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]

Originally Posted by ObliqueApproach

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]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by barney_rubble

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]

Originally Posted by barney_rubble

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]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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

[barney_rubble]

Originally Posted by Smokin Joe

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