Sorry, but it slipped my mind. To all of my fellow gun nuts out there, has anyone taken a long hard look at the 5.7 caliber pistol being made by FN?

Yeah, I've taken a look at. All it amounts to is a .223 Remington-short.

The metric designation of the .223 Remingtom is 5.56 x 45 mm and the FN 5.7 is equivalent to being a 5.56 x 28 mm. The diameter of the bullet is exactly the same -- 224 thousandths of an inch.

The best direct comparison would be the SS-193 round with a 55 grain bullet and a muzzle velocity of 1,000 feet per second fired from the PS-90 carbine with a 16-inch barrel, (122 foot pounds of muzzle energy -- and an effective range of 100 meters. The 45 ACP has 356 foot pounds of muzzle energy!) and the 5.56 NATO with a 55-grain bullet and a muzzle velocity of 3,000 feet per second and 1099 foot pounds of muzzle energy . . . fired from a 16-inch barrel.

Enough power in a pistol to punch through a one inch titanium plate after traveling 100 meters, ...

Somebody's pulling your leg.

The SS-190 round (armor piercing) has a 32 grain bullet, and a muzzle velocity of 2,350 feet per second from a carbine with a 16-inch barrel. It's effective range is 200 meters. Punch through 1-inch thick Titanium at 100 meters? In a hand gun? No Way! A 68 grain 5.56 Nato armor piercing bullet at 2,900 fps in a rifle won't do that. Not even close!

Could be right up Jacko's alley if he ever needs to take on someone wearing body armor.

Why bother with that when a .22 Magnum will do the same thing. Or a .17 HMR.

Ken V.

Went to my 40th high school reunion over the weekend (40 YEARS! Oy!) and had a long talk with a classmate who's been in the FBI for 30-35 years. He was very down on the 9mm round. He swears my the .40 caliber. He was so adamant and made such a good case, I'm thinking of switching Jack to the .40.

I know you guys have touted the .40 over the 9mm before, but give me a few more deatails to help me make up Jack's mind..

I like both, at ten to twenty feet the .40 would be my choice simply because it’s a heavier round.

9 x 19 = women
.40 S&W = brain wackos ( teenagers )
.45ACP = grown up mens
Scotty Reitz, LAPD Metro / Swat 114

Sorry, but it slipped my mind. To all of my fellow gun nuts out there, has anyone taken a long hard look at the 5.7 caliber pistol being made by FN? Enough power in a pistol to punch through a one inch titanium plate after traveling 100 meters, slim, easy to conceal, and a decent capacity. Could be right up Jacko's alley if he ever needs to take on someone wearing body armor.

I've already suggested the Five seveN for Jack, months ago!
I traded for an FNH Five seveN this past summer, a Colt Mustang Plus II (.380), Walther P-22, and my old Glock 17 (I still have 3 other Glocks and I love 'em, unlike Ken).

The 5.7 mm ammo is kind of pricey, but starting to come down. The gun is unbelievably light, but has very little recoil and is quite accurate. The armor-piercing round is not available on the civilian market. It will pierce Class II body armor at 100 meters and Class IIIA at 30 meters, but I believe that includes standard trauma plates, which are titanium, but thinner than one inch thick. I'm looking for a green daytime laser for it, then I'll get a shoulder holster made to carry it with a double-magazine carrier on the other side.

I like the 20-round magazines and they feed flawlessly. The 5.7-mm round was first developed by FNH for their P-90 submachinegun (you can see them sometimes on Stargate Atlantis). It was designed mainly for support and behind the frontlines personnel who need to carry some kind of weapon, more than a pistol and smaller than a true assault rifle, kind of like what the M-1 carbine was intended for and failed to live up to. When customers wanted a pistol in the same caliber as the submachinegun, FNH complied, hence the Five seveN.

Other than this, I can add nothing to what other posters have said previously on this thread. I personally feel 9-mm is adequate, provided it is delivered with accuracy and the projectile is more than an FMJ. I choose Glasers for my Kahr PM9 for backup and close up. I load Hydra-Shoks in my Glock 19. Lately, though, I've been carrying my Kimber Eclipse Officer's Model with a mag full of Devastators. The Kimber is just so solid and locks up tight. However, if I had to choose one and only one handgun to bet my life on, it would have to be my Glock 17L target model (long-slide, compensated, and 3.5-lb trigger). At normal pistol ranges, I can double-tap two holes that touch and it holds 20 rounds.

IMHO, the .40 S&W round is the answer to a problem that does not exist. If I can't do what needs to be done with a 9-mm or .45, then I'm grabbing a rifle.

NewYorkjoe

IMHO, the .40 S&W round is the answer to a problem that does not exist. If I can't do what needs to be done with a 9-mm or .45, then I'm grabbing a rifle.

NewYorkjoe

I certainly agree with your bottom line! The .40 Short&Weak is an unnecessary round. If I want a pistol round in .40/10mm calibre I'll opt for the 10mm in its fullhouse loading or the .400 CorBon. I own and fire both calibres (100mm and .400 CorBon), which is why I own NO .40 S&Ws. My carry options depend upon various factors, but they go as follows: 9mm, 9mmMAK, .32ACP (Glasers), in declining order depending upon concealability issues.

I've already suggested the Five seveN for Jack, months ago!
I traded for an FNH Five seveN this past summer, a Colt Mustang Plus II (.380), Walther P-22, and my old Glock 17 (I still have 3 other Glocks and I love 'em, unlike Ken).

Just because I don't like them, doesn't mean that you can't like them.

The primary reason I don't like them is because the grip angle is wrong for me. After having fired 1911's for so many years, I've long since reached the point where I can look at a target, close my eyes, draw from leather -- or Kydex as the case may be -- and the gun will be on target with sights aligned when I open my eyes. With their steeper grip-angle, the Glocks invariably point high above the target.

The second thing I don't like about them is the plastic frame. I just cannot modify plastic the way I can steel -- or even aluminum.

Third thing is, unless I invest in a Bar-Sto barrel, I can't shoot lead in a Glock. That rounded-land, semi-polygonal barrel has a very great tendency to lead up, and as I save a tremendous amount of money by casting my own bullets for practise, I shoot a lot of lead.

The 5.7 mm ammo is kind of pricey, but starting to come down. The gun is unbelievably light, but has very little recoil and is quite accurate. The armor-piercing round is not available on the civilian market. It will pierce Class II body armor at 100 meters and Class IIIA at 30 meters, but I believe that includes standard trauma plates, which are titanium, but thinner than one inch thick.

Considerably thinner than one inch I would imagine. Although Titanium is about 45 percent lighter than its equivalent size in steel, a one inch thick plate is still pretty heavy -- not something you would want to be wearing all day. And a 7.62 Nato round wouldn't be able to punch through one inch thick Ti plate, although an armor piercing round might -- possibly . . . just barely. But I doubt it. So the idea that a 36-grain, .22 caliber round could do it at 100 yards is pure rubbish.

According to the FNHUSA website:

http://www.fnhusa.com/contents/tw_57x28mm.htm

"FNH USA has tested the SS195LF, SS196 and SS197 products against NIJ Level IIIA soft body armor, which is today’s benchmark in soft body armor technology. The SS195LF, SS196 and SS197 did not penetrate the Level IIIA soft body armor tested by FN Herstal." (Q-7)

Those are the three commercially available rounds available in the U.S..

Furthermore, I'm betting that the firearm used in what you mention above is the 16-inch barreled carbine, and is most likely using the Armor Piercing round.

That round, fired from a hand gun would be even less effective.

I like the 20-round magazines and they feed flawlessly. The 5.7-mm round was first developed by FNH for their P-90 submachinegun (you can see them sometimes on Stargate Atlantis).

You can also see them on the website I linked above.

If a small. low recoil round is what you're interested in, why not go with the 17HMR?

Other than this, I can add nothing to what other posters have said previously on this thread. I personally feel 9-mm is adequate, provided it is delivered with accuracy and the projectile is more than an FMJ. I choose Glasers for my Kahr PM9 for backup and close up. I load Hydra-Shoks in my Glock 19. Lately, though, I've been carrying my Kimber Eclipse Officer's Model with a mag full of Devastators. The Kimber is just so solid and locks up tight.

Kimber makes a very high quality product. And you made a very good choice in buying one.

IMHO, the .40 S&W round is the answer to a problem that does not exist. If I can't do what needs to be done with a 9-mm or .45, then I'm grabbing a rifle.

The 40 S&W was the result of that FBI screw-up in Miami back in 1986.

Two of the FBI officers fired their 15-round S&W 9mm's dry, twice, and between them made only one hit on the bank robbers. Embarassed, the FBI blamed it on the guns. The guns just werent powerful enough. So, they did a bit of research and decided that the 10mm was the way to go.

Problem was . . . being that the FBI agents were ineffective in hitting their targets with 9mm's, the high-recoil 10mm's were even more difficult for them to hit with. So, the FBI down loaded the 10mm.

Smith & Wesson saw an opportunuty. If you're going to use so little powder, why have such a long cartridge. So they shortened the brass cartridge case from 0.992 inches for the 10mm, to 0.850 for the 40 S&W. They also substituted a small pistol primer for the large primer of the 10mm. And the 40 Smith & Wesson was born.

It's not a bad round, in fact, in some loadings, it has more energy than the 45 ACP.

Here's a comparison using Remington ammunition:

9-mm Remington Golden Saber +P:
124-grain bullet
1180 FPS Muzzle velocity
383 foot/pounds muzzle energy
38 - efficacy (muzzle energy X bullet area)

357 Magnum Remington Express:
158-grain bullet
1235 FPS muzzle velocity
535 foot/pounds muzzle energy
54 - efficacy (muzzle energy X bullet area)

40 S&W Remington Golden Saber:
165-grain bullet
1150 FPS muzzle velocity
485 foot/pounds muzzle energy
61 - efficacy (muzzle energy X bullet area)

45 ACP Remington Golden Saber:
230-grain bullet
875 FPS muzzle velocity
391 foot/pounds muzzle energy
62 - efficacy (muzzle energy X bullet area)

44 Magnum Remington Express:
240-grain bullet
1180 FPS muzzle velocity
742 foot/pounds muzzle energy
108 - efficacy (muzzle energy X bullet area)

Regardless of which one you choose, the three most important factors are shot placement, shot placement, and shot placement.

Ken V.

The 40 S&W was the result of that FBI screw-up in Miami back in 1986.

Two of the FBI officers fired their 15-round S&W 9mm's dry, twice, and between them made only one hit on the bank robbers. Embarassed, the FBI blamed it on the guns. The guns just werent powerful enough. So, they did a bit of research and decided that the 10mm was the way to go.

The biggest problem they had was 1) the driver of the lead car lost his pistol because he had taken it out of his holster and placed it between his legs for quicker access (until they wrecked and whoops..) and 2) their best shooter/tactician had his glasses knocked off during the wreck and was then taken out.

If it wasn't for the feebie with the shotgun........he saved their lives. No doubt.

This incident goes far to show how much scenario training needs to be an intregal part of training. Punching holes in paper is one thing, shooting in an adrenalized state while someone else is trying to kill you is another.

It's not a bad round, in fact, in some loadings, it has more energy than the 45 ACP.

I *like* the .40. I also have over a thousand rounds of it......

I dislike the 9mm. Just my opinion.

Regardless of which one you choose, the three most important factors are shot placement, shot placement, and shot placement.

Ken V.

100% correct. Unfortunately, in an adrenalized state its very, very hard to get good shot placement. Especially if the target is moving and also shooting back at you.

Montie

The biggest problem they had was 1) the driver of the lead car lost his pistol because he had taken it out of his holster and placed it between his legs for quicker access (until they wrecked and whoops..) and 2) their best shooter/tactician had his glasses knocked off during the wreck and was then taken out.

If it wasn't for the feebie with the shotgun........he saved their lives. No doubt.

Agent Mireles fired four or five rounds of 00-buck at Platt hitting him once . . . in the feet. It seems that Agent Mireles did end the shootout, but he did so with his 38 Special revolver.

This incident goes far to show how much scenario training needs to be an intregal part of training. Punching holes in paper is one thing, shooting in an adrenalized state while someone else is trying to kill you is another.

I would imagine that Platt and Matix were also in an adrenalized state, and they were out-numbered . . . four to one. They killed two FBI agents and wounded five others before they were finally "stopped." Did they have better training than the FBI?

100% correct. Unfortunately, in an adrenalized state its very, very hard to get good shot placement. Especially if the target is moving and also shooting back at you.

I wasn't talking about the ease or difficulty of shot placement . . . I was talking about the importance of it.

And we have been through all this before. You mention punching holes in paper . . . well, if they can't even hit the paper, tactical and scenario training isn't going to help them much.

Ken V.

P.S. http://www.thegunzone.com/11april86.html

Just because I don't like them, doesn't mean that you can't like them.

I know, didn't mean to say different. The trigger takes getting used to. The trigger on my Kahr is actually much better.

The primary reason I don't like them is because the grip angle is wrong for me. After having fired 1911's for so many years, I've long since reached the point where I can look at a target, close my eyes, draw from leather -- or Kydex as the case may be -- and the gun will be on target with sights aligned when I open my eyes. With their steeper grip-angle, the Glocks invariably point high above the target.

Many shooters agree with you, including some on the SASS wire. Still, for a novice or one who has never become used to the 1911, the Glock is very easy to learn, especially for women and I often recommend Glocks to them as their first or only handgun.

As for the rest of your reasoned, researched, well-structured, historically accurate, and comprehensive post, I can only agree; especially with your closing statement, which, after all, sums it all up quite concisely.

Regardless of which one you choose, the three most important factors are shot placement, shot placement, and shot placement.
Ken V.

If I miss with a .454 Casull or a .45-70 Gov., then all I've done is make a loud noise and some breeze! (I can do that with Mexican food and leave the firearm at home!)

Agent Mireles fired four or five rounds of 00-buck at Platt hitting him once . . . in the feet. It seems that Agent Mireles did end the shootout, but he did so with his 38 Special revolver.

The shotgun got everyone down. He aggressively attacked the threat, putting them on the defensive. Once the shotgun was was done you're right, he finished it with the wheelgun.

I would imagine that Platt and Matix were also in an adrenalized state, and they were out-numbered . . . four to one. They killed two FBI agents and wounded five others before they were finally "stopped." Did they have better training than the FBI?

Not training, experience. They had done some real shooting before. They also trained plinking cans and what not, but they had been doing highly adrenalized bank robberies for some time prior to this. Exposure to adrenaline gives you a resistance to it, allowing better processing.

Here is a pretty good description - http://www.thegunzone.com/11april86.html

[QUOTE[I wasn't talking about the ease or difficulty of shot placement . . . I was talking about the importance of it.

And we have been through all this before. You mention punching holes in paper . . . well, if they can't even hit the paper, tactical and scenario training isn't going to help them much.

Ken V.[/QUOTE]
You're right, of course. But JUST punching holes is also not enough. Good fundamental training, but just the fundamentals of shooting, not fundamentals of shooting in a gun fight.

That said, the importance of well-placed shots cannot be over-estimated.

Also looks like we went to the same source on line.... A supervisor (ex-FBI) in my office was good friends with one of the surviving officers, I can't remember which. He's talked about it a couple of times.