Posted: 5/13/2010 4:28:49 PM EDT
| I bought a Five-Seven a couple of weeks ago and yesterday received a notice from Davidsons re a free light offer from FN for purchasers of a Five-Seven. I downloaded the FN form for submission to FN and noted that they not only require a copy of the bill of sale but a copy of page three of the ATF Form 4473 or a letter from the dealer stating that he will not provide the copy. This is an incredibly stupid requirement and it makes one think the offer is loaded so as to reduce the number of purchasers who can take advantage of the offer. My dealer is not going to provide copies of any page of the form and is not going to take the time to draft a letter to FN explaining his business practices. I had planned to buy a second Five-Seven but will now not do so. I will buy no more FN products. |
|
Quoted:
I bought a Five-Seven a couple of weeks ago and yesterday received a notice from Davidsons re a free light offer from FN for purchasers of a Five-Seven. I downloaded the FN form for submission to FN and noted that they not only require a copy of the bill of sale but a copy of page three of the ATF Form 4473 or a letter from the dealer stating that he will not provide the copy. This is an incredibly stupid requirement and it makes one think the offer is loaded so as to reduce the number of purchasers who can take advantage of the offer. My dealer is not going to provide copies of any page of the form and is not going to take the time to draft a letter to FN explaining his business practices. I had planned to buy a second Five-Seven but will now not do so. I will buy no more FN products. I agree it is asinine to require a copy of any part of the 4473 for a promotional deal like this. However, the dealer refusal form is right on the FNH website and can be found here. Print it out, have your dealer sign it, get your free light. If your dealer will not help you out, with either the 4473 copy or the refusal letter, it is time to find a new place to shop. You just gave him $1000+ of business, he can sign a piece of paper for you. |
| I bought one because it is so unique, and I actually like it, ammunition costs not withstanding. I thought I would get another as a backup since I doubt that this pistol is going to be available much longer. I have absolutely no use for the light and would not buy one if they sold for 20$. There is just something so infuriating to me that FN would require anything other than the bill of sale as proof of purchase. For what possible reason would they require additional proof. The bill of sale clearly states the dealers name and particulars. One could speculate that FN is simply trying to complicate the procedure in order to discourage buyers from taking advantage of the offer. |
|
Quoted:
I bought one because it is so unique, and I actually like it, ammunition costs not withstanding. I thought I would get another as a backup since I doubt that this pistol is going to be available much longer. I have absolutely no use for the light and would not buy one if they sold for 20$. There is just something so infuriating to me that FN would require anything other than the bill of sale as proof of purchase. For what possible reason would they require additional proof. The bill of sale clearly states the dealers name and particulars. One could speculate that FN is simply trying to complicate the procedure in order to discourage buyers from taking advantage of the offer. Or....it could be that FN is just trying to make sure the redeemer of the offer actually purchased a firearm and dosen't just have a "buddy" at the gun shop that would write you up a receipt indicating the purchase of one. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: I bought one because it is so unique, and I actually like it, ammunition costs not withstanding. I thought I would get another as a backup since I doubt that this pistol is going to be available much longer. I have absolutely no use for the light and would not buy one if they sold for 20$. There is just something so infuriating to me that FN would require anything other than the bill of sale as proof of purchase. For what possible reason would they require additional proof. The bill of sale clearly states the dealers name and particulars. One could speculate that FN is simply trying to complicate the procedure in order to discourage buyers from taking advantage of the offer. Or....it could be that FN is just trying to make sure the redeemer of the offer actually purchased a firearm and dosen't just have a "buddy" at the gun shop that would write you up a receipt indicating the purchase of one. That's so crazy...it might just be true... |
| I think it highly unlikely that you could find someone who would provide a phoney bill of sale specifying a specific serial number for a firearm. I think it more likely that FN is simply acting as a European company not accustomed to dealing with the American public since they are primarily a military weapons company. Previously, most of their firearms were marketed here by Browning. This is just one of those things that makes me leary about dealing with the company. |
|
Quoted:
Why are you mad at FN? It is the dealer who is giving you problems. I got a P90 awhile back and got all my forms into FN and got my 2 free mags and ammo pronto. Kudo to FN. Agreed! They require Proof of Purchase, nothing unusual about that! I bought some software recently that specified it was returned and the Proof of Purchase tag had been removed from it so I could not apply for the manufacture rebate… Oddly, with that software I could have produced a Fake Copy of a ‘gunstore’ purchase receipt with a couple of clicks. I see nothing wrong with what they ask for and it is pretty decent of them to offer an alternative way to get there! |
| I am not "mad" with FN. They can run their business any way they want, and I wish them the best. I like the Five-Seven I bought, and I bought it with no knowledge of any promotion on their part or expectation of receiving anything . I will however not buy a second one as I had planned originally. To ask for anything in addition to the bill of sale for proof of purchase, is in my opinion absurd. I really posted this not to bash FN but to see whether anyone had any idea why the additional paper work is required. I can simply see no reason. |
|
Quoted: I am not "mad" with FN. They can run their business any way they want, and I wish them the best. I like the Five-Seven I bought, and I bought it with no knowledge of any promotion on their part or expectation of receiving anything . I will however not buy a second one as I had planned originally. To ask for anything in addition to the bill of sale for proof of purchase, is in my opinion absurd. I really posted this not to bash FN but to see whether anyone had any idea why the additional paper work is required. I can simply see no reason. It is a bit absurd to refuse to purchase from them ever again because they require 2 pieces of paper for their promotional offer. That said, their customer service is second to none in my opinion. I had to send a FNP back for a cracked FCG housing and they paid shipping both ways along with a good cleaning and lubing of the pistol. Only piece of paper I had to send them was my contact information. They may be a military contractor, but they don't have the mindset of some of the other ones when it comes to us lowly civilians. |
|
Quoted:
Why 2 Five-SeveN's ? Why even one? I had been looking into these for quite sometime its almost the same as a .22 Mag never fired one but ballistically the same. Range report required. If by ballistically the same you mean that the velocities from a 5.7 pistol are the same as a .22Mag from a rifle, then you might be right. |
|
Quoted:
Why 2 Five-SeveN's ? Why even one? I had been looking into these for quite sometime its almost the same as a .22 Mag never fired one but ballistically the same. Range report required. Not to be crass, but a huge pile of dogshit gave a very real demonstration of the FN FiveSeven's lethality. Moot argument is moot. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why 2 Five-SeveN's ? Why even one? I had been looking into these for quite sometime its almost the same as a .22 Mag never fired one but ballistically the same. Range report required. No, it isn't ballistically the same as a .22 Mag. Okay, explain why not. I have photos of gel showing a .22LR doing more damage than the SS195 in gel. It actually penetrated post the 12" minimum standard, as well. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why 2 Five-SeveN's ? Why even one? I had been looking into these for quite sometime its almost the same as a .22 Mag never fired one but ballistically the same. Range report required. No, it isn't ballistically the same as a .22 Mag. Okay, explain why not. I have photos of gel showing a .22LR doing more damage than the SS195 in gel. It actually penetrated post the 12" minimum standard, as well. Look at the numbers. 5.7 pushes about double the energy of a .22mag out of equivalent barrel length handguns. .22lr isn't even in the same ball game as 5.7 or .22 mag. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why 2 Five-SeveN's ? Why even one? I had been looking into these for quite sometime its almost the same as a .22 Mag never fired one but ballistically the same. Range report required. No, it isn't ballistically the same as a .22 Mag. Okay, explain why not. I have photos of gel showing a .22LR doing more damage than the SS195 in gel. It actually penetrated post the 12" minimum standard, as well. Look at the numbers. 5.7 pushes about double the energy of a .22mag out of equivalent barrel length handguns. .22lr isn't even in the same ball game as 5.7 or .22 mag. Instead of talking about energy, lets talk about permanent and temporary cavities. The 5.7x28 totally fails in the first, and isn't very impressive in the second. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why 2 Five-SeveN's ? Why even one? I had been looking into these for quite sometime its almost the same as a .22 Mag never fired one but ballistically the same. Range report required. No, it isn't ballistically the same as a .22 Mag. Okay, explain why not. I have photos of gel showing a .22LR doing more damage than the SS195 in gel. It actually penetrated post the 12" minimum standard, as well. Look at the numbers. 5.7 pushes about double the energy of a .22mag out of equivalent barrel length handguns. .22lr isn't even in the same ball game as 5.7 or .22 mag. Instead of talking about energy, lets talk about permanent and temporary cavities. The 5.7x28 totally fails in the first, and isn't very impressive in the second. We're talking about relative ballistics of the .22mag and 5.7x28. The assertion as made was incorrect. Neither is really an appropriate self-defense round. That wasn't the discussion. 5.56 out of a 4" barrel wouldn't be either. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why 2 Five-SeveN's ? Why even one? I had been looking into these for quite sometime its almost the same as a .22 Mag never fired one but ballistically the same. Range report required. No, it isn't ballistically the same as a .22 Mag. Okay, explain why not. I have photos of gel showing a .22LR doing more damage than the SS195 in gel. It actually penetrated post the 12" minimum standard, as well. Look at the numbers. 5.7 pushes about double the energy of a .22mag out of equivalent barrel length handguns. .22lr isn't even in the same ball game as 5.7 or .22 mag. Instead of talking about energy, lets talk about permanent and temporary cavities. The 5.7x28 totally fails in the first, and isn't very impressive in the second. We're talking about relative ballistics of the .22mag and 5.7x28. The assertion as made was incorrect. Neither is really an appropriate self-defense round. That wasn't the discussion. 5.56 out of a 4" barrel wouldn't be either. Okay, here is a .22mag from a 2.0" barrel: 
Here is the 5.7 from...an FN5.7: 
Please show me where the FN5.7 is superior. The TC looks to be roughly the same size as far as I can see, and the .22mag actually penetrates enough to get the job done from an oblique angle if needed. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why 2 Five-SeveN's ? Why even one? I had been looking into these for quite sometime its almost the same as a .22 Mag never fired one but ballistically the same. Range report required. No, it isn't ballistically the same as a .22 Mag. Okay, explain why not. I have photos of gel showing a .22LR doing more damage than the SS195 in gel. It actually penetrated post the 12" minimum standard, as well. Look at the numbers. 5.7 pushes about double the energy of a .22mag out of equivalent barrel length handguns. .22lr isn't even in the same ball game as 5.7 or .22 mag. Instead of talking about energy, lets talk about permanent and temporary cavities. The 5.7x28 totally fails in the first, and isn't very impressive in the second. We're talking about relative ballistics of the .22mag and 5.7x28. The assertion as made was incorrect. Neither is really an appropriate self-defense round. That wasn't the discussion. 5.56 out of a 4" barrel wouldn't be either. Okay, here is a .22mag from a 2.0" barrel: http://i50.tinypic.com/6i5i0i.jpg Here is the 5.7 from...an FN5.7: http://i47.tinypic.com/5bbqc1.jpg Please show me where the FN5.7 is superior. The TC looks to be roughly the same size as far as I can see, and the .22mag actually penetrates enough to get the job done from an oblique angle if needed. None of those pictures has anywhere near the information needed to draw any conclusions from them. What 5.7 round was used? What .22mag round was used? What was it fired from? What gel was used? Was it properly calibrated, in all three instances? Was it calibrated in the same manner in all three instances? What distance was it fired from? Was it the same in all three instances? Your pictures are a prime example of how to prove something that isn't accurate by leaving out all the relevant information. They don't prove anything without all the other information I asked about. Once again –– I wasn't engaging in a discussion of the relative effectiveness of any of the rounds in a self-defense scenario –– only stating the obvious, which is that the rounds are not in any way, ballistically similar. You've cherrypicked pictures off the internet, probably using a .22mag shot from a rifle (I really doubt you can get that kind of performance out of a .22mag from a 2.0" barrel –– maybe a 20" barrel) and the weakest commercially available 5.7 load, to make a point that ignores most of the information available. ETA: I see you removed the third picture. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why 2 Five-SeveN's ? Why even one? I had been looking into these for quite sometime its almost the same as a .22 Mag never fired one but ballistically the same. Range report required. No, it isn't ballistically the same as a .22 Mag. Okay, explain why not. I have photos of gel showing a .22LR doing more damage than the SS195 in gel. It actually penetrated post the 12" minimum standard, as well. Look at the numbers. 5.7 pushes about double the energy of a .22mag out of equivalent barrel length handguns. .22lr isn't even in the same ball game as 5.7 or .22 mag. Instead of talking about energy, lets talk about permanent and temporary cavities. The 5.7x28 totally fails in the first, and isn't very impressive in the second. We're talking about relative ballistics of the .22mag and 5.7x28. The assertion as made was incorrect. Neither is really an appropriate self-defense round. That wasn't the discussion. 5.56 out of a 4" barrel wouldn't be either. Okay, here is a .22mag from a 2.0" barrel: http://i50.tinypic.com/6i5i0i.jpg Here is the 5.7 from...an FN5.7: http://i47.tinypic.com/5bbqc1.jpg Please show me where the FN5.7 is superior. The TC looks to be roughly the same size as far as I can see, and the .22mag actually penetrates enough to get the job done from an oblique angle if needed. None of those pictures has anywhere near the information needed to draw any conclusions from them. What 5.7 round was used? What .22mag round was used? What was it fired from? What gel was used? Was it properly calibrated, in all three instances? Was it calibrated in the same manner in all three instances? What distance was it fired from? Was it the same in all three instances? Your pictures are a prime example of how to prove something that isn't accurate by leaving out all the relevant information. They don't prove anything without all the other information I asked about. Once again –– I wasn't engaging in a discussion of the relative effectiveness of any of the rounds in a self-defense scenario –– only stating the obvious, which is that the rounds are not in any way, ballistically similar. You've cherrypicked pictures off the internet, probably using a .22mag shot from a rifle (I really doubt you can get that kind of performance out of a .22mag from a 2.0" barrel –– maybe a 20" barrel) and the weakest commercially available 5.7 load, to make a point that ignores most of the information available. ETA: I see you removed the third picture. Check out the site the pictures come from Brassfetcher, lots of info to answer your questions. |