FNX or FN Five-seveN

[SteveGT]

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

[SgtBill]

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

Steve, read the post on terminal ballistic's
Bill

[OakRidgeStars]

Here's a link to Bill's post

http://vagunforum.net/general-discussio ... t6447.html

[gunderwood]

The Five-Seven only does one thing well, penetrate soft body armor. If your threat has rifle plates, no go. The terminal performance of that round is awful with or without armor. IMHO, it's a range or tech toy and not suitable for a practical pistol.

[SteveGT]

Thanks for the link and info. I'll read up on it's terminal ballistics.

How about the .45 though?

[SteveGT]

Thanks for the link and info. I'll read up on it's terminal ballistics.

How about the .45 though?

[gunderwood]

Thanks for the link and info. I'll read up on it's terminal ballistics.

How about the .45 though?

Here is some good info on the 5.7x28mm and terminal ballistics. http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19913

In semi-autos, the most popular choices are: 380ACP, 9mm, .357SIG, .40S&W and .45ACP. They are all similar in their capabilities as long as you buy high quality, modern HP ammo. 380 is the exception. It isn't bad, but it usually demonstrates less than 12" of penetration per the FBI standard or when it does penetrate that deep it hardly expands. I'd recommend the 380 only if you need a really small gun or you could not shoot the 9mm well.

In revolvers, the most popular choices are: .38Special and .357Mag. Either is a good choice, but I do prefer the .38Sp +P rounds and small revolvers.

There are lots of other choices, but those are the most common and often carried by LE. Since they are the common LE calibers, their bullet selection tends to be much better and performance is usually well sorted out/matched to the target. I usually recommend the most powerful of those calibers which you can shoot well and quickly. IMHO, it is far better to shoot a 380 well and hit your threat than to shoot a .45 poorly.

My favorite bonded bullets are the Speer Gold Dots. My favorite non-bonded bullets are the Ranger Ts, followed by the HSTs and Golden Sabers.

[Diomed]

I've shot the 5.7, it's loud even with a can. It's an interesting little gun but not something I'd be keen on using for defense. Unless it's defense against zombies. A 5.7 and a P90 are excellent anti-zombie weapons.

I haven't seen a FNX yet. I am a little infatuated with the FNP9. Neat little piece.

[gunderwood]

I've shot the 5.7, it's loud even with a can. It's an interesting little gun but not something I'd be keen on using for defense. Unless it's defense against zombies. A 5.7 and a P90 are excellent anti-zombie weapons.

I haven't seen a FNX yet. I am a little infatuated with the FNP9. Neat little piece.

Ya, zombies require head shots only so soft tissue damage isn't an issue. Plus, they tend to lumbar around much slower than traditional SD threats.

+1 on the neat toys. Just not ideal for CC.

[LFS]

+1 on the neat toys. Just not ideal for CC.

I've got a Five-seveN. Most reliable firearm I own, and most accurate. If I had to pop rounds into somebody's head at 25 yards with a pistol, that would be the gun I would select.

It's not ideal for two reasons. 1) Though it is very light, it is bulky. Though, I do carry a fullsize XDm, so I'm not sure this issue affects me. 2) Most encounters are up close affairs where aiming for headshots is not gonna happen. Therefore a round with "knock down" power is needed, because the shot is likely not gonna be well aimed.

That being said, there are LEOs who carry these guns. Just check out the Five-seveN forums. And I have seen people right here NoVA open carrying them... with the extended CMMG mags no less.

[gunderwood]

+1 on the neat toys. Just not ideal for CC.

I've got a Five-seveN. Most reliable firearm I own, and most accurate. If I had to pop rounds into somebody's head at 25 yards with a pistol, that would be the gun I would select.

It's not ideal for two reasons. 1) Though it is very light, it is bulky. Though, I do carry a fullsize XDm, so I'm not sure this issue affects me. 2) Most encounters are up close affairs where aiming for headshots is not gonna happen. Therefore a round with "knock down" power is needed, because the shot is likely not gonna be well aimed.

That being said, there are LEOs who carry these guns. Just check out the Five-seveN forums. And I have seen people right here NoVA open carrying them... with the extended CMMG mags no less.

To each his own I guess, but I'm not convinced. Go to any gun specific forum and they will love them. E.g. go to the Glock or SIG or 1911 or KelTec or <insert whatever you want>. I'd have to do some searching, but there were some LEAs who dropped the 5.7mm from their SWAT teams after it performed very poorly.

For comparision...
.22MAG = 30gr@2200fps
5.7 = 31gr@2350fps

The bullet of choice for civilians is the Vmax, which is designed to not penetrate. Much of the hype over the 5.7 is because gel overstates its temporal cavity. I.e. if you don't know what you are looking at the temporary cavity makes it look like the round did far more damage than it actually did. Also, the 5.7 generally does not penetrate the minimum FBI recommended depth of 12". The 5.7 crowd is the <100gr 9mm +P+ crowd all over again.

Take a look at these. Here is .22LR: http://www.brassfetcher.com/CCI%20Veloc ... 20JHP.html

Notice how there are all kinds of "stress cracks" in the gel. That is a temporaty cavity, but it makes those .22s look awesome! Based on the ruler that is nearly a 2" cavity from .22LR. The problem is that most of that tissue would not be damaged. If you look closer you can see the actual perminate cavity which appears to be no more than 0.5" at its widest point. I should note that the bullet only expanded to 0.335", but high velocity rounds or very blunt rounds cause damage to tissue not directly in contact with the bullet. It is often overstated though.

Take a look at a .22mag: http://www.brassfetcher.com/index_files/Page2548.htm
These are nicer shots, but you can see the "stress cracks" that make the cavity look much larger than it actually is. If you look closely you can see the dark parts of the gel which usually means it was shreaded or torn or crushed. I.e. perminate damage. Again, it apears to be larger than the expanded round.

If you download the xls files found here you can get some good high res shots of 5.7mm. The perminate cavity is much smaller than the temporaty cavity. http://www.brassfetcher.com/index_files/Page2558.htm That is at rifle velocites too, not handgun. At its widest point it is approx. 1", but that is a very short section.

Take a look at a 9mm from the same guy. http://www.brassfetcher.com/index_files/Page1834.htm Same drill. Look at the really dark gel (not the light stuff which is just gel stretch and not part of the actual wound size). The 9mm appears to match the best of the 5.7 wound diameter, but does it for a much longer distance. An expanded 9mm bullet is usually between 0.5" and 0.7"...or nearly the size of the 5.7mm sideways.

One final side note. When NATO was considering the 5.7 to replace 9mm, IIRC their testing showed it to be better than 9mm FMJ, but not by much.

[gunderwood]

I like .357SIG, but even I won't tell you this gel shot created a 2-3" wound (like it appears if you just measure the distorted gel).
http://www.brassfetcher.com/index_files/Page1034.htm

[LFS]

For the record, I believe the people carrying the Five-seveN are not using the SS197 or SS195LF rounds you find in your local gun shop. They are most likely carrying something from Elite Ammunition, some of which is only available to LE (much like the SS190 from FNH). The 5.7 firearms are capable of so much more than what the SS197 will do.

And even with the SS197, the bullets are designed to tumble after initial penetration causing large wound cavities.

You are right though... to each his own. Like I said, from a distance I'd prefer a Five-seveN. Unfortunately, I don't think it provides the needed punch to stop an aggressor without an aimed shot, which is likely what would happen inside of 7 yards.

[RocKor]

If I was to choose between the two, I'd go with the FNP-45. Sure the Five-seveN is a fancy pistol shooting a great armor piercing (though not very knockdown-y) round, but the FNP series (I'd get the regular 45 without the threads) is a pretty good series, especially if you're looking for a new quality DA/SA pistol that's not as expensive as a SIG or HK.

[gunderwood]

For the record, I believe the people carrying the Five-seveN are not using the SS197 or SS195LF rounds you find in your local gun shop. They are most likely carrying something from Elite Ammunition, some of which is only available to LE (much like the SS190 from FNH). The 5.7 firearms are capable of so much more than what the SS197 will do.

No, they generally are not using that round. However, finding 5.7mm tests from a reputable source, with calibrations and who has tested other rounds with the same setup is hard. Most of the tests I can find are no better than my SOST test, which is fun, but not worth much. I've seen the videos from EA, but again, the best pictures I can find grossly overstate the wound size. http://www.ar15armory.com/forums/EA-57x ... 48993.html

And even with the SS197, the bullets are designed to tumble after initial penetration causing large wound cavities.

A 5.7mm bullet sidways has less area than an expanded 9mm HP. All of the 5.7mm gel shots I have seen look very much like those .22mag shots I linked too. Once you take a better look at the actual wound cavity rather than just the distorted gel, 5.7mm isn't much better than those .22Mags IMHO.

You are right though... to each his own. Like I said, from a distance I'd prefer a Five-seveN. Unfortunately, I don't think it provides the needed punch to stop an aggressor without an aimed shot, which is likely what would happen inside of 7 yards.

The BC on those 5.7s are right inline with pistol bullets. I.e. 0.15-0.2 ish. Thus, a 5.7mm will lose around 400fps over 100 yards while a 9mm will only loose 200fps (drag is non-linear). So if 5.7mm has any destructive advantage over 9mm it would be at close ranges where its velocity may cause hydrostatic shock, not far. I'm sure you've heard of the 21ft rule...how far out do you plan on shooting an aggressor with 5.7mm if you are taking such precise shots?

[LFS]

The BC on those 5.7s are right inline with pistol bullets. I.e. 0.15-0.2 ish. Thus, a 5.7mm will lose around 400fps over 100 yards while a 9mm will only loose 200fps (drag is non-linear). So if 5.7mm has any destructive advantage over 9mm it would be at close ranges where its velocity may cause hydrostatic shock, not far. I'm sure you've heard of the 21ft rule...how far out do you plan on shooting an aggressor with 5.7mm if you are taking such precise shots?

Head shots at 25 yards... which is an unlikely self defense scenario and legally questionable.

EA has posted pictures of gels at http://fivesevenforum.com/ in the past.

[gunderwood]

The BC on those 5.7s are right inline with pistol bullets. I.e. 0.15-0.2 ish. Thus, a 5.7mm will lose around 400fps over 100 yards while a 9mm will only loose 200fps (drag is non-linear). So if 5.7mm has any destructive advantage over 9mm it would be at close ranges where its velocity may cause hydrostatic shock, not far. I'm sure you've heard of the 21ft rule...how far out do you plan on shooting an aggressor with 5.7mm if you are taking such precise shots?

Head shots at 25 yards... which is an unlikely self defense scenario and legally questionable.

EA has posted pictures of gels at http://fivesevenforum.com/ in the past.

So at 25 yards, the only likely threat would also be a gun. Even if they weren't shooting at you, hitting a moving head at 25 yards is a tough job. Most shooters can't do it once in a whole mag, let along on demand and under stress. I'm sure SgtBill, actually having been in gun fights, could jump in and provide some insight. Perhaps some of the defensive competition shooters could weight in too. However, I'd put good money on most people not being able to shoot a moving/random 4"x6" plate (a good head shot that actually has a chance to penetrate...i.e. not a glancing blow) at 25 yards.

Yes, I have seen EA's gel shots and again, IMHO they are grossly overstating their actual permanent cavity by showing gel shots which are primarily temporal cavities and not explaining to their users that much of the "cloud" isn't real damage. E.g. "watermelon" shots and other questionable marking tools (such as zooming way in so that tiny .22cal looks like a .45). Don't think I'm knocking their product. AFAIK, EA makes good ammo and if you need to penetration soft body armor with a handgun, 5.7mm is an excellent round.

Case in point: http://fivesevenforum.com/viewtopic.php ... e+ammo+gel

See the huge cracks in the gel just from the round entering? Certainly the round did not yaw that quickly! Gel is not human tissue and one thing human or animal tissue has that gel is very poor at is elasticity. Where as the human skin and tissue would have absorbed that energy with little to no damage, gel can not. Those cracks indicate that enough energy was transferred to the gel to cause it crack, nothing more. Don't mistake those for actual tissue damage. Take a look at this:

Neither round penetrated to the FBI min. of 12". From this shot it appears that those are decent rounds (1-2" of cavity diameter) except for the penetration depth issue. It may be slightly misleading, but those are two separate shots, not separate fragments. However, zoom in a bit:

Ah, notice how large those tiny rounds look! Notice how at this angle you can clearly see that those are two separate shots (both are bases, not fragments) and much of that "huge" cavity isn't real. It is just like the cracks on the front of the block...stress fractures which are able to damage gel, but provide virtually no tissue damage. At this angle you can also see the actual wound much better. See the really jagged gel that doesn't appear to be more than 1.5x caliber? That is your would and yes, it is larger than caliber because of cavitation/hydrostatic shock. It is generally accepted that rounds of this velocity can cause that type of damage.

However, what does 5.7mm have that .22mag does not? Most civilian 5.7mm ammo is .22mag bullets anyways (EA does have some interesting bullets though). Velocity is nearly spot on between the rifles, although 5.7mm has a big advantage over .22mag pistols in the velocity department. However, when corrected for scale, those .22mag shots show the same size wound and "cloudy" area as the 5.7mm because surprise, surprise push the same bullet to the same velocity and they behave statistically the same!

As far as head shots go, you don't need an armor penetrating round to penetrate the skull. The biggest problem with skull penetration is due to its slope armor effect (it is round so edge hits tend to deflect bullets). Generally, bullets with higher momentum are harder to deflect that high velocity rounds. YMMV. In short, if 5.7mm is likely to penetrate a skull, so is virtually every other LE/SD handgun round.

What 5.7mm does that others can not is penetrate a skull after going through a NATO Kevlar helmet or cause those wounds after penetrating soft body armor. There isn't anything special to it, you just need a small caliber, high velocity round and decent bullet construction. 5.7mm offers that over .22Mag because .22Mag bullets generally are meant for varmint and no over-penetration risk on 1-30lbs animals. I.e. .22Mag has the velocity (in a rifle) and the small caliber, but lacked bullets designed for that purpose. The common LE body armor stops 9mm cold, but put the same bullets in a SMG and they penetrate the vest. Virtually every center-fire rifle round around is capable of penetrating soft body armor with practice ammo. Soft body armor penetration simply requires that you overload the localized bonds of the "bullet proof" fibers (i.e. Kevlar). It isn't hard. Energy goes up by a square of velocity, but also the time delta that the Kevlar has to distribute the energy is shorter. E.g. imagine two bullets, of the same caliber, with equal energy, but one is faster than the other. The time with which the Kevlar must distribute that energy (remember, same amount) is shorter. Thus, the faster round is more likely to reach the breaking point of the Kevlar fibers than the slower round.

[ffhounddog]

Well I would say the FNX.

No real units use the FN 57 pistols unless buracrats are in charge of them.

[jdonovan]

So I'm surprised that no one has brought up Ft. Hood yet.

From what I've read the shooter had 2 firearms. 357 mag, and a 5.7 pistol. The 357 was never fired. All the casualties were due to the 5.7.

Admittedly we don't have any details about what ammo type was used, but this is one of the few documented uses of the 5.7 vs something other than gel blocks.

[gunderwood]

So I'm surprised that no one has brought up Ft. Hood yet.

From what I've read the shooter had 2 firearms. 357 mag, and a 5.7 pistol. The 357 was never fired. All the casualties were due to the 5.7.

Admittedly we don't have any details about what ammo type was used, but this is one of the few documented uses of the 5.7 vs something other than gel blocks.

Yes, but he killed 13, wounded 30 after shoot 214 rounds at close range. The problem is that we don't have any data on how many of those were hits vice misses. I've heard that in LE situations 30% of shots fired are hits (70% misses). 30% hits may be way low given the situation. If you take that and project it you get the following.

64 rounds were hits, but only 43 required treatment. There is some confusion because eight people were treated for shock only (no physical injuries) and it appears that those eight were included in the 30 wounded. We don't know for sure, but an average would suggest that there were 35 people who actually had physical wounds and were on average hit by approx. two rounds each.

Even after all that, it you were on average shot twice the odds of dying were only 1 in 3 (approx. 13/35). In the end, there are too many unknowns to come to any real conclusions, which I why I didn't bring it up. If any of that analysis is even remotely close to the truth, I wouldn't call that amazing terminal ballistics (thankfully).