FN FNS

M

marine6680

New member
Decided to add one of these to the stable.

I was torn on getting the all black or the stainless. I went stainless for a couple reasons... Price was cheaper...

And I think the lines stand out more on it, plus it is different than the many all black guns I already have.


I will hopefully get out to test it soon.


attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • FNS.jpg
    FNS.jpg
    226.3 KB · Views: 257
Very nice. I almost came home with the FNS-9C yesterday (Glock 26 in battle green instead).

I love the ergonomics of the FNs. I haven't shot many, but I seem to "get on target" quicker, possibly because of the slightly higher bore axis.

Your gun is at the top of my list for next consideration. Congratulations on your new beauty!
 
Put a couple boxes through it today...

Very accurate.


While most modern pistols are mechanically accurate, some have triggers that require me to pay more attention, in order to shoot well.

The FNS was fairly effortless. Even if I wasn't perfect, the results were better than some other pistols would be for me. (Glock for example)


I will need to put more rounds down range to know just how it does with some familiarity behind it.

I may or may not attempt to polish a few parts for a bit more smooth pull. Not that it is not decent now, but it is a tad heavy.
 
I recently picked up two FNS models in trades -- both 40s, one a standard 40, and the other a 40L (long slide).

The Long Slide's prior owner had trigger work done by a gunsmith in Colorado, and the trigger is quite good. The prior owner doesn't remember who did it -- or I'd send him the other .40, too.

The stock FNS-40 trigger is, to my thinking, better than a stock Glock trigger -- but I like Glocks with Ghost upgrades better. If and when the after-market ever offers upgrades for the FNS line, I'll try to get a kit. A Ghost-like upgrade would be ideal.

I traded an M&P Pro .40 with a lot of Apex additions for the FNS-40L, and a Glock 35 with mods for the FNS-40. I couldn't shoot either of those guns well. It was me, not the guns - and the guy I eventually traded with immediately started shooting SMALL GROUPS with my guns. When evaluating the trades, I shot the FNS guns as well as any .40 I've owned.

The FNS-40s (and the very similar 9 models) just exude QUALITY. They look and feel like very expensive guns. They seem to have a well-thought out design, with no obvious short-cuts taken. I'm very impressed.

As soon as I can, I'm getting a 9mm conversion barrel for the FNS-40, and run it as a 9mm.
 
do they have trigger safety? how is that grip? looks like it will hurt hands, be uncomfortable? how about recoil compared to glocks?
 
No trigger safety*. There is a safety (ambidextrous) on either side of the frame, along with an ambi slide releases.

I found the grip comfortable -- I've noticed nothing unusual or hurtful. It also also a less awkward angle than the older Glocks. (The newer Gen 4 Glocks, with interchangeable grip inserts, can be adjusted.) I've never found the Glock grips to be an issue -- if I use the sights.

FNS announced a conversion kit in 2013 so that the slide could be swapped from 9mm to .40, or vice versa -- they use the same frame. (I've not seen one available for sale.)

I've only shot the .40s, and they are pleasant guns.

*See comments, below.
 
Last edited:
My error!

When I looked at my manual, I noticed ONLY the manual safety. When I looked at the FNS manual on the FNH user's site, it was clear they offered BOTH types. I have that same manual. You see what you expect to see.

The manual talks about an articulated trigger, but with the manual safety version it doesn't feel "articulated." It feels like a solid trigger. Note: I have no experience with the trigger in a version that doesn't have the frame safety. (The trigger doesn't have a middle segment that must be depressed as with Glocks and some of the other striker-fired guns.)

Here's a link to a manual on the FNH user's site. It's found in the FNS section. The link takes you there. Go to the first response and click on THAT link to see the manual. I invariably click it twice, but it takes a bit of time to open. You probably don't have to click it twice. It seems like it's not working, but it is. In my case, it downloads a PDF file, and my computer automatically opens that. I don't know whether that will work for you. If it doesn't, check your download folder.

http://fnforum.net/forums/fn-fns/62052-fns-owners-manual.html
 
Last edited:
From anything I have seen on FN's website and any images online, they all seem to have articulated triggers with the manual safety being an option. With the FNS Compact I owned I never really felt the segmented trigger. It's similar to S&W's take on the trigger safety that they use on the M&P (as we've both said no blade in the middle) but IMO much better done than S&W.

I liked the Compact as a shooter, I just hated that for the Compact they went with a reduced profile magazine release to reduce the chance of accidental mag drops (not a problem I've ever had in ~70 pistols) and myself and a number of others online have complained that it requires a LOT of depression in order to release the magazine (this seems to vary by pistol). On my sample I didn't have confidence I could drop the magazine reliably with one hand. It's a shame because the regular (fullsize and longslide) FNS magazine release is, to me, perfect as is.
 
Last edited:
Really enjoy shooting my FNS 9; has excellent ergonomics with a very natural grip angle, and presents itself well on target, though I have found the flat back strap is more comfortable than the rounded one for me with my small hands. It has a very good balance, and I prefer it's segmented trigger over the Glock-style pivoting blade safety. Glad I purchased one!
 
Yeah, this is the version sans-manual safety.

The grip is comfortable, it's just enough texture for a firm secure grip, but not rough on the hands.

Installing the flat back strap changes the feel of the gun in a big way. I didn't find it objectionable, but different, with a straighter grip angle that feel similar to a Vertec Beretta. Its not a subtle difference, so if you find yourself looking at one, and don't like the grip, ask the gun shop to swap it and see how it feels...

I preferred the curved back strap, so that is what I am running.


The trigger is comfortable, and doesn't have the flex/mush feel of the stock M&Park trigger. It feels like anew improved glockenspiel trigger. I am sure that with a little polishing, it would be very nice.


After I shot a few mags for groups, I started shooting faster, and I didn't open up my groups as much as I have with other pistols when new to my hands. So for a first range trip, it seems to fit me well.

I did find myself wanting to line up the sights in a way that had the front post just slightly high... it may be the way the three dots line up, and the fact that there is no gap to speak of between the rear notch and front sight. The lighting in the range made it difficult to focus on the sights well... so getting an even sight picture required more concentration. So it added about an inch of vertical stringing to the groups, as I fought that tendency.

I would say the sights work well for fast shots, if you don't try to over think it. Just line up the dots and squeeze the trigger...

As I mentioned above, I did shoot it better for a first time out, than other pistols when I shot a little faster. So it seems the sights didn't cause me any issues. I dead ringed the bullseye my first shot, so they work.

Recoil management isn't bad, but I need more time behind it to really know.


After I shoot it some more, I will report back on where it sits in the pecking order of my pistols.
 
Last edited:
Marine6680 said:
I did find myself wanting to line up the sights in a way that had the front post just slightly high... it may be the way the three dots line up, and the fact that there is no gap to speak of between the rear notch and front sight. The lighting in the range made it difficult to focus on the sights well... so getting an even sight picture required more concentration. So it added about an inch of vertical stringing to the groups, as I fought that tendency.
Click to expand...

My eyes aren't great, thanks to a cataract in my strong eye -- hopefully to be fixed early next year; lighting (at an indoor range) can be a real problem for me.

The FNS manual isn't much help with regard to a recommended sight picture. It says you should use the "COMBAT HOLD" which means something like the image shown below, with the TOP of the sights aligned and even with the middle of the intended point of impact, (i.e., POA = desired POI). H&K recommends this same hold with their new VP9.

SIG, in its manual doesn't make a recommendation, but makes it clear that there are any number of different front or rear sight heights available, and you can contact them for replacements. (Generally, I think, these sights are free.) Many shooters familiar with SIGs recommend the "combat hold."

4c36ad6e-7691-4eeb-9654-f34d20416e3d_zpspph9twrp.jpg


When you have a number of different guns, it can be a problem. Glock, at least in the manuals I have, recommends their own UNIQUE sight picture. (Most of my Glocks, over the years, had or were fitted with adjustable sights, and I just tweaked them to work more like the "combat hold.")

Glock%20Sights_zpsuovgro9f.jpg


A number of shooters on the FNH forum were shooting low, too. If you haven't joined the FNFORUM, you might want to. http://fnforum.net/forums/forum.php They recommend moving to the sights available from Sevigny PerformanceThere are various front and rear sights available along with recommendations. http://sevignyperformance.com/products-page/fns-competition-sights/

You can also use the Brownells Sight Correction Calculator to know exactly what you need. http://www.brownells.com/GunTech/Sight_Correction_Calculator/detail.htm?lid=13093
 
Congratulations on buying the most underrated pistol out there. It is my go to gun for competing at the local club. I prefer it over my VP9 for about everything.
 
Had an eye exam today... Some astigmatism has crept in.

Been having some vision issues, old contacts I needed to replace long back. Hopefully my vision will be back to it was before with some fresh lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top