:

http://www.rhinelandarms.com/


As for shot placement :D

[eva05]

I remember when TR explained some of this to me in thread a while back regarding everyone's favorite pistols.

I've since dumped my 5-7 and gone to a Glock 22, which has served me quite well ^_^

As usual, PS.com is an education.

j

[TFM]

I remember when TR explained some of this to me in thread a while back regarding everyone's favorite pistols.

I've since dumped my 5-7 and gone to a Glock 22, which has served me quite well ^_^

As usual, PS.com is an education.

jSounds like a good choice to me. Found this too.

gun-tests.com/sample/40SW.html

[Team Sergeant]

Sounds like a good choice to me. Found this too.

gun-tests.com/sample/40SW.html
Anyone that chooses a Glock as the "top choice" is being paid to do so.

TFM don't post hot-links from questionable websites on here.....

If you don't know ask or don't post the links.....

TS

[TFM]

Anyone that chooses a Glock as the "top choice" is being paid to do so.

TFM don't post hot-links from questionable websites on here.....

If you don't know ask or don't post the links.....

TSSure thing. If you had to choose a few, what .40 weapons would you consider?

[Team Sergeant]

Sure thing. If you had to choose a few, what .40 weapons would you consider?

Don't read much on here do you?

Now I'm betting some one on here might know what I think is a good .40 weapon system..... :rolleyes:

[Chris]

USP .40 :lifter

[jbour13]

Don't read much on here do you?

Now I'm betting some one on here might know what I think is a good .40 weapon system..... :rolleyes:

OOOH OOOH...... I know!!! No I don't, but I'm sure it has something to do with German engineering. :D

Personally, I'd take the 5-7 over the Glock, cause re-sale prices are higher and I could afford another toy, say a good scope for my FN PBR. :cool:

[TFM]

Don't read much on here do you?

Now I'm betting some one on here might know what I think is a good .40 weapon system..... :rolleyes:
I try, but the wife starts complaining that I spend too much time on the computer:D
plus there is soooo much to read.

[TFM]

USP .40 :lifterThey are nice. I have heard more than one gunsmith complain that it has to many moving parts (action swithes) IIRC, therefore, more things to go wrong. The bias there may be that it poses more complication for them to work on. Because of that they said they preffered the glock. Only .40 I ever had was a Firestar. Didn't get to shoot it much either, but I did like it.

[jbour13]

They are nice. I have heard more than one gunsmith complain that it has to many moving parts (action swithes) IIRC, therefore, more things to go wrong. The bias there may be that it poses more complication for them to work on. Because of that they said they preffered the glock. Only .40 I ever had was a Firestar. Didn't get to shoot it much either, but I did like it.

INTERVENTION......We need to get you stateside and show you some real hardware in 40cal. :D

Firestar is good for the price IMHO......that's it. Sorry, saw one go full auto on the range after the sear broke. Gentleman explained that it happened twice before. It was a .380 so it wasn't too bad to control, just scary to watch. :eek:

[TFM]

INTERVENTION......We need to get you stateside and show you some real hardware in 40cal. :D

Yea, I probably ain't gonna see much here with these laws.

[Smokin Joe]

I have heard more than one gunsmith complain that it has to many moving parts (action swithes) IIRC, therefore, more things to go wrong. The bias there may be that it poses more complication for them to work on.

That IMHO is a bullshit theory

[Team Sergeant]

They are nice. I have heard more than one gunsmith complain that it has to many moving parts (action swithes) IIRC, therefore, more things to go wrong. The bias there may be that it poses more complication for them to work on. Because of that they said they preffered the glock. Only .40 I ever had was a Firestar. Didn't get to shoot it much either, but I did like it.


The next time you post something as stupid as this you will be banned.

"I have heard" does not cut it here. If you lack experience don't post. In fact don't post again until I tell you.

TS

[HOLLiS]

INTERVENTION......We need to get you stateside and show you some real hardware in 40cal. :D

Firestar is good for the price IMHO......

I have a firestar in 40 S&W, a surprising good little hand gun. It is all steel and weighs a bit. The weight is a down side on conceal carry, similar to a full size auto, but a plus for reduce felt recoil. A good shooter too. I bought it on the recommendation of another shooter I knew. His preformed equally well.

[Tubbs]

I own a Firestar in 9mm and I love it. It is one of the most fun and functional handguns that I own, or have fired. Its barely larger than my Walther PPK/S yet it holds the same amount of ammo and in a more substantial caliber. The solid steel construction is nice as well. I'm not a big fan of polymer frame firearms (personal preferance only) and I like the fact that it feels like a beefy gun for as small as it is. That feature also helps to greatly reduce felt recoil.
I have also had pleasant experiences with a firestar in .45acp that a friend of mine owns. They are generally inexspensive when you can find them and very reliable. The only downside is if you need replacement parts they are hard to find in some cases. Magazines however, are not as hard to find or exspensive as one might expect. At least the last time I checked anyways.

[RTK]

I don't know of any combat units using it in the real world. FWIW - Peregrino

Hate to necropost, but after firing one of these with the Saudi NG (they're using it - though they haven't been in combat since the Battle of Khafji) the other day I came here first for any info.

To be honest, and I'm sure others who have fired it will relate, I felt like I was at a county fair shooting the star out of the middle of the paper. It's cute, but I'm glad I don't have it as MY primary weapon.

[DbeforeD]

There is a lot of good information in this thread! As an Ammo Troop in the USAF, I get a h@rd-on for these types of topics.

After reading up on this for most of the morning, I found that all weapon systems are doing their respective “jobs”.

.45 is effectively killing/destroying things.

5.7mm is effectively putting little holes in paper, relatively accurately.

And 6mm airsoft is effectively keeping the neighbor’s dog from pooping in my yard. Well sort of, but I blame the intelligence of the animal for the repeated “shootings”.

No opinion on the .40 topic…

FWIW it is generally a good idea to consider the input of the subjects in the field as opposed to the input provided by the “experts” in the rear. If I were Barney, not only would I listen to the QP’s, I would also put the ultra-high capacity of both the p90/ps90 and the Five-Seven into the equation.

I find a .45 caliber hole staring at me a lot more intimidating than a 5.7mm hole. Sun-tzu said “attack few with many”, so I give me most caliber I can handle.:D

[Mycroft]

Something interesting about the 5.7 ammunition; what is currently available from the manufacturer to civilians really isn't good for much other than punching paper or small game.

A company called Elite Ammunition has been making some headway on that issue. Here is a link to their forums, specifically a thread covering some tests they have done:
http://www.fivesevenforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1502

There they mention that one of their new production ammunitions is getting a muzzle velocity of 2600fps from the fiveseven pistol.

Perhaps this will allow the round to gain some more traction if they can get their supply issues cleared up.