FN P90/5.7 Discussion

ObliqueApproach · 02-26-2006, 12:31

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** · 02-26-2006, 13:05

Quote:

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 · 02-26-2006, 18:51

Quote:

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** · 02-26-2006, 18:58

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 · 02-27-2006, 07:24

Quote:

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 · 03-27-2006, 16:01

Quote:

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** · 03-27-2006, 16:52

Quote:

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** · 03-27-2006, 17:08

Quote:

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

DbeforeD · 03-23-2009, 08:54

There is a lot of good information in this thread! As an Ammo Troop in the USAF, I get a h@rd-on for these types of topics.

After reading up on this for most of the morning, I found that all weapon systems are doing their respective “jobs”.

.45 is effectively killing/destroying things.

5.7mm is effectively putting little holes in paper, relatively accurately.

And 6mm airsoft is effectively keeping the neighbor’s dog from pooping in my yard. Well sort of, but I blame the intelligence of the animal for the repeated “shootings”.

No opinion on the .40 topic…

FWIW it is generally a good idea to consider the input of the subjects in the field as opposed to the input provided by the “experts” in the rear. If I were Barney, not only would I listen to the QP’s, I would also put the ultra-high capacity of both the p90/ps90 and the Five-Seven into the equation.

I find a .45 caliber hole staring at me a lot more intimidating than a 5.7mm hole. Sun-tzu said “attack few with many”, so I give me most caliber I can handle.

Mycroft · 04-01-2009, 22:04

Something interesting about the 5.7 ammunition; what is currently available from the manufacturer to civilians really isn't good for much other than punching paper or small game.

A company called Elite Ammunition has been making some headway on that issue. Here is a link to their forums, specifically a thread covering some tests they have done:
http://www.fivesevenforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1502

There they mention that one of their new production ammunitions is getting a muzzle velocity of 2600fps from the fiveseven pistol.

Perhaps this will allow the round to gain some more traction if they can get their supply issues cleared up.