Page 2 of 2
Re: FNX or FN Five-seveN
Posted: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 10:17:23
by jdonovan
There is a LOT of data not yet in the public view about the incident do draw any sort of conclusions about much...
A concur with what you've said, not super-duper amazing ballistics, but not out of line with the survival/fatality rate of more traditional handgun rounds either.
I guess we are back to there are no magic bullets/cartridges.
Re: FNX or FN Five-seveN
Posted: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 10:24:44
by gunderwood
jdonovan wrote:I guess we are back to there are no magic bullets/cartridges.
+1
As a general rule of thumb for kinetic projectiles, you have to take it in order to give it. You can't take 10ft-lbs of energy and kill bear reliably. Most of the smaller SD calibers are in the 200-300ish ft-lbs and the more powerful are 400-600ish. I am not saying that energy is the deciding factor or that it kills or whatever. However, engineers must design the bullets to be optimized for those mass/caliber/velocities/energies. That is one reason the 9mm GDHP and the .357SIG GDHP are vastly different despite being the same caliber.
Re: FNX or FN Five-seveN
Posted: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 10:21:57
by richmier
SteveGT wrote:Hi all,
Does anyone here have any experience with either of these pistols? I've become intrigued with the 5-7 model and the round's ballistics, and just noticed that they come with 20 rnd magazines! I then saw the new FN-X .45 tactical pistol, and love the threaded barrel (although I'd never use it) and that it holds 15+1.
Thoughts?
Thanks
I have FN Five-Seven, and it is more efficient.