5,7 - why still a niche caliber?

S

simonrichter

New member
Recently it occured to me that it's been 20 years now since I first read about the FiveSeven pistol in a military magazine during my service time... For me it sounded like this class of PDW ammunition - 4,6x30 came out a little later I reckon - would without any doubt be the future of handgun calibers: Less recoil, higher cap mags, better penetration with alternative man-stopping-/under-penetrating options at disposal as well - who would still want a quaint 9mm with this wonder caliber available?

...or so it appeared to me, but obviously, quite the opposite became true: Few agencies and militaries use the 5,7 or similar systems today, and other than fading away, 9mm seems to see kind of a renaissance these days; the MHS trials didn't even take a bottlenecked PDW caliber into consideration (I wouldn't count .357 SIG as a PDW caliber).

What ae the reasons for this discrepancy between the obvious advantages of 5,7 & Co and the continuing dominance of 9mm in LE and military?
 
In LE and military: cost. It is a viscous circle too because cost will not come down without large LE and military contracts which will not exist until costs come down.
 
I see the OP is in Europe. Here in the US of A, we tend to have a fascination with bigger is better. The opinion here seems to be that little FiveSeven round is a one trick pony with the only real benefit being penetration of body armor.

Otherwise most LE went with 40 S&W for the last few decades. Now 9mm is making a comeback due to better bullets and tighter budgets. I can't see US LE going any lighter than that unless something dramatic happens.

As far as the general gun buying public, they historically use what the LE use.

As Lohman446 said, cost is a huge factor as well, but I would think other calibers once cost more when they were new and uncommon as well. I don't think 40 S&W was as cheap as it is now in the very early days before it was the ubiquitous LE round.
 
I like the small 5.7. Having said that; the round really shines when used in a SBR, rather than in pistol form. HK dropped their P46 supposedly due to lack of performance. Because it is currently illegal to own a SBR, PDW, without getting government approval and paying for the privilege, the market is small. As a 16" carbine, the 5.7 competes with the ubiquitous and cheap AR platform.

None of this means there's no use or market for the 5.7 and 4.6 but they are small markets. The 4.6 is used by U.S. forces and agencies, and effectively, but in small numbers.
 
PSP said:
Because it is currently illegal to own a SBR, PDW, without getting government approval and paying for the privilege, the market is small.
Click to expand...
I'd like to point out to our European audience that the registry for new civilian full-auto or select-fire weapons in the USA was closed in 1986. The market is now limited to law enforcement and military only.

The 5.7 can be adapted to a civilian-legal modular full-auto firearm like a pre-1986 M-16, but it's difficult for it to compete against the ubiquitous 5.56 in this role.

IMHO another factor that has counted against the 5.7 and 4.6 in the USA is a tradition of police being armed primarily with handguns, coupled with discomfort with the concept of police routinely carrying "military" weapons on the streets. (If you examine the fringes of U.S. politics, this is one of those peculiar issues where the extreme left and right find common ground.) One oddity of the USA when compared to European or Middle Eastern countries is that while almost all U.S. police are armed, they're rarely seen armed with submachine guns or military-style rifles unless they're guarding some sort of unusually critical installation or event, or they're on a special mission (i.e. SWAT). Consequently, since SMGs are not commonly used, special rounds developed for them aren't commonplace either.
 
Last edited:
A lot of folks won't like to hear this, but modern 9x19mm ammunition is well on its way to making all other semiautomatic pistol calibers "niche rounds".
 
Reasons for the PDW cartridges not 'taking off', from my point of view:

1. Cost. Ammunition is expensive. And, even reloaders have a lot of headaches to deal with.
1.A. For the 4.6x30mm, in particular, the odd caliber is unique and more expensive, making it an even tougher sell to U.S. civilians and LEOs. Even 17 and 20 caliber cartridges are looked at as oddities by many shooters. You throw 18 caliber out there, and people just look the other direction.

2. Penetration of body armor is such a rare requirement, that most LEO agencies don't really even consider it as a necessity. And when the need does raise its ugly head, nearly all agencies have got .223/5.56 rifles on hand. Even if the ammunition you're using isn't adequate for the job, it gives them a better sense of security.

3. Ammunition compatibility. Adding something like 5.7x28mm or 4.6x30mm to the aresenal of an LEO agency complicates purchasing. If you're running 9mm handguns and SMGs already, and .223/5.56 in 'squad rifles', why switch over to something different and more expensive?

4. Limited 'platforms'. The Five-Seven is a large pistol that most people don't like. The PDW variants are expensive and a difficult sell to LEOs, when other, cheaper options are available.

5. Legalities and usefulness. The legal variants of PDWs are not useful as much more than range toys for civilians (when a semi-auto version is available). And stepping up (or down) to an SBR doesn't change any of that -- it just adds more expense and yearly filings with the ATF.

6. Most civilians and LEOs in the U.S. look at 22 caliber and smaller cartridges as varmint cartridges. They're for killing pests - rabbits, foxes, squirrels, etc. - not for taking on humans. The only reason 5.56x45mm is so common in LEO use is because of the military usage and low cost of rifles and ammunition.

7. Many LEO agencies don't see the need for full-auto fire. From a liability standpoint, all it does is increase the risk of collateral damage and expensive lawsuits. Controlled semi-auto fire is preferable to full-auto, especially since training for controlled full-auto fire is expensive -- particularly for small agencies.

8. Most U.S. LEOs are not meant to get in heated engagements and drawn-out gun battles. When the 'poop hits the fan' and something more substantial than a 9mm or .40 S&W handgun is needed, and the AR-15 and/or shotgun in the squad car isn't enough; special teams are called in. Those special teams might have machineguns or SMGs, but the numbers are extremely limited. Even for a metropolitan area of 600k-700k people, there may be no more than 10-20 SMGs for "SWAT" or "QRT/QRF" use (Quick Response Team / Quick Response Force).

I'm sure I could cover a few more points if I thought about the subject more. But I wanted to the hit the numbers again, specifically for my region:

I live where the QRF/SWAT teams are made up of members that come from different state, county, and city agencies, all over an area comprising about one fifth to one fourth of the state of Idaho, with a population of about 400,000 people.
My county owns six MP5s and a few M16s.
To the north and west, the next notable counties have a couple M16s, each. And one city has three MP5s.
To the south, there's a small town that bought 26 M16A2s from the government after the U.S. pullout from Iraq. ...But none are currently used. They're being held in reserve, in case they're needed in the future ... while the LE agencies in the area use AR-15s.

So, for this huge part of Idaho, there are only about nine MP5s, and about ten M16 variants in use by LEO agencies (not counting Federal agencies, since they rarely play along with the city/county).

Even if every MP5 and in-use M16 was replaced by a P90 or HK PDW, it would only be about twenty weapons and a very limited amount of ammunition for use and training. In the grand scheme of things, that's absolutely nothing.
 
Fishbed77 said:
A lot of folks won't like to hear this, but modern 9x19mm ammunition is well on its way to making all other semiautomatic pistol calibers "niche rounds".
Click to expand...



I honestly wouldn't even state that that is the round itself. Just the research into ballistics behind it. If a company were to dump enough money into the bullets...they could turn the .45acp into the "best round ever," or insert other caliber at your leisure lol.

I just want a nice 9mm that hits hard and dumps energy into the target it hits. I'm a concealed carrier. I don't care about penetrating armor lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
stonewall50 said:
If a company were to dump enough money into the bullets...they could turn the .45acp into the "best round ever," or insert other caliber at your leisure lol.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but the .45 ACP cartridge would still be physically larger than 9mm, and it would still be physically impossible to fit as many rounds into the same small sidearm.

One of the main reasons (if not THE main reason) for the ubiquity of 9mm worldwide is that it offers an excellent ratio of power to size.

PDW rounds such as the 5.7 seek to achieve this same goal.
 
The reason its still a niche cartridge is because companies don't think its profitable enough to make pistol in that chambering. Does anyone other than FN make a pistol in 5.7? Are there conversion barrels for other more popular pistols?

Another reason is ammunition cost, granted that would likely change somewhat if more 5.7 chambered pistols were around, but as it is you'd be better off buying a PMR30 for less than half of a 5.7 and ammo that cost half as much, that has fairly similar performance and holds 10 more rounds per mag.
 
The 5.7 just doesnt perform well from a pistol. Its basically a +p .22 magnum.

When it comes to killing living things, speed means little, with a little caliber. Light bullets lack the momentum required to penetrate deeply and smash through heavy bones.

A cns shot is a cns shot, but i think it is safe to assume a 9x19, .40 or .45acp would be mpre effective, if placed in the same exact spot (lung, for example) than the 5.7. I think its only advantage would be ability to penetrate body armor (only in certain loadings)
 
Perhaps, but the .45 ACP cartridge would still be physically larger than 9mm, and it would still be physically impossible to fit as many rounds into the same small sidearm.

One of the main reasons (if not THE main reason) for the ubiquity of 9mm worldwide is that it offers an excellent ratio of power to size.
Click to expand...

THIS.^

Likewise, 5.7×28mm has a similar problem. It is both too long to fit comfortably into the user-adjustable grips favored today by many shooters, and the best defensive rounds available (in the US anyway) don't check off all the boxes.
 
The 5.7 just doesnt perform well from a pistol. Its basically a +p .22 magnum.

When it comes to killing living things, speed means little, with a little caliber. Light bullets lack the momentum required to penetrate deeply and smash through heavy bones.

A cns shot is a cns shot, but i think it is safe to assume a 9x19, .40 or .45acp would be mpre effective, if placed in the same exact spot (lung, for example) than the 5.7. I think its only advantage would be ability to penetrate body armor (only in certain loadings)
Click to expand...

I beg to differ with you. Nadel Hassan killed 13 and wounded another 30 with an FN Five-Seven.
 
I beg to differ with you. Nadel Hassan killed 13 and wounded another 30 with an FN Five-Seven.
Click to expand...
Disagree with him all you want, but quoting killed and wounded count from a terrorist attack isn't proving the point in the slightest.

Plenty of people have been killed by .22 LR and even .22 Short. That doesn't prove lethality of those cartridge, nor any other cartridge.

Under the circumstances of the Fort Hood shooting, .22 WMR quite probably could have been just as effective -- possibly more so, due to reduced muzzle blast, muzzle flash, and recoil for the shooter to deal with.



(And we've been over the .22 WMR vs 5.7x28mm argument a thousand times. 5.7 wins on paper, every time.)
 
hmmm

The 5.7 just doesn't perform well from a pistol. Its basically a +p .22 magnum
Click to expand...
I find that statement contradictory. The 5.7 PISTOL produces as good or better than .22 magnum RIFLE ballistics....that is pretty good performance from a firearm that you can carry in your back pocket.
Pete
 
In the USA it will never be more than a niche gun unless it is adopted by the military. It isn't even very popular in Europe. How many countries military have adopted it? It is a round in search of a place to fit in.
 
Oh dear, we've moved on to the never-ending 5.7x28 vs. .22Mag smackdown, and Ft. Hood has been brought up... we're once again getting close to mentioning the Seven Obligatory Things That Must Be Mentioned In Every 5.7x28 Thread!! :rolleyes:
T. O'Heir said:
NIH. The 5.7 wasn't invented Stateside.
Click to expand...
Neither was 9mmP. :p It was treated like a niche caliber by U.S. law enforcement until the 1980s and arguably even later. If you read gun mags and so forth from that time period, it was regarded something like a marginally more lethal version of .32 ACP; it did allow a whole lot of rounds to be crammed into a single magazine, which is a good thing, considering that you'll need to shoot the BG at least 7-8 times to bring him down. ;) Another interesting factoid is that there were efforts to increase velocity to 1,600+ fps by using 75-90gr bullets, because that's how much velocity was felt to be needed to guarantee expansion.
 
Last edited:
If they can get the price down, I think 5.7 would make a great round for a survival rifle. It's about half the weight of 9mm (with theoretically flatter trajectory/longer range), and is center-fired for more reliability than .22 LR/.22 magnum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top