Tell me about the 5.7 rd...please

[NateLeit]

And I already addressed that several times.

The Glock pistol was introduced 30 years ago, and it is chambered in a number of calibers; the foremost of which (9mm) was introduced about 110 years ago.

The .40 Caliber round was invented in 1990 and remains one of the most popularly used cartridges, also being chambered for the Glock pistol, as well as other handguns that are in circulation and use today.
Such as Glock 22 or Glock 23 currently in use by the FBI, perhaps they don't see it your way.

Your FiveSeveN opinions have not yet sold the "duped" 65% Law-Inforcement community still using Glock (FBI Agents). The other 35% are not all carrying FiveSeveN pistols mind you.

 

[DmL5]

Weight of Glock 19 pistol, 20.99 oz

Weight of Fiveseven Pistol: 20.8 oz

You're comparing the weight of the two pistols when they're empty. The weight of an empty pistol is irrelevant; pistols are not usable empty.

To recap (again), a Glock 19 weighs 23.45 oz (1.5 lb) with an empty magazine inside the pistol. A Five-seveN weighs 25.6 oz (1.6 lb) with a loaded 20-round magazine inside the pistol.

So a Five-seveN pistol loaded with 20 rounds weighs about the same as an empty Glock 17 or Glock 19 pistol. When both guns are loaded, the Five-seveN is about half a pound (25%) lighter than the Glock 19; this is in spite of the fact that the Five-seveN also has 30% more ammunition in the magazine. On top of that, a spare 30-round Five-seveN magazine can be carried for less weight than a spare 17-round Glock magazine, even though it carries about twice as much ammunition.

That .1 lb will make a bigger difference than the several inches gained in dimensions?

The weight difference between the two guns is half a pound (25%), not ".1 lb". This has already been hammered into you throughout the last two pages. The difference in dimensions only stems from the fact that you are comparing a compact/subcompact pistol to a full-size pistol. A full-size Beretta 92 is comparable to the full-size Five-seveN. A subcompact Glock 26 is not comparable to any full-size pistol, and neither is the Glock 19.

Quite achievable with porting or a muzzlebreak

No, it is not achievable. Porting creates a tiny reduction in recoil (nowhere near 30%) and simultaneously creates new problems that outweigh any possible benefit.

most agencies find the 9mm quite tameable in recoil.

No one is trying to "tame" the recoil. Reduced recoil benefits accuracy in follow-up shots.

Your claim that Fiveseven is about 30% less recoil came from FN

No, it did not. The same claim is supported by virtually any independent source.

Depending what is done with the firearm porting is commonly agreed to reduce muzzle rize in 9mm by about half, roughly 50%.

Muzzlebreak for about 50% less recoil improving accuracy and follow up shots.

my claim of 9mm having 1/2 muzzle rise also comes from a business promoting it's good work.

You are correct that your claim comes from a business promoting its work. It is not corroborated by any reliable, independent source.

 

[DmL5]

The .40 Caliber round was invented in 1990 and remains one of the most popularly used cartridges, also being chambered for the Glock pistol, as well as other handguns that are in circulation and use today.

The .40 S&W is essentially a very slightly enlarged 9mm, and the 9mm was introduced about 110 years ago.

 

[NateLeit]

You're comparing the weight of the two pistols when they're empty. The weight of an empty pistol is irrelevant; pistols are not usable empty.

You're comparing two squirt gun weighted pistol which is irrelevant, the difference is almost imperceptable.

The difference in dimensions only stems from the fact that you are comparing a compact/subcompact pistol to a full-size pistol.A subcompact Glock 26 is not comparable to any full-size pistol, and neither is the Glock 19.

Exactly, show me a Fiveseven available in about 21 different models and sizes including compact, semi compact etc.

No, it is not achievable. Porting creates a tiny reduction in recoil (nowhere near 30%) and simultaneously creates new problems that outweigh any possible benefit.

Porting is about 50% less muzzle rize, depending on what is done:

http://www.apwcogan.com/

New problems that outweigh benefit is your opinion only, as thousands of gun owners port their guns every year.

No one is trying to "tame" the recoil. Reduced recoil benefits accuracy in follow-up shots.

http://www.apwcogan.com/

You are correct that your claim comes from a business promoting its work. It is not corroborated by any reliable, independent source.

Cogan is a very reliable company in business for many many decades, they also finish guns for many of the top manufacturers.

 

[NateLeit]

The .40 S&W is essentially a very slightly enlarged 9mm, and the 9mm was introduced about 110 years ago.

Perhaps you could spend the next 110 years trying to convince the FBI and the other 65% LEO still using Glock pistol, not to mention that the other 35% is not mostly FiveseveNs (Sig, HK, Beretta, Kimber), that it is indeed the ultimate weapon.

If Glock had released one model for one caliber they wouldn't have made it to the top either now would they.

The FiveSeveN is a viable option among many, a neat gun.

 

[DmL5]

the difference is almost imperceptable.

No, it's not. The difference in weight is drastic. To use another comparison, a Five-seveN pistol loaded with 20 rounds weighs 40% less than a loaded Glock 21 or IWI Baby Eagle pistol. Again, that is a dramatic difference. At the same time, the Five-seveN also has nearly twice as much ammunition in the standard 20-round magazine.

Exactly, show me a Fiveseven available in about 21 different models and sizes including compact, semi compact etc.

The standard Five-seveN design works just fine. It makes for an arguably better overall weapon than any of those models or sizes, so the variety is unnecessary.

Porting is about 50% less muzzle rize:

No, it is not. You're dramatically overstating the benefit of porting, and ignoring the many side effects it brings with it.

as thousands of gun owners port their guns every year.

For personal preference or experimental reasons, maybe. Most gun owners do not port their guns for serious use.

Cogan is a very reliable company in business

Cogan is a business promoting its work. Its claims are not corroborated by any reliable, independent source.

 

[NateLeit]

No, it's not. The difference in weight is drastic. At the same time, the Five-seveN also has nearly twice as much ammunition in the standard 20-round magazine.

A fully loaded Glock is not a weighty handgun, the percieved need here for something lighter is nonexistant. Next company comes along that produces a fullsize gun .1 oz lighter than 5.7, we'll have everybody saying the new superpower hand weapon has come out. :barf:

The standard Five-seveN design works just fine. It makes for a better overall weapon than any of those models or sizes, so the variety is unnecessary.

This is not what 65% of LEO are saying right now, as well as thousands of private citizens... also the other 35% is from many manufacters producing compact, semi-compact and fullsize.
I guess they need another 110 years, but didn't the FBI already do it's 5.7x28
testing? Maybe we should all take your word that it's the greatest, bestest rather than the 90% of LEO who don't percieve any need for it.

For personal preference or experimental reasons, maybe. Most gun owners do not port their guns for serious use.

Thousands of gun owners port their firearms for serious use, including defense situations.

http://www.apwcogan.com/_Media/webacc43.jpg

Cogan is a business promoting its work. Its claims are not corroborated by any reliable, independent source.

Myself, of many, can corroborate them, I have found them to be a very honest, reasonable business with countless centurys experience.

http://www.apwcogan.com/_Media/pastedgraphic-13.gif


Many people would like to trumpet calibers such as 5.7 or 45 auto as the greatest of all or superior for every application but in reality there is no such gun, yet the Fiveseven does remain the minority in a 9, 40 and 45 caliber mainstream.

 

[DmL5]

Next company comes along that produces a fullsize gun .1 oz lighter than 5.7

The difference is not minimal; the difference is dramatic. A loaded Five-seveN is substantially lighter than any loaded full-size pistol of your choice.

This is not what 65% of LEO are saying right now

No, because the Glock is an old pistol chambered in a number of different calibers; most of which are extremely old. The 5.7x28mm is a relatively new caliber and the Five-seveN is a relatively new pistol. It's in use in over 40 countries within only 10 years of its creation.

Thousands of gun owners port their firearms for serious use, including defense situations.

That is pure fiction. If you look at the collective experience on virtually any gun forum, in virtually any discussion on porting for serious use, the vast majority would never use a ported pistol as a CCW. See, for example:

http://www.warriortalk.com/archive/index.php/t-5251.html
http://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/forum/topic/magna-port-for-concealed-carry-gun
http://www.oregonconcealedcarry.com/index.php?showtopic=5757
http://concealedcarryforum.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8917
http://www.shootersolutions.com/portedbarrels.html
http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-117838.html

Quote: "Take a CQ shooting class or fire from retention and then ask yourself if you really want a ported gun."

---

Quote: "As said above, gasses and debris could be painful and/or blinding when shooting from close-in retention position."

---

Quote: "Ported guns IMHO are good only for IPSC competition, shooting a ported gun or with the weapon close to your body canblind you in the dark and burn you badly in close retention type shooting, so no porting needed for a carry gun."

---

Quote: "Do not carry a ported gun for CCW."

---

Quote: "For CCW use... do NOT get a ported/compensated pistol.

IF you ever have to fire from any kind of retention position, you will be showering your face/neck with hot gases, possibly shaved lead/copper/other metals from the passage of the bullet itself.

I watched a guy in Gabe's CRG-1 class doing the 1yard and closer shooting drills with a compensated Glock. After a couple go's, Gabe got the guy another pistol so he could finish the drills. This guys face was NOT pretty -- had nicks and cuts all over it -- after firing as few as 3-10 rounds (my estimate)."

---

Quote: "A test was done where a shirt was draped over the ports on a Glock (simulating a retention shooting). The shirt was immediately started on fire. I don't beleive porting helps that much on an auto pistol to put up with the disadvantages."

---

Quote: "Sorry to be so blunt but for anything but competition/injured folks,Ported pistols are a poor choice for personal defense.

I once saw a guy(who will remain nameless) doing a weapon retention demonstration,get a nice piece of his hand chewed up by the hot,fast moving gas coming out of a ported pistol.

I have seen others get crud in the eye orbit when doing close range/pectoral index firing with ported pistols,as well as tearing shirts and superficial burns.

The extra blast,which is directly in front of your line of sight,doesnt help your night vision at all.

If you are relatively healthy and strong(My 84 year old Grandfather can still shoot a 1911,just not as fast) leave the ported pistols for plinking and gaming.
The negatives outweigh the positives using comp's on defensive pistiols."

---

Quote: "If you add magna porting to the barrel the perceived recoil will be less, but then you add the issue of hot gases being directed upward this can be a problem for your vision if your gun is needed in low light conditions. In addition, the revolver is a niche gun that is perfect for close in work. Having those gases directed upward could be a problem if the revolver is being fired in a close , high ready position or from inside a coat pocket."

---

Quote: "Porting the 340PD isn't worth the effort - given the extremely light weight, porting doesn't make that much difference in muzzle flip, and nearly no reduction in recoil impulse. There is a big increase in perceived muzzle blast, however.

Don't for a minute believe that it will work magic - if it's a handful for you now, it will still be after porting."

---

Quote: "I'll just chime in to support what was said above. I've witnessed shooters on the range have real issues with ported guns when firing from retention positions such as high compressed ready or during CQB shooting. Even with safety glasses on, I've seen folks have to leave the range for an eye-wash station to try to wash out the particulates that found their way up and behind the glasses. Running into a situation such as that in a real lethal force incident could be detrimental to your health."

---

Quote: "I would agree with Thunder, that for larger, very powerful guns, they help cut recoil. But for your defensive calibers such as 9MM, .38, .357, .40, .45, .45GAP etc., more benefit would be gotten from proper training on how to handle and deal with recoil management, and other aspects as grip, follow through, trigger reset, and stance.

I took an instructors course a few years ago with deputies from a Washington department that allowed ported guns. One deputy had a ported model of a Glock .40, the others non-ported models. Using the same ammo, the ported gun not only had more flash, but lots of debris thrown out upwards at the ports. The deputy showed up on the third day with the non ported model. I fired both models and found no difference in handling qualities. Depending on the ammo you use, there may be less flash with todays use of low flash powders."

---

Quote: "The reduction in night vision is only part of the equation. Those who tried shooting from the Retention Position (Position 2) for Close Quarters usually are not happy after they've done it once. Many students after they've done it once will refuse to do it again. Well that could be a problem in an ugly close encounter. We want to train the way we may have to fight and we don't need any more reasons or excuses not to do something in training."

---

Quote: "If you are buying this pistol for a ccw/defense I would recomend not getting the ported barrel. The flash at night will impair your vision."

---

Quote: "ported barrels are great for the range. ported barrels are bad for carry."

---

Quote: "Ported barrels are serious range and competition equipment and freakin' terrible options as carry guns. There are a variety of reasons this is true but just try letting go with a round with the barrel close to your belly or chest as in a close quarters situation where the factor of weapon retention becomes greatly magnified and it will become crystal clear."

---

Quote: "So there I was..... practicing some SD drills at dusk last night. First problem, the muzzle flash from the porting blinded me worse than from my non-ported model. That really wasn't a surprise I guess. However, the second problem arose when I was doing some hip shooting. Thank God I was wearing my shooting glasses, because this little beast was blowing powder and shards of who-knows-what out of that porting and directly into my face.

I had never given it consideration before, but why would a manufacturer even offer this as an option in their line of self defense guns. This feature is just plain hazardous to the user. When the BG is close the last thing I want to have to worry about is if I'm going to lose my vision if I pull the trigger."

---

Quote: "Porting is just fine if you like setting your OWN clothes on fire/powder burns etc.

I'd rather throw all that hot gas DOWNRANGE at wahtever I'm shooting at."

 

[10mmAuto]

nd I don't know about others here but using Fort Hood as a case study seems more than a bit wrong to me. That demented loser should not be placed in the same case as anything successful. (in reference to him being "successful" at murdering soldiers)

What happened at Fort Hood was disgusting.

That being said, it does not make it a less valid evaluation of a "real world" shooting with the 5.7. Some US Army trauma surgeons have, for years, taken methodical records of the terminal affect enemy weapons have had on our people for various reasons in combat. This is no different. Get over your silly moral hang ups that don't even make sense when making this evaluation.

As for porting, my woods carry gun is a 10mm automatic with a ported barrel. I've shot it a few thousand times in all kinds of shooting stances. Sometimes without eyepro or earpro. All with full power DoubleTap and Buffalo Bore. None of this half charge **** they sell at your local gunstore. No issues.

 

[NateLeit]

The difference is not minimal; the difference is dramatic. A loaded Five-seveN is substantially lighter than any loaded full-size pistol of your choice.

Weight was never an issue with Glock and the difference is not dramatic. How did someone word it? "The answer to a question never asked?"

No, because the Glock is an old pistol chambered in a number of different calibers; most of which are extremely old. The 5.7x28mm is a relatively new caliber and the Five-seveN is a relatively new pistol.

40 S&W was released in 1990. Most enforcement has already done their independant testing of 5.7x28, 65% of LEO with Glock the other 35% maybe less than 5% being FiveseveNs. (Beretta, Sig, HK)

But like you pointed out you have 110 years to try to change that. :barf:

 

[NateLeit]

As for porting, my woods carry gun is a 10mm automatic with a ported barrel. I've shot it a few thousand times in all kinds of shooting stances. Sometimes without eyepro or earpro. All with full power DoubleTap and Buffalo Bore. None of this half charge **** they sell at your local gunstore. No issues.

Porting can be an excellent way to reduce recoil.

Or maybe as he posted earlier, it really injures the hand.

I once saw a guy who saw a guy see a guy (who will remain nameless) where this happened.

I once saw a guy(who will remain nameless) doing a weapon retention demonstration,get a nice piece of his hand chewed up by the hot,fast moving gas coming out of a ported pistol.

 

[jhenry]

I'm glad you boys have found a way to come to a consensus.

 

[NateLeit]

Some good thoughts on here.


http://www.weaponsrelated.com/2010/01/57x28-undeniable-truth.html

I still say that FiveseveN is a viable option, definitely never going to be the replacement or mainstream choice - it's only available in one platform and size.
If the top manufacturers such as Beretta, Sig, Glock percieved that 5.7 was the new bad round and best system, about to replace their business they would have created several makes and models of their own by now, just as nearly every manufacturer adopted the choice of .40 S&W. Additionally, the 357 sig was created in 1994 and was an immediate success being chambered for nearly every make and model from many many manufacturers.

In short, 5.7 doesn't intimidate them as there is little percieved need.

To the original topic creator I would say that if you have a good $1200 laying around and you want something out of the box go for it.

 

[DmL5]

and the difference is not dramatic

Yes, the weight difference is dramatic, and recycling the same misinformation over and over won't make it any more believable.

A Five-seveN pistol loaded with 20 rounds weighs 40% less than a loaded Glock 21 or IWI Baby Eagle pistol. At the same time, the Five-seveN is also carrying nearly twice as much ammunition as either of those pistols.

40 S&W was released in 1990.

You're recycling weak arguments again. Like I said earlier, the .40 S&W is essentially a very slightly enlarged 9mm, and the 9mm is about 110 years old.

If the top manufacturers such as Beretta, Sig, Glock percieved that 5.7 was the new bad round and best system, about to replace their business they would have created several makes and models of their own by now, just as nearly every manufacturer adopted the choice of .40 S&W. Additionally, the 357 sig was created in 1994 and was an immediate success being chambered for nearly every make and model from many many manufacturers.

No, they wouldn't. The .40 S&W and .357 SIG were essentially tweaks of the 9mm, which is about 110 years old.

Porting can be an excellent way to reduce recoil.

Virtually anyone that has ever considered porting for serious use would disagree. Porting gives a slight reduction in recoil, and a number of different side effects that far outweigh the benefit.

 

[NateLeit]

Yes, it is dramatic, and regurgitating the same misinformation over and over won't make it any more believable.

You're recyling weak arguments and it will not make your statements true.
FBI looks at facts rather than misinformative forum posts.

You're recycling weak arguments again. Like I said earlier, the .40 S&W is essentially a very slightly enlarged 9mm, and the 9mm is about 110 years old.

.40, 357 sig were immediately accepted throughout.

No, they wouldn't. The .40 S&W and .357 SIG were essentially tweaks of the 9mm, which is about 110 years old.

It would appear you've out witted 65% of law-inforcement still using Glock including FBI - not to mention the other 35% is not FiveseveN (Sig, HK, Beretta, Kimber etc.)

Actually you seem to be a part of a minority cult religious following who believes a new superpower has been invented.

Virtually anyone that has ever considered porting for serious use would disagree. Porting gives a slight reduction in recoil, and a number of different side effects that far outweigh the benefit.

There are two main ways to reduce recoil in the mule kicking 9mm, muzzlebreak, or porting, (as the gentlemen pointed out previously it is very reliable) both do the same general thing.

Many top manufacturers have been releasing their guns with muzzle breaks for about a century, they can also be custom fitted.

http://cdn5.thefirearmsblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/picture-15-15.png

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_OKlb6h7hvWY/SCZs-MF1AOI/AAAAAAAAAnk/rEB03lH-LZ8/s400/003.JPG

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Custom_XD-40_V-10.jpg

http://www.mwgco.com/images09/tapco/Tapco_AK-47_Cage_Muzzle_Brake-A.jpg

 

[NateLeit]

Size matters:

http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt280/NL226/557.jpg

As the gentlemen pointed out early on, the 5.7x28 is less powerful, with inferior terminal effectiveness than the 9mm round.

That said, when we observe the 9mm compared to rounds such as 357, 40 and 45 the Fiveseven's extra 3 capacity over a standard 9mm or even it's capacity over 40 and 45 seems less important.

One might argue that shot placement matters and it does, but the more expansion and effectiveness of these more powerful rounds increases chances of hitting vital organs as well.

LAPD uses Kimber .45, they're not dummies, size does matter, we believe them over your biased forum posting.

http://www.tactical-life.com/online/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/kimber1.jpg

This is a big factor for Law-inforcement and possibly partly why the FBI has rejected the round entirely.


http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt280/NL226/glock20hst20pics.gif

Even a .22 LR is potentially lethal, this does not prevent it from being the inferior choice.

You can rant and rattle about shot placement being all that matters but you're really just a forum poster, 65% of Law-inforcement say otherwise as well as the 35% not using Glock still aren't mostly FiveseveN. (Beretta, Kimber, HK, Sig etc.)

Still the Fiveseven remains a viable option for self-defense. Replacement round? No. New super power? No.
Better for anything? Possibly, depending on application.

 

[DmL5]

Many top manufacturers have been releasing their guns with muzzle breaks for about a century

http://cdn5.thefirearmsblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/picture-15-15.png
http://www.mwgco.com/images09/tapco/Tapco_AK-47_Cage_Muzzle_Brake-A.jpg

"Muzzle break" is not a word.

A muzzle brake on a Barrett .50 BMG rifle is not in any way similar to porting on a pistol barrel. They are two completely different things. The former is advantageous, and the latter is disadvantageous for any serious use.

FBI looks at facts

So do the U.S. Secret Service, and hundreds of other U.S. law enforcement agencies that use 5.7x28mm weapons.

.40, 357 sig were immediately accepted throughout.

.40 S&W and .357 SIG are essentially small tweaks of the 9mm cartridge, which was already in acceptance anyway because it is about 110 years old.

Size matters

The miniscule size difference between one tiny pistol bullet (5.7mm) and another tiny pistol bullet (9mm, etc) is irrelevant. They are both tiny pistol bullets, and their performance depends on shot placement. Bullet size can matter but it is not something to stress over the much more important factors like shot placement.

even it's capacity over 40 and 45 seems less important

The Five-seveN has about double the flush-fit magazine capacity of many .40 S&W or .45 ACP pistols. A small difference in diameter (from one tiny pistol bullet to another) cannot possibly outweigh such a dramatic difference in magazine capacity.

LAPD uses Kimber .45, they're not dummies

They are virtually alone in their choice of a sidearm, so yes by your logic they are.

Even a .22 LR is potentially lethal, this does not prevent it from being the inferior choice.

You tried this argument on the last page, and it was quickly eradicated. In addition to creating a larger wound than a .22 LR, a 5.7x28mm weapon has substantial advantages over a larger pistol caliber; a .22 LR pistol does not. A spare 30-round Five-seveN magazine can be carried for less weight than a spare 17-round Glock magazine, even though it carries about twice as much ammunition. A Five-seveN pistol loaded with 20 rounds weighs the same as an empty Glock 17 pistol. The Five-seveN also has a higher flush-fit magazine capacity, shoots flatter, recoils less, and with EA's ammunition has the ability to penetrate virtually any type of body armor.

You can rant and rattle about shot placement being all that matters

Clue: shot placement is stressed by the FBI. The same FBI you have been trumpeting throughout the last two pages.

 

[NateLeit]

A muzzle brake on a Barrett .50 BMG rifle is not in any way similar to porting on a pistol barrel. They are two completely different things. The former is advantageous, and the latter is disadvantageous for any serious use.

A muzzlebrake can be applied to any weapon if there is a percieved need.

So do the U.S. Secret Service, and hundreds of other U.S. law enforcement agencies that use 5.7x28mm weapons.

For every law-inforcement in favor there is an ocean not in favor. Such as the FBI.

.40 S&W and .357 SIG are essentially tiny tweaks of the 9mm cartridge, which was already in acceptance anyway because it is about 110 years old.

For some reason I don't think you're forum propaganda will convince many people in the next 110 years. :barf:

The miniscule size difference between one tiny pistol bullet (5.7mm) and another tiny pistol bullet (9mm, etc) is irrelevant. They are both tiny pistol bullets, and their performance depends on shot placement.

The miniscule clip capacity between Glock 9mm (17 rnds) and FiveseveN USG (20 rnds) is irrelevant.

The Five-seveN has about double the flush-fit magazine capacity of most full-size .40 S&W or .45 ACP pistols. A small difference in diameter (from one tiny pistol bullet to another) cannot possibly outweigh such a dramatic difference in magazine capacity.

http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt280/NL226/557.jpg

They are virtually alone in their choice of a sidearm, so yes by your logic they are.

The 1911 in .45 is world renown, Kimber is a very good manufacturer.

You tried this argument on the last page, and it was quickly eradicated. In addition to creating a larger wound than a .22 LR, a 5.7x28mm weapon has substantial advantages over a larger pistol caliber; a .22 LR pistol does not. A spare 30-round Five-seveN magazine can be carried for less weight than a spare 17-round Glock magazine, even though it carries about twice as much ammunition. A Five-seveN pistol loaded with 20 rounds weighs the same as an empty Glock 17 pistol. The Five-seveN also has a higher flush-fit magazine capacity, shoots flatter, recoils less, and with EA's ammunition has the ability to penetrate virtually any type of body armor.

For every advantage of FiveseveN there is a disadvantage, the fiveseven carrys +3 capacity over Glock, the Fiveseven is less powerful than a 9mm HP, the fiveseven can have a 30 rnd extension, the glock can have 33 rnd, the fiveseven has armor penetration, the fiveseven has little to no barrier penetration and would likely not penetrate simple cover, FiveseveN loaded weighs less than a loaded glock, fiveseven is not available in 23 dimensions and calibers.

Clue: shot placement is stressed by the FBI. The same FBI you have been trumpeting throughout the last two pages.

And Glock in .40 S&W , which they called for as a result of the percieved need of more penetration and stopping power than 9mm, which is more effective than 5.7x28.

 

[HKFan9]

Why do people get hung up on what the FBI or Police use? Most of them are not even gun people... and a lot of them I run into can't even tell you what kind of gun they are issued. I had a cop in our shop that was "surprised we could even sell Glocks, because thats what hes issued."

The 5.7 sadly will never be main stream. It does perform well, and I can certainly tell you that I would never volunteer to be shot by it. The FiveSeveN does weight a lot less than most any other gun, and that CAN be a breath of fresh air when it comes to carrying a gun on you all day... and I carry a 1911.

If you talk to some of our troops coming back from the war efforts... I have heard a few different times of some special forces groups toting around the P90, so they round can definitely perform... obviously less out of a handgun, but then again NO handgun round is ideal.

I think the FiveseveN has a real place for a shooter thats injured, bad hands, elderly. It is a potent cartridge with very mild recoil. It's nothing to laugh off thats for sure.

I just don't get why people get caught up in whats main stream. Usually main steam issue weapons are FAR from the best options, they are usually easily and CHEAP produced and acquired. I can certainly tell you if Glock's price tag was higher they wouldn't nearly be as popular. Same reason our troops are issued the M9, they got them the cheapest and it DID pass the tests. Just like the are issued the 5.56 NATO, don't get me wrong, I love my AR, and I love 5.56 NATO as a round... but it is WELL KNOWN that there are better rounds out there. Funny thing is the 5.56 gets the job done... and it is a lighter round to carry combat load outs with.... which the FiveseveN has in common.

Bickering like school children about which is better a Glock or a FiveseveN is pretty much pointless. God forbid someone references something other than a Glock, then people get their feelings hurt. Glock makes a fine weapon.... just not to my tastes.... and the funny thing is a lot of issued ones are in .40SW but a lot of well known instructors will tell you that 9mm Glocks are great.... but there are better choices in firearms in the other calibers. I believe even Ayoob has been quoted saying this.

There is not ONE gun that is going to be the best in every situation. That's the reason theres so many options, just be happy you as an American have those options.

.380's are pretty main stream in Europe... does that mean we should all carry a .380?

Be happy you don't live in a country where you can't own a firearm in a NATO caliber, or a firearm at all.

 

[vandyatc]

Coming from a guy who has had one it is a nice round in the FiveseveN. Glocks are great, though not my cup of tea. I'd buy one if the price was right and I needed another plastic gun.

I used to choose the 5.7 as my go to gun in the woods, and I've seen it (my dad has the gun now, and took the shot I'm discussing) take out a Coyote at about 80 yards leaving a hole the size of my fist in it's chest. What's more is that it was an oblique shot and that doggie was dropped instantly. I know, I know, it's a 60 lb dog not a person, but I was duly impressed.

In conclusion, the 5.7 not a widely accepted or common round. That cannot be denied. For it's intended purpose as a supplement pistol to the PS-90 bullpup and AR style weapon to be used by rear-eschelon personnel it is a success. The gun will do the job as will the round. It is also light and packs a punch.

Is one FiveseveN at $1,000 worth 2 Glock 17/19? Depends on what you want and why. The other reason I like the 5.7 in the rough is I carry a PS-90 as well in my vehicle. It works as well as my ARs for the intended purposes and I like the single caliber for both.

And don't give me the "it's a .22" crap. The only folks that would ever make such a silly statement probably never shot a 5.7. However, I'm not going to say it's the equivalent of a .45, .40SW, 9mm or whatever. They all have their own advantages and disadvantages. If one was proven superior in every scenario we wouldn't have these endless debates... And that would just be a tragedy!