 Join our Discord!
|
| If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here. |
Talk:FN Five-seveN
Additional Images
Naming
hello, (my first post ever here)
can someone edit the page itself so it is referred to as: "FN Five-seveN" (I don't know how to do this, I came across this issue when trying to search for this firearm but struck me a strange that there was no entry for it, then I realised the description is incorrect in the database)
that, I have seen, is the official designation by Fabrique Nationale de Herstal (and FNH USA): http://www.fnhusa.com/le/products/firearms/model.asp?fid=FNF003&gid=FNG001&mid=FNM0004 http://www.fnhusa.com/le/products/firearms/family.asp?fid=FNF003&gid=FNG001&cid=FNC01
also, should I edit all other references of "FN Fiveseven" to "FN Five-seveN®", adhereing to FNH's registered trademark usage,
thanks(!!)
- The name change is done. I don't know if the trademark thing is really necessary, though. Spartan198 02:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Stopping Power of this pistol?
First Person Shooter games I've played featuring PDWs often have them possess a low damage-per-bullet firing ratio. This, of course, is usually made up with a high firing rate for the PDWs, but both the Five-SeveN and HK's "Ultimate Combat Pistol" are semiautomatic. I've heard criticism about how PDW rounds with their low diameter supposedly have low stopping power (especially in semiautomatic pistol applications), but I'm not sure just how close to reality it is.
I can't help but wonder if FN saved the medical data from the Fort Hood massacre to determine just how much stopping power the Five-SeveN actually has on unwilling human subjects. After all, I'm sure the autopsies (for those who died) and the trama reports (for those who survived) are quite detailed with respect to which ammunition was used, how the victims were hit and why they died or survived. Could be quite interesting for someone looking to "improve" the lethality of the ammunition and "reduce the failure rate." While "live" weapons testing on live human beings (much like how feudal Japanese swordsmiths often handed their creations to skilled swordsmen to chop cadavers or execute condemned criminals all in the name of weapons testing) is clearly unethical and legally banned today, I am still driven to wonder if such study methods would be more accurate than testing on ballistic gelatin, cadavers, etc.
I also hear that the HK UCP was cancelled, though I can't find out the exact reasons why. Pff, there is no "ultimate weapon" in a class for all situations, and to claim otherwise is arrogance at best and false advertising at worst. Maybe it would have succeeded if it was a machine pistol, could take the MP7's 40-round magazines, and called the MP7 UCP (which in this case would stand for "UltraComPact").
In any case, I'd like this cleared up on whether this popular perception of PDW rounds having low per-bullet-stopping power ratios is accurate or not. --Mazryonh 04:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- With regards to the second paragraph: You see, this is why we need D-Class Personnel. Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2017 (EDT)
First rule in terminal ballistics is Shot placement. that is the most important aspect of killing anything with bullets. second is the size and design of those bullets. With any given bullet design the size and weight of the bullet is some indication of how much damage it will do. The issue with PDW rounds is that they take an assault Rifle round and put it into pistol sized package. this means that the penetration is better than a normal handgun round but the damage is not that much better. There is a reason why such weapons as 5.56mm Entryguns are so popular.Rockwolf66 04:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- PS: the 5.7X28mm round blows up milkjugs really good when fired from a FN FiveseveN pistol. Rockwolf66 (talk) 04:32, 19 March 2013 (EDT)
I would think that any round with enough muzzle energy would be able to blow up milk jugs "real good." Anyway, in the time between now and my initial discussion entry for this subsection, I came across a terminal ballistics expert's view on the stopping power of short SCHV cartridges (like the 5.7x28mm and 4.6x30mm cartridges) and the outlook isn't positive, to say the least. I'd still like to hear about anyone's real life experiences with this pistol--maybe someone really has "made like Sam Fisher" with this platform.--Mazryonh (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2013 (EDT)
The Hit List (2011)
Just a heads up: the Five-seveN is used extensively by the villain in The Hit List (2011), and there is even a scene where detectives have a conversation about the gun. I noticed the movie doesn't have its own article yet, but I added it to the films list in this article. MDM282 23:21, 22 May 2011 (CDT)
threaded barrel and silencer aftermarket item
May I grin at the idea of a silencer on a pistol with a muzzle velocity at least twice the speed of sound? I know that silencers are useful for supersonic rifles in at least confusing the source of the muzzle blast at a distance, but pistols are used at short range. 9mm with silencer is used with ammo with 147gr bullet at subsonic velocities. Any rational for silencing a pistol with supersonic ammo, beyond reducing the level of report that reaches the shooter? Or is there a reason it is an aftermarket item only? --Carl N. Brown 09:54, 4 August 2012 (CDT)
- Doesn't it also reduce the muzzle flash? I've heard that the 5.7 generates a really bright one, so a suppressor seems like it would be useful. - User: 2wingo
Yes, long pistol rounds like the 5.7x28mm, the 4.6x30mm, and the 10x25mm rounds will all produce a lot of muzzle flash from "common" pistol barrel lengths. In general, the narrower the projectile fired and the longer the casing of the round in question, the more muzzle flash will result. The former is because the flash is transmitted towards the muzzle more efficiently due to a narrower barrel, and the latter because there is more smokeless powder to burn and produce that flash. This is exacerbated the shorter the barrel a round is fired from. A suppressor will give more room for propellant gases to burn and thus reduce or eliminate muzzle flash--this will extend to the Five-seveN, though of course subsonic loadings of the 5.7x28mm cartridge are missing the point--a small, high velocity caliber intended to penetrate soft body armour. --Mazryonh (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2013 (EDT)
Manufacturer name
I was browsing over FN's website and they refer to the "USG" model as the "MK2" [1]. Should we use that name? Spartan198 (talk) 04:39, 8 August 2013 (EDT)
- Never mind, I missed the MK2 model on the main page. Spartan198 (talk) 04:41, 8 August 2013 (EDT)
They're not referring USG as the MK2, there are few small differences, MK2 has black controls while USG has grey, you can also see somekind of notches on the front part of the slide. From en.wiki: "This new model has cocking serrations on the front of the slide as well as on the rear. It has been reported to have a one-piece metal slide (under the polymer cover), whereas the previous models have a two-piece welded metal slide. The rear sight on the adjustable-sight version has also been changed, with beefed-up construction and white straight-edge sight references compared to the present three-dot target-style sights; these have been described as "combat adjustable sights". The MK2 as shown has a black frame and slide, with flat black controls in place of the grey controls of the IOM and USG models. FNH is not currently stating on their site whether this model will be produced in any other colors." (Credit to ROG5728) TitaniumAlloy (talk) 11:14, 9 August 2013 (EDT)