Ammo For Sale

« « Rule four | Home | Americans with Disabilities » »

FN FiveseveN

Since that’s the latest anti-gun and media (but I repeat myself) whipping boy, some stuff on the FN FiveseveN:

The FiveseveN fact or fiction. Shows some ballistics comparisons and tells us what we already knew: it’s a bit more powerful than a .22 magnum.

A look at the weapon from GunBlast.

Some videos about the gun.

A couple of other reviews on the weapon here and here.

Seems their prices have gone up.

10 Responses to “FN FiveseveN”

  1. Jeff the Baptist Says:

    Prices went up? Looks like FN has found their white Ford Bronco.

  2. Jeff the Baptist Says:

    The bit about it being a bit more powerful than a .22 magnum is flat wrong. Look at the Gunblast review. He’s seeing muzzle velocities of between 1750 and 2000 fps from the FiveseveN. The numbers given on the fact or fiction post are .22 mag rifle velocities. 1910 fps from a 22″ rifle barrel. More like 1400 fps from a 6.5″ revolver. As the barrel length drops, so does the muzzle velocity and muzzle energy.

    You aren’t going to get anything close to 5.7×28 with .22 mag when you’re shooting pistols. This doesn’t mean 5.7 is a “copkiller” or any of that BS, but the “it’s just like .22 mag” line is equally full of crap.

  3. SayUncle Says:

    God point re: the barrel length. But the substantial increase in performance seems to come mostly from using the ammo that is heavily restricted. I’d say the non AP ammo is only a bit more powerful.

  4. Jeff the Baptist Says:

    Jeff Quinn got 1750 fps when he chrono’d the 5.7 with the same ammo the Hood shooter used. Chuck Hawks got 1400 fps from a 6.5″ single six using the same grain weight. Even if you take the later as representative of pistol performance, you’re looking at 50% more energy from the 5.7.

    Now maybe both are going to icepick through and energy won’t matter, but I’m not going to dismiss at least a 50% increase.

  5. Daniels Says:

    Jeff: You’re right.

    Both of the muzzle velocities listed on the article are from rifles. I kept them there for consistency, because velocities for .22 magnum from an autoloading handgun are very rare (I think gunblast may have chronographed an AMT at some point). They’re also the only velocities I could find that used the same type of firearm.

    You list revolver velocities for the .22 Magnum, but that’s not really a fair comparison (and one reason I didn’t use those measurements). The gasses escaping from the cylinder gap will significantly reduce your MV. For every 1/1000th of an inch, you will lose more than 50 FPS.

    Recalculating for what I can find for autoloading pistols…

    The .22 Magnum chambered AMT Automag II has a muzzle velocity around 1500 FPS (if I remember correctly). As you stated, Jeff Quinn got 1750 FPS. Doing the math, that gives 271.98 Lb.Ft, compared to the .22 Mag with 199.81 Lb.Ft (calculated for a 40 gr. projectile). That’s a difference of 72 Lb.Ft or right around 36% more energy than a .22 Magnum (not 50%).

    How significant is 72 Lb.Ft? I’ll be honest, I don’t know. Statistically, it’s significant given the low ME of both rounds… but in terms of performance? I can’t say that 72 Lb.Ft is going to make a big difference.

    I’m going to try to take my 5.7 and my AMT Automag II to the range and chronograph both rounds for more accurate handgun velocities.

  6. SayUncle Says:

    per teh interwebs, the average person’s punch is about 80 ft lbs.

  7. Jeff the Baptist Says:

    “You list revolver velocities for the .22 Magnum, but thatís not really a fair comparison (and one reason I didnít use those measurements). The gasses escaping from the cylinder gap will significantly reduce your MV. For every 1/1000th of an inch, you will lose more than 50 FPS.”

    I consider losses from the cylinder gap to be offset by the extra barrel length for the single six both stated (4.8 inches vs 6.5 inches) and unstated (because autos include the chamber in their barrel length measurements while revolvers do not).

  8. Sam Says:

    .22 hornet is a better comparison. I’ve had the same argument before, and based on the velocities I found, the 5.7×28 shoots just slightly slower than a .22 hornet with the same weight bullet, out of both handguns and rifles.

  9. Sam Says:
    and here’s some .22 magnum velocities from 8.5″ and 6″ barreled, auto pistols.

  10. Daniels Says:

    Sam: The .22 Hornet does appear to be closer to the 5.7×28 with about 287 Lb.Ft (with a 40 gr. projectile at 1800 fps) compared to the 271 Lb.Ft of the 5.7

    My entire point is that the 5.7 is NOT a “high-caliber high-power” cartridge as it is being made out to be by the media. It’s performance is closer to the .22 Magnum or even closer to the .22 Hornet (I’m fairly certain nobody makes an autoloading handgun in that caliber).

    All of the cartridges here are low powered compared to standard handgun ammunition, 9mm AP (420 Lb.Ft with a 115 grain projectile at standard loads) has better performance than even the 5.7 SS190 AP. And therein lies my point.

    The 5.7 is being made into something it is not. What it is is a flat-shooting low-recoil round initially designed to penetrate light armor. In the civilian world, where AP isn’t available, it is simply an underpowered handgun barely more effective than a .22 Magnum.