FN 5.7 handgun controversy 19 replies

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

Crazy Wolf VIP Member

Snipes With Artillery

277,420 XP

22nd March 2005

0 Uploads

27,192 Posts

0 Threads

#11 7 years ago

Anlushac11;5608481...IMHO ammo such as the Military/Police issue AP rounds are the types that should be serial numbered so if they show up somewhere they are not supposed to it could be traced.

It was my understanding that Soviet era 7.62x39 was not illegal in US and I thought it was steel core.[/QUOTE]

Pethegreat;5608478FN won't sell the AP ammo to anyone but the armed forces and police agencies. It is a moot point on either side.

Surplus steel core 7.62x25 can penetrate body armour and it has been around since the 30's. The US has banned importation of such ammo since it can go through type I, IIA, and II vests.

Just a quick thing: Soviet 7.62x25mm pistol ammo is pretty good at piercing armor. Soviet or Chinese 7.62x39mm(SKS, AK-47, and others) or 7.62x54mmR (Mosin-Nagant, various machine guns) may have a mild steel core, which has somewhat better AP ability than normal lead-core, but is not generally considered true AP, due to the softness of the steel.

[QUOTE=MrFancypants;5608526]The 2nd amendment doesn't specify what type of weapon should be made available, so it doesn't seem relevant. As for the gun - it is a matter of fact that it is more capable of defeating body armour, which makes it more effective at killing people who try to protect themselves with body armour.

It is more effective at making armored people bleed. So far I haven't seen evidence to prove that it's more effective at killing them.

That sounds pretty bad. Considering that the shooting took place at a military base this indicates that the gun was quite effective. But with regard to the discussion about body armour the Ford Hood shooting is probably not so relevant as I doubt that many of the people walking around there wear body armour all of the time.

Precisely. Don't think "army base" as in some place that's coming under artillery fire and has dugouts and everyone's on guard, looking for Charlie. Think more "Office Space". The shooter targeted mostly unarmed, unarmored people. The only people involved who had firearms were the civilian police and Major Hasan.

...FBI — Officers Feloniously Killed says that almost all officers killed in the US in 2010 were wearing body armour at the time. So the prevalence of body armour seems to be very high in those situations where it might matter. Out of those who didn't wear armour most weren't wearing uniform either, so they might have been shot while not on duty.

So, this is the case despite the Five-seveN not being incredibly prevalent among the criminal world. Body armor doesn't seem to be doing those dead cops a lot of good. Do we know why? Is it a result of insufficient thickness of armor, or more a result of getting shot in the face/legs?

The testing data I've seen suggests that the Five-seveN gets between 9-10 inches of penetration into ballistics gel. The FBI advises 12 inches of penetration for a round to have a good chance of penetrating a person and reaching vital organs. By this standard, it appears that the Five-seveN is not terribly deadly, outclassed by many cheaper guns with far cheaper and more common ammunition.

...Also, being the first to score a hit (which is more likely if you have a lighter gun that can be brought to bear more quickly, which is more accurate or has a higher rate of fire) should improve your chances to survive quite a bit.

In the USA, cops tend to be aware of incipient police-criminal violence before criminals are (no-knock warrants are handy for this purpose). When cops expect a person-of-interest to be armed, they generally already have their guns drawn and ready, giving them an advantage and negating any benefit the light weight of the Five-seveN confers to bringing the gun to bear.

Odds are this same argument (weight) might have been made back when polymer pistols started getting popular.

If you are shooting at a cop in body armour you'd want a gun that can penetrate body armour. Or a gun that is accurate and can be fired quickly to allow you a chance to hit the areas without armour.

There are comparably accurate pistols in calibers that are better suited for killing people. Some data on how often these guns are actually used, and how effectively they're used, would be quite handy.




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,332 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,016 Posts

7 Threads

#12 7 years ago
Crazy Wolf;5608675 It is more effective at making armored people bleed. So far I haven't seen evidence to prove that it's more effective at killing them.

Not sure what you are looking for, the info posted so far seems conclusive.

Precisely. Don't think "army base" as in some place that's coming under artillery fire and has dugouts and everyone's on guard, looking for Charlie. Think more "Office Space". The shooter targeted mostly unarmed, unarmored people. The only people involved who had firearms were the civilian police and Major Hasan.

Which is why I wrote in the first post that the Ford Hood shooting is perhaps not a good indicator.

So, this is the case despite the Five-seveN not being incredibly prevalent among the criminal world. Body armor doesn't seem to be doing those dead cops a lot of good. Do we know why? Is it a result of insufficient thickness of armor, or more a result of getting shot in the face/legs?

Those numbers don't say a whole lot about the effectiveness of body armour as we don't get the number of people who survived hits because of the armour. What the numbers do show is that the vast majority of cops killed in body armour with handgun caliber weapons die to shots to unprotected areas like the head or face. Of course that might change if the 5.7 was the most popular round.

The testing data I've seen suggests that the Five-seveN gets between 9-10 inches of penetration into ballistics gel. The FBI advises 12 inches of penetration for a round to have a good chance of penetrating a person and reaching vital organs. By this standard, it appears that the Five-seveN is not terribly deadly, outclassed by many cheaper guns with far cheaper and more common ammunition.

Source? Most handguns will penetrate 0 inches past body armour. The 5.7 will penetrate past body armour (depending on the type of ammo used) and is likely to tumble after that.

In the USA, cops tend to be aware of incipient police-criminal violence before criminals are (no-knock warrants are handy for this purpose). When cops expect a person-of-interest to be armed, they generally already have their guns drawn and ready, giving them an advantage and negating any benefit the light weight of the Five-seveN confers to bringing the gun to bear.

If you have multiple opponents closing in on you who are prepared for a figth whereas you are not reaction time becomes more important to your survival and not less important.

There are comparably accurate pistols in calibers that are better suited for killing people. Some data on how often these guns are actually used, and how effectively they're used, would be quite handy.

You keep claiming that, but you never back up those claims. Which handgun would be better for killing someone protected by body armour?




Pethegreat VIP Member

Lord of the Peach

70 XP

19th April 2004

0 Uploads

20,892 Posts

0 Threads

#13 7 years ago
You keep claiming that, but you never back up those claims. Which handgun would be better for killing someone protected by body armour?

You have to remember that with body armor you can't shrug off hits like you see people do in the movies. The ceramic armor that the military uses is only good for 3 hits on a plate. Even when the plate stops the bullet, most of the kinetic energy is transferred to the person. Police are left with massive bruises from getting shot with a vest on. Soldiers get the same bruises and even broken ribs from getting hit in the plates.

I would say any handgun aside from a 22 could kill someone in soft body armor if you were a consistent and accurate shot.




Crazy Wolf VIP Member

Snipes With Artillery

277,420 XP

22nd March 2005

0 Uploads

27,192 Posts

0 Threads

#14 7 years ago
MrFancypants;5608711Source?

Here's one.

Hm. This one is showing lethal penetration deaths for many rounds. However, if you read further it looks like the ballistics gel formulation used did not match FBI ballistics gel standards. The January 2000 issue of American Handgunner had this article where the Five-seveN did not penetrate deep enough.

If you have multiple opponents closing in on you who are prepared for a figth whereas you are not reaction time becomes more important to your survival and not less important.

I'm saying at a certain time it becomes a moot point.

You keep claiming that, but you never back up those claims. Which handgun would be better for killing someone protected by body armour?

One that will hit them someplace that the armor isn't (or hits them in an unarmored place after the first shot to the armor stuns them) and penetrate reliably. Popular choices include various flavors of Glock, M1911, and Sig Sauer.




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,698 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,172 Posts

6 Threads

#15 7 years ago

MrFancypants;5608526This: FBI — Officers Feloniously Killed says that almost all officers killed in the US in 2010 were wearing body armour at the time. So the prevalence of body armour seems to be very high in those situations where it might matter. Out of those who didn't wear armour most weren't wearing uniform either, so they might have been shot while not on duty.[/QUOTE]

Spoiler: Show
Of the 38 officers who were wearing body armor and killed with firearms: 10 were shot in the side of the head. 7 suffered wounds to the front of the head. 7 were wounded in the front upper torso. 5 were shot in the neck. 3 were shot in the stomach. 3 were shot in the rear of the head. 2 officers were shot in the back. 1 officer was shot in the rear below the waist.

32 of the 38 people wearing body armour died from being shot where the body armour wouldn't have been able to help them anyway. The majority of them were shot at ranges less than five feet. And the remainder died from being shot in places the body armour covered - showing that the armour was, for whatever reason, already ineffective in those cases.

Though that doesn't really give us any idea of how many people were saved by body armour, I suppose.

MrFancypants;5608526I don't think many criminals have boobytrapped their house or an elephant rifle next to their bed. If you can get a handgun which is easy to conceal, accurate, has lots of ammo capacity and can defeat body armour why would you bother with other weapons which might draw attention?[/QUOTE]

Why would you bother shooting at the police in the first place? I'm not sure you can assign these people high levels of intelligence.

I suspect a rifle in .300 win mag would be more than adequate to make your internals go all squishy. Still the study you linked shows that most of the police were killed with handguns so -shrug- kind of an empty point.

MrFancypants;5608526It seems obvious that a light bullet is more likely to tumble than a heavy bullet due to inertia.[/QUOTE]

All things being equal, I'm inclined to agree - but that doesn't mean that the probability rises to a level where it's at all likely.

MrFancypants;5608526As for what you write about the centre of gravity, the 5.7 round is rather long for a pistol round, so that also suggests that it should tumble. Besides, it is a military round, chances are that it has been designed to tumble.

If it's armour-piercing that suggests that the tip will be denser - drawing the centre of gravity further towards the front of the bullet.

[QUOTE=MrFancypants;5608526]Having more rounds and lower recoil means that you can either fire faster with the same degree of accuracy or with the same rate of fire at a higher accuracy.

You've still got to bring the thing back on target before you fire again if you want to maintain accuracy. And the time to do that doesn't, at least in my experience, scale linearly with the recoil. To get any sort of accuracy most of the time's spent lining up the sights again. You've still got to execute that procedure to get it back on target - and it takes roughly the same amount of time however far off the target you've gone.

And if you're close enough to feel roughly where the thing's pointing, rather than having to place the sights over it, you won't have displaced far enough - provided you've got a decent grip on the thing - that you can't just pull the trigger again pretty much regardless of the round.

The main problem with firing guns with heavier rounds quickly is it hurts if you do it a lot.

[QUOTE=MrFancypants;5608526]Also, being the first to score a hit (which is more likely if you have a lighter gun that can be brought to bear more quickly, which is more accurate or has a higher rate of fire) should improve your chances to survive quite a bit.

It's not clear to me that differences in weight of the weapon are enough to allow you to bring the weapon to bear in a significantly shorter time span. Whereas size has obvious effects in how far you have to raise the gun before you can start to point it at anything.

This also seem to run counter to your earlier point about recoil. If the gun is light then the effects of recoil on the weapon will be larger.

[QUOTE=MrFancypants;5608526]If you are shooting at a cop in body armour you'd want a gun that can penetrate body armour. Or a gun that is accurate and can be fired quickly to allow you a chance to hit the areas without armour.

A more powerful handgun may be useful in other situations though. For many shooters it is probably a subjective matter or something determined by their strength.

I'm not sure I can pretend to be someone smart enough to think about what sort of weapon they'd like to use in that situation - and yet stupid enough to get into that situation in the first place. If you were smart enough to think ahead of time that you'd be in a situation where there'd be a policeman you wanted to kill, it strikes me you'd take them from ambush, and it wouldn't much matter what you had.




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,332 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,016 Posts

7 Threads

#16 7 years ago

Crazy Wolf;5608732Here's one.

Hm. This one is showing lethal penetration deaths for many rounds. However, if you read further it looks like the ballistics gel formulation used did not match FBI ballistics gel standards. The January 2000 issue of American Handgunner had this article where the Five-seveN did not penetrate deep enough.[/quote] First link says short penetration length with greatly increased wound canal. Despite of what the FBI seems to think most vital organs sit just a few inches below your skin. So unless the bullet is deflected by a bone (which can happen with all pistol calibers and probably also a bunch of rifle calibers) the probability of inflicting a lethal hit is determined by volume, not by diameter. Second link says penetration is quite good. Third link says FBI recommendation is not applicable as hydrostatic effects outweigh from certain muzzle velocities onward.

I'm saying at a certain time it becomes a moot point.

Like when the criminal has been shot a couple of times? Yes. Is that relevant to the fact that a lighter gun is preferable in most situations? No.

One that will hit them someplace that the armor isn't (or hits them in an unarmored place after the first shot to the armor stuns them) and penetrate reliably. Popular choices include various flavors of Glock, M1911, and Sig Sauer.

And that is supposed to convince me that these guns are better? ... Aiming for unprotected part implies aiming for the head as other shots are unlikely to take your opponent out. If you rely on your ability to hit the head the caliber is irrelevant. In this case you want to improve hit probability, for example by using a bullet with higher velocity for a flatter trajectory, or using a bullet with less recoil so that you can make multiple accurate shots in a shorter time span. In this case the 5.7 would be better.

Hoping that a single shot to a body armour stuns an enemy long enough so that you can then shoot him in the head seems risky. I doubt any shooter in his right mind would rely on something like this if he could alternatively inflict lethal wounds with a gun that penetrates the armour.

[QUOTE=Nemmerle;5608733]

Spoiler: Show
Of the 38 officers who were wearing body armor and killed with firearms: 10 were shot in the side of the head. 7 suffered wounds to the front of the head. 7 were wounded in the front upper torso. 5 were shot in the neck. 3 were shot in the stomach. 3 were shot in the rear of the head. 2 officers were shot in the back. 1 officer was shot in the rear below the waist.

32 of the 38 people wearing body armour died from being shot where the body armour wouldn't have been able to help them anyway. The majority of them were shot at ranges less than five feet. And the remainder died from being shot in places the body armour covered - showing that the armour was, for whatever reason, already ineffective in those cases.

Though that doesn't really give us any idea of how many people were saved by body armour, I suppose.

It doesn't, but it indicates that body armour is often involved when there are shootings.

All things being equal, I'm inclined to agree - but that doesn't mean that the probability rises to a level where it's at all likely.

If it's armour-piercing that suggests that the tip will be denser - drawing the centre of gravity further towards the front of the bullet.

Not sure where you might find the sort of details to determine the centre of mass, but as long as it isn't in the middle of the bullet it will increase likelihood of tumbling, regardless of whether it is forward or rearward.

You've still got to bring the thing back on target before you fire again if you want to maintain accuracy. And the time to do that doesn't, at least in my experience, scale linearly with the recoil. To get any sort of accuracy most of the time's spent lining up the sights again. You've still got to execute that procedure to get it back on target - and it takes roughly the same amount of time however far off the target you've gone.

And if you're close enough to feel roughly where the thing's pointing, rather than having to place the sights over it, you won't have displaced far enough - provided you've got a decent grip on the thing - that you can't just pull the trigger again pretty much regardless of the round.

The main problem with firing guns with heavier rounds quickly is it hurts if you do it a lot.

I'd say the time for aiming is constant whereas the time for compensating for recoil depends on the recoil. Maybe the difference is small though.

It's not clear to me that differences in weight of the weapon are enough to allow you to bring the weapon to bear in a significantly shorter time span. Whereas size has obvious effects in how far you have to raise the gun before you can start to point it at anything.

This also seem to run counter to your earlier point about recoil. If the gun is light then the effects of recoil on the weapon will be larger.

Acceleration is limited by mass, hence the lower the mass the faster you can accelerate given the same force. Gun size is also a factor, but both are probably small as long as you stay in the handgun size with the two weapons you want to compare.

As for recoil and weight, I'm not sure how exactly these factor in to perceived recoil. But according to one of those links Crazy Wolf posted the perceived recoil is measured with 1.4 ft./lbs. for the FN gun. Which seems to be quite good, if the values listed by wikipedia are comparable.

I'm not sure I can pretend to be someone smart enough to think about what sort of weapon they'd like to use in that situation - and yet stupid enough to get into that situation in the first place. If you were smart enough to think ahead of time that you'd be in a situation where there'd be a policeman you wanted to kill, it strikes me you'd take them from ambush, and it wouldn't much matter what you had.

The chance of encountering police is an occupational hazard for a criminal. Maybe they are dumb for following that kind of work, but that doesn't mean that they are also too dumb to get the necessary firepower for such chance encounters.




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,698 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,172 Posts

6 Threads

#17 7 years ago

MrFancypants;5608793It doesn't, but it indicates that body armour is often involved when there are shootings. [/QUOTE]

The guns don't seem to be causing major problems at the moment. A few policemen getting killed across a country the size of the US is hardly worth banning something over. You start banning everything that kills a few people across a population that size, then cars are going right out the window.

Even assuming that this stuff does reliably pierce body armour and that criminals did carry the weapon for that purpose, however, making the police absolutely safe doesn't appear to be desirable either. You make laws too risk free to enforce then people can go around oppressing you all they like.

Always got to have the option to just kill them off if they make too much of a bother of themselves. Freedom is less about the absence of rules, and more about the ability to violate them.

MrFancypants;5608793Not sure where you might find the sort of details to determine the centre of mass, but as long as it isn't in the middle of the bullet it will increase likelihood of tumbling, regardless of whether it is forward or rearward.[/QUOTE]

How so? I would have thought the part of the bullet with the greatest mass would tend to be forward since it would lose its momentum less rapidly than the rest of the bullet.

MrFancypants;5608793I'd say the time for aiming is constant whereas the time for compensating for recoil depends on the recoil. Maybe the difference is small though.[/QUOTE]

Compensation for the majority of the recoil is a relatively large movement. And large movements can be done quickly under stress. Aiming at close range is a relatively large movement. If you’re just shooting something across the other side of the room you don’t really use the sights - you look at them and raise your arms and the bullet just goes more or less where you’re looking.

Small movements and fine motor control takes a fairly long time under stress. Edit At longer range /edit If you can keep your cool, and take your time to get all the little stuff lined up - rather than just moving the gun back into roughly the same place it was before the recoil and squeezing another one off - then all the odds are that you’re going to be the one walking out of there rather than the guy plinking away and panicking.

Which is why I said if a big mag encourages people to just keep squeezing the trigger - well, you know, hurray. All the better for the rest of us, encourages bad practice on their part. If they were learning to shoot properly, then I’d be worried.

[QUOTE=MrFancypants;5608793]Acceleration is limited by mass, hence the lower the mass the faster you can accelerate given the same force. Gun size is also a factor, but both are probably small as long as you stay in the handgun size with the two weapons you want to compare.

There's no real reason to argue over this, you can test it yourself by pulling larger and smaller objects from your pockets and aiming them at things. It's hardly analogous to aiming a gun, but I think you'll find that at those kinds of weights, ergonomic properties - primarily size - rather than weight, are the main factors in how fast you can do it.

[QUOTE=MrFancypants;5608793]As for recoil and weight, I'm not sure how exactly these factor in to perceived recoil. But according to one of those links Crazy Wolf posted the perceived recoil is measured with 1.4 ft./lbs. for the FN gun. Which seems to be quite good, if the values listed by wikipedia are comparable.

That would be quite good - yeah.

[QUOTE=MrFancypants;5608793]The chance of encountering police is an occupational hazard for a criminal. Maybe they are dumb for following that kind of work, but that doesn't mean that they are also too dumb to get the necessary firepower for such chance encounters.

If they were smart enough to sit down and work out what pistol would be best for going through body armour, then they're probably smart enough to work out that if they go around shooting policemen, the police aren't just going to let it go. And when they get caught it's not going to end well for them.

If you were smart enough to sit down and work this sort of stuff out, then you'd be smart enough to sit down and work out how not to get caught. The sort of criminals who I think would be likely to end up in shootouts with police, seem like they'd be the sort to grab whatever was to hand - which probably wouldn't be a relatively expensive pistol from a niche market.




Red Menace

SCHOFIELD DID 4/30

415,760 XP

10th August 2004

0 Uploads

40,364 Posts

1 Threads

#18 7 years ago
Pethegreat;5608503I can't seem to find any 7.62x39 steel core though.

If I recall correctly, steel core ammo is illegal for pistols, not for rifles. However, in 1994 7.62x39 was reclassified as a pistol ammunition and fell under the steel core pistol ban.

762steelcoreban.jpghttp://www.thegunzone.com/762x39.html


sigpic82523_3.gif</div></body></html>



MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,332 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,016 Posts

7 Threads

#19 7 years ago

Nemmerle;5609103The guns don't seem to be causing major problems at the moment. A few policemen getting killed across a country the size of the US is hardly worth banning something over. You start banning everything that kills a few people across a population that size, then cars are going right out the window.

Even assuming that this stuff does reliably pierce body armour and that criminals did carry the weapon for that purpose, however, making the police absolutely safe doesn't appear to be desirable either. You make laws too risk free to enforce then people can go around oppressing you all they like.

Always got to have the option to just kill them off if they make too much of a bother of themselves. Freedom is less about the absence of rules, and more about the ability to violate them.

They don't cause major trouble at the moment, but at the moment AP ammunition seems to be banned or at least difficult to obtain in the US.

As for the option to kill the police; in a situation where that becomes necessary you'd probably have to worry about more than just police or about police units with weapons and training that make opposition difficult regardless of what kind of handgun you have. So you'd decrease the effectiveness of police by increasing the firepower of criminals in exchagne for being marginally more effective in an unlikely scenario where your chances are very bad anyway.

How so? I would have thought the part of the bullet with the greatest mass would tend to be forward since it would lose its momentum less rapidly than the rest of the bullet.

I thought of it as a matter of external forces creating a momentum with distance to center of mass determining length of the lever. But with either explanation you'd have a tumbling bullet as long as the center of mass is located towards either end of the bullet. And even if the center would be right in the middle the bullet would have a tendency to tumble due to its length as objects tend to rotate around the axis with the greatest intertia.

Compensation for the majority of the recoil is a relatively large movement. And large movements can be done quickly under stress. Aiming at close range is a relatively large movement. If you’re just shooting something across the other side of the room you don’t really use the sights - you look at them and raise your arms and the bullet just goes more or less where you’re looking.

Small movements and fine motor control takes a fairly long time under stress. Edit At longer range /edit If you can keep your cool, and take your time to get all the little stuff lined up - rather than just moving the gun back into roughly the same place it was before the recoil and squeezing another one off - then all the odds are that you’re going to be the one walking out of there rather than the guy plinking away and panicking.

Which is why I said if a big mag encourages people to just keep squeezing the trigger - well, you know, hurray. All the better for the rest of us, encourages bad practice on their part. If they were learning to shoot properly, then I’d be worried.

It is probably like a control system stabilizing after a disturbance. The greater the initial disturbance, the longer it takes to correct. So you might be able to move your arm down just as quickly after a strong recoil, but it will require more strength, which probably means that there will be more of an error that has to be compensated when fine-adjusting.

You probably also have a psychological effect where a shooter braces himself for the recoil of a heavier gun, which may negatively affect accuracy compared to a more relaxed shooter firing a smaller caliber.

But regardless of the mechanics, I'm pretty sure that if you give someone a .22 pistol and tell him to quickly fire 10 rounds at 25m he will be more accurate than if he were to fire 10 rounds with a .44 magnum.

There's no real reason to argue over this, you can test it yourself by pulling larger and smaller objects from your pockets and aiming them at things. It's hardly analogous to aiming a gun, but I think you'll find that at those kinds of weights, ergonomic properties - primarily size - rather than weight, are the main factors in how fast you can do it.

You're probably right there, hard to say how it affects accuracy if it does at all. The effects are probably small either way. Maybe weight is more of a benefit terms of being able to carry more magazines or other stuff.

If they were smart enough to sit down and work out what pistol would be best for going through body armour, then they're probably smart enough to work out that if they go around shooting policemen, the police aren't just going to let it go. And when they get caught it's not going to end well for them.

If you were smart enough to sit down and work this sort of stuff out, then you'd be smart enough to sit down and work out how not to get caught. The sort of criminals who I think would be likely to end up in shootouts with police, seem like they'd be the sort to grab whatever was to hand - which probably wouldn't be a relatively expensive pistol from a niche market.

What about the North Hollywood shooting? Arguably those guys were nuts, but they were smart enough to prepare for a shootout with body armour, rifles and drugs yet still dumb enough to use a plan which basically went like "let's drive up to that bank with a crapload of guns and see how it goes". I think a lot of criminals are street smart, i.e. they know how to deal with situations common to their profession, but they aren't smart when it comes to evaluating the risks of their choice of career. That probably doesn't just apply to criminals either. A lot of smart people poison themselves with various drugs or unhealthy food.




Demonseed VIP Member

Gettin' real tired of you ducking me, man...

50 XP

29th December 2004

0 Uploads

464 Posts

0 Threads

#20 7 years ago

One point on armor piercing ammo - It's not just available for the FN Five-Seven. AP ammo can be obtained or manufactured for nearly any firearm you happen to have. Yes, it's currently illegal to import or sell it, but that doe not mean that people won't acquire it some other way.

The Five-Seven is a reasonable accurate, quick-shooting, light pistol. Many European police agencies use it for the same reason many agencies in the US went to the 10mm or .40 S&W: it will penetrate a windshield rather than skipping off.

However, there is absolutely nothing about this firearm that makes it more deadly than any other firearm. ANY gun loaded with AP ammo will be dangerous to those wearing armor. Heck, most body armor worn by police officers won't stop a high-powered rifle bullet anyway. Oh, by the way, most every patrol officer I ever worked with wore body armor every day. You just never know what you're going to encounter. Desk officers, dispatchers and the like rarely did.

One last point on the Five-Seven - it's expensive. The pistol itself runs around $950.00, or just about double the price of a brand-new Glock (which I would much prefer). It's also more expansive than a large array of reliable, proven weapons, including the venerable Colt 1911 .45. The odds of bumping into a guy robbing a convenience store on Friday night with one are fairly low.

Oh, one last point about bullets tumbling. Bullets are designed to spin in flight, not tumble. However, many time what will happen is that the bullet will penetrate, strike a bone, and then tumble off in an oblique direction. The smaller the caliber, the more likely this is to happen. Larger calibers will often simply break the bone and continue on their merry way.




  • 1
  • 2