Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/14/2005 10:01:49 PM EDT
Our department is consideringmoving from the Glock 22 to the FN 5.7 . Any of your departments issue these guns for their patrol officers? How do they hold up? Are they reliable? Other than the fact that we can get the AP ammo for them, what are the advantages over .40?
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 11:05:20 PM EDT
Most ridiculous thing I've heard all day.
Link Posted: 8/14/2005 11:24:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AZ-K9:
Most ridiculous thing I've heard all day.



+1 - Who thought that one up?
Link Posted: 8/15/2005 6:50:34 AM EDT

The FN Five seveN is considered a gimmick by most. Yes, the round will penetrate armor, but does relatively little damage to a person after it goes in. It is most often compared to the ballistics of a .22magnum round.

I own one, but don't carry it. It is a large pistol, and the safety is in an unusual position, compared to most other pistols. The twenty round mag is nice, but that's because you may have to shoot someone 4-5 times to ensure they go down.

There is a tremendous amount of debate about it, but basically it is not a good duty weapon, as it's applications are real, but limited.

Link Posted: 8/15/2005 8:41:45 AM EDT
Whoever thought that one up should turn in their badge.
Link Posted: 8/15/2005 12:54:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AZ-K9:
Most ridiculous thing I've heard all day.



I know. But since I don't have a whole lot of input into the decision, I figured if I could persuade other folks that will have more input, that the department might save themselves from making that mistake. BTW, its our chief who is considering the change.
Link Posted: 8/15/2005 1:25:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Jfor:

Originally Posted By AZ-K9:
Most ridiculous thing I've heard all day.



I know. But since I don't have a whole lot of input into the decision, I figured if I could persuade other folks that will have more input, that the department might save themselves from making that mistake. BTW, its our chief who is considering the change.



What can his reasoning possibly be?
Link Posted: 8/15/2005 1:37:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By Jfor:

Originally Posted By AZ-K9:
Most ridiculous thing I've heard all day.



I know. But since I don't have a whole lot of input into the decision, I figured if I could persuade other folks that will have more input, that the department might save themselves from making that mistake. BTW, its our chief who is considering the change.



What can his reasoning possibly be?



They are looking at the P90 for the Tactical Unit. I shot the 5.7 but was impressed. I would rather go to a .45 whether it be Glock, USP, or a 1911 style pistol.
Link Posted: 8/15/2005 3:35:39 PM EDT
I think I would stick with my Glock 22.
Link Posted: 8/15/2005 6:18:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By Jfor:

Originally Posted By AZ-K9:
Most ridiculous thing I've heard all day.



I know. But since I don't have a whole lot of input into the decision, I figured if I could persuade other folks that will have more input, that the department might save themselves from making that mistake. BTW, its our chief who is considering the change.



What can his reasoning possibly be?





Sounds like the Chief watches a bit too much CNN/HNN and just had to get the "neatest, deadliest new AP squirter on the market".


I am unaware if any gubmint has done an official ballistics test with the weapon, but you may check with B&T, they may help sway the decision.

Link Posted: 8/15/2005 11:48:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/15/2005 11:49:36 PM EDT by leelaw]
I handled one the other day. I was surprised by how much plastic was on it.

Frame was plastic, with some steel inserts on stress areas.

The slide was metal..... with plastic on it.

The magazine was completely plastic.

It made for a nice, light package.

I liked the idea of the safety being above the trigger guard, however I think my fingers are a little long for it because it felt a little akward to bend it to engage/disengage, and I think this could pose a serious problem for officers with smaller hands. The magazine well was longer than the other handguns I've handled and felt a little weird at first.

The ballistics of the 5.7 don't justify the cost of the switch, and flat-out are pretty bad unless your goal is to puncture armor and do nothing else.

ETA: now having said that, I'd like to get one before they're banned.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 6:17:29 AM EDT
Generally speaking, it's a bad idea to have a duty pistol that penetrates your own ballistic vest. Not to say that round doesn't have it's place, but I would think it should not be your standard service pistol.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 9:25:23 AM EDT
Very poor terminal ballistics. Penetrates armor but that's about it. If you want to penetrate armor then just get ARs!!!
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 12:56:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ColtRifle:
Very poor terminal ballistics. Penetrates armor but that's about it. If you want to penetrate armor then just get ARs!!!



We do have AR's. Thats why I don't understand the chief wanting to get these pistols. Oh well.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 12:58:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:

Originally Posted By Jfor:

Originally Posted By AZ-K9:
Most ridiculous thing I've heard all day.



I know. But since I don't have a whole lot of input into the decision, I figured if I could persuade other folks that will have more input, that the department might save themselves from making that mistake. BTW, its our chief who is considering the change.



What can his reasoning possibly be?



He is a Chief, and by proxy, most likely a complete fucking idiot. What more reason does he need?


Sheep
Link Posted: 8/20/2005 8:18:41 AM EDT
Good call sheep.

+1 on the stupidity of this decision. Termnal ballistics truumps penetration any day of the week. Of course the biggest problem out there is non-gun people making gun decisions. Tell him to save some money and go get some the CZs in 7.65 Tok.

The FN 5.7 is a neat curio but I'm not that worried about it (at least not until it's pointed at me )
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 6:54:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/21/2005 6:54:46 AM EDT by INTrooper4255]
When all of the media hype was going on about the FN, our department came out with an SOP saying that no officer on the department is allowed to carry one for an off duty/backup weapon. It's kind of jumping on the bandwagon, which doesn't surprise me fromour department, but I do agree that you shouldn't carry a pistol that is capable of penetrating your vest.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 7:08:05 AM EDT
My department bought 12 of them to issue to the supervisors and all but 3 have turned them back in in exchange for there glocks back. The customer service from FN is awful, they are not responsive to the needs of the department. We have had to send 3 pistols back for repair and when asked what was wrong with them, they just say it was fixed. The night sights have to be replaced every few months. The terminal ballistics are very disappointing from the gun and the bullet will richochet at angles where the 9mm or 357 sig will not and this caused an officer to be hit with friendly fire. I would not recommend getting this pistol.
Top Top