Talk:FN 5.7×28mm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article FN 5.7×28mm has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
May 6, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Firearms (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated GA-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Belgium (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
 

???=[edit]

I've pulled about 200 rounds apart as I use the case's for a .17x28, and reused the 40gr V max in my .223. I've found the factory bullets are sealed in place and in order to get them out at all. Must be pushed back into the case a bit to break the seal. For powder. Have been unsuccessful in finding out what the powder is. But, there's 5.0gr of a very fine/almost dust like ball powder in this blue tipped v max.

I would like to know if this is patent protected round in the 5.7 form and whether a person could chamber their own arm with this cartridge. Although, it is very low velocity and of limited use. The .17x28 case produces in excess of 3000fps with 20gr v max. Very good prairie dog round for under 200yds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeld (talkcontribs)

Article is treating ammunition as if they are actual variant[edit]

The tone of this article attempts to talk about every piece of ammunition made as the 5.7x28mm cartridge and attempts to pass them off as variants of the 5.7x28mm. They are not. The methodology of the article is analogous to writing an article about the 30-06 Springfield and then filling up space talking about the myriad of ammunition made for the 30-06 be it military or civilian and going on to length talking about the Remington, Winchester, Federal, etc etc etc ammunition as variant. These are in reality different loadings of the same cartridge. We all know that there are no variants of the 5.7x28mm as Belgium is a member of the CIP and has to abide with dimension and specifications enforced by the CIP in Belgium when a cartridge if called the 5.7x28mm whether it be imported, exported or manufactured in a CIP member state. The ammunition infobox reserves the Variant designation for cartridges that have a difference in dimension or specification. For example the .280 Ackley Improved would be a dimensional variant of the .280 Remington or the .38 Special +P+ would be variant of the .38 Special by specification.

We would not consider Remington's R30061, RL30062, PRSC3006C, PRA3006A, R30062, R30063, PRC3006A, L30062, PRA3006B, R3006B, PRC3006B, PRA3006C, PG30064, RS3006A, PRSC3006B, PRC3006C, R30064, R30065, R30066 and R30067 separate variants. This is just ammunition made for the .30-06. The street name of the cartridges are as follows:

  • R30061 Remington® Express® 125 Pointed Soft Point
  • RL30062 Remington® Managed Recoil® 125 Pointed Soft Point Core-Lokt®
  • PRSC3006C Premier® Scirocco™ Bonded 150 Swift™ Scirocco™ Bonded
  • PRA3006A Premier® AccuTip™ 150 AccuTip™ Boat Tail
  • R30062 Remington® Express® 150 Pointed Soft Point Core-Lokt®
  • R30063 Remington® Express® 150 Bronze Point™
  • PRC3006A Premier® Core-Lokt® Ultra 150 Core-Lokt® Ultra Bonded
  • L30062 UMC® 150 Metal Case
  • PRA3006B Premier® AccuTip™ 165 AccuTip™ Boat Tail
  • R3006B Remington® Express® 165 Pointed Soft Point Core-Lokt®
  • PRC3006B Premier® Core-Lokt® Ultra 168 Core-Lokt® Ultra Bonded
  • PRA3006C Premier® AccuTip™ 180 AccuTip™ Boat Tail
  • PG30064 Remington® Premier Green® 180 Lapua Naturalis
  • RS3006A Premier® A-Frame 180 A-Frame™ Pointed Soft Point
  • PRSC3006B Premier® Scirocco™ Bonded 180 Swift™ Scirocco™ Bonded
  • PRC3006C Premier® Core-Lokt® Ultra 180 Core-Lokt® Ultra Bonded
  • R30064 Remington® Express® 180 Soft Point Core-Lokt®
  • R30065 Remington® Express® 180 Pointed Soft Point Core-Lokt®
  • R30066 Remington® Express® 180 Bronze Point™
  • R30067 Remington® Express® 220 Soft Point Core-Lokt®

Are the editors and contributors getting bamboozled when they see a manufacturers ID for the ammo just because there are a bunch of alpha numeric characters and think it is something special? I can understand writing about ammunition which was adopted by the military, but that is not the thrust of the article. It talks about discontinued ammo etc. If someone was talking about discontinued 30-06 ammo one could write a two book volume on it. At present there are over 200 factory loads for the 30-06. Oh and the R30069 is really a variation of the 30-06 street name = Remington Accelerator saboted .224 bullet. DeusImperator (talk) 09:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any of the uses of "variation" in this article are as misleading as you make them out to be. The L191 tracer is accurately described as one variation of the 5.7x28mm cartridge. It is 5.7x28mm, but it is a unique variation, or type, of 5.7x28mm. It is a tracer cartridge, and it is the only tracer cartridge produced in 5.7x28mm. The format used in this article is not analogous to listing every loading produced for the .30-06, because less than a dozen FN factory loadings (past and present) exist, and FN does not frequently add to this lineup. ROG5728 (talk) 09:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
The question to ask is ... so what? Just because FN produces less than a dozen it is not suddenly analogous to listing the available factory loads for the cartridge? The fact that they are list alone proves the analogy. The tracer round is not a variation but falls within specification for the cartridge. The cartridge has no variations. It is indeed misleading as it is used in the article.
The 5.7x28mm cartridge is produced in several variations. SS195LF and SS197SR variations are available... Treating different factory loadings as variants
Several specialized variations of the 5.7x28mm were also developed alongside the SS190, such as the L191 tracer round and the subsonic SB193... again treating different factory loadings as variants
introduced to civilian shooters alongside the new Five-seven IOM variant... again treating different factory loadings as variants
SS197SR variations, which are available to civilian shooters... talking about FN factory loads for the cartridge
SS198LF variation which is restricted by FN for law enforcement and military customers... again factory loadings
SS190 variation is capable of penetrating... The SS190 is the first production factory load... What is this the variation of???
And it goes on.
None of these are Variations on the cartridge. They are indeed the same cartridge, so they are not variants. I think noting the tracer is fine and should be included but lets not call it a variant. The term is absolutely misleading as the term is reserved for cartridges that do not conform in some what to some specification and that is what the infobox is supposed to be for. The redirection is stupid because none of these are variations.

Do edits of this article require the Approval of dodge67 and/aka Roger?[edit]

It appears any changes to the article requires the approval of these two individuals working in the fashion of a cabal. This is not what the Wiki is about. The reverts are akin to vandalism and protectionism. Thank you for you contribution but this is not YOUR article to protect. Maintain yes. No one can make an edit in good faith here without the approval of the cabal. DeusImperator (talk) 17:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

First - I object most strenously to this personal attack. Second - I am one person, not two. My username is "Dodger67" and my signature is "Roger". Third - No I am not in control of this article - I am merely excercising my right to express my opinion and edit it the same as you or anyone else. It just happens to be my opinion that your proposal/objection has no merit as anyone with a reasonable understanding of the English language can figure out what the word "variety" or "variant" means without futher restrictive qualification. Roger (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh so let me get this correct. You are the judge of what proposal/objection is correct with regard to this article? Perhaps you do need to understand the connotation of the word variants as it is applied in the project. In essence no one's opinion will be allowed unless it passes your approval, that is in essence what you are saying. Your reverts constitute vandalism. The over sight that is provided by Rog5728 and Roger is akin to protectionism and vandalism. DeusImperator (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I have better things to do with my time on WP than to argue with someone who thinks all who dare to disagree with him/her are vandals. Roger (talk) 19:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are edited by consensus. Up to this point consensus is that your (DeusImperator's) edits to this article do not improve it. I did go through and change all uses of "variation" to "varieties" for clearer meaning, per your comments. I also changed the section header back to "Varieties" because "Ammunition Varieties" is extremely redundant in an article about ammunition. If you still aren't happy with the state of the article in this regard, continue discussing it here. Stop reverting -- consensus does not agree with your edits. Slinging baseless personal attacks will only hurt your cause. ROG5728 (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus of two? That is not consensus. That is vote counting among three. If there is consensus to be reached it should be presented to either the Wikifirearms project or other independent editors who are familiar with the subject. "Varieties" is ambiguous. Varieties of what? Cartridges? The subject is cartridges not ammunition. Under the header the subject deal with ammunition made for the subject (the 5.7x28 cartridge). The heading "Ammunition Varieties" clarifies the ambiguity. DeusImperator (talk) 21:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Specifications should be about Subject matter[edit]

Header Specification should discuss cartridge specifications not ammunition specifics. Specification for the 5.7x28mm cartridge is provided by CIP and should be discussed here. This pertains to the cartridge dimensions and specifics. In fact, there is European Parliamentary ministerial oversight even though not all EU members are members of the CIP. So there is some official sanction regarding the specifics of the cartridge. Ammunition made is required to comply with cartridge specification. There writers of the article show much confusion between what constitutes a cartridge and what constitutes ammunition made for the cartridge. DeusImperator (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Factual errors[edit]

Jean-Paul Denis and Marc Neuforge designed the bullet. They did not design the SS90 ammunition for the 5.7x28mm cartridge. FN manufactured the the SS90 ammunition. InfoBox entry is incorrect. The error leaves the reader with the false impression that Jean-Paul Denis and Marc Neuforge not FN designed the cartridge. There is no evidence that Jean-Paul Denis and Marc Neuforge designed the 5.7x28 cartridge. DeusImperator (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not a "factual error." Jean-Paul Denis and Marc Neuforge are the only specific individuals known to have contributed to the design of the SS90, therefore they are the only individuals listed in the infobox. It is very clear that FN as a company developed the 5.7x28mm ammunition. This is stated in the first sentence of the article summary. ROG5728 (talk) 03:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

New title[edit]

Per recent discussion at WT:MOSNUM, I went ahead and moved the article title from 5.7×28mm to FN 5.7×28mm. That is technically the full name of the cartridge (see official product website), and the change should simultaneously remedy the problem of trying to be a bit more descriptive in the title without being unnecessarily wordy or redundant. Furthermore, the article title is now consistent with the titles of the two associated 5.7×28mm weapons articles (FN P90 and FN Five-seven), which both include the name of the manufacturer/designer: FN. ROG5728 (talk) 07:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank God nobody in academia takes y'all seriously anymore. When you start dismissing conjecture on reliable sources simply because those sources don't explicitly spell out the conclusion in question, you prove a certain point: you're a fucking lunatic.

Gah! Sorry Rog, that gem was intended for the policy wonk in the next section. Still getting used to the tablet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.117.67 (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

5.7x28mm not in the same class as the .22 Hornet/K Hornet[edit]

While the 5.7x28mm can attain velocities similar to the .22 Hornet or K Hornet, the Hornet does so with a bullet nearly twice as heavy. This means the 5.7 is in the 350 ft-lbs class, and the Hornet is in the 550 ft-lbs class. This would be similar to saying that the .30-30 WCF is in the same class as the .308 Winchester. As one has 150% of the energy output of the other, this is patently false. In actual performance terms, the 5.7 FN is in the .22 Remington Jet or 5mm Remington Magnum class, being maybe 35% more energetic than .22 Winchester Magnum from similar barrels.

Source: Hodgdon: http://www.hodgdon.com/

The information contained in the Guns & Ammo source that currently stands in the article is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BabyOlifant (talkcontribs) 07:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

That's incorrect. The 5.7x28mm is actually capable of a muzzle velocity of 3060 ft/s with a 28-grain bullet out of the 16-inch PS90 barrel, which is identical to the muzzle velocity of a 35-grain .22 Hornet out of a 24-inch rifle barrel. Overall, the ballistic performance of the two rounds is very similar, despite the .22 Hornet being fired out of a barrel that is 50% longer than the PS90 barrel. ROG5728 (talk) 08:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, a 35 grain bullet is 25% heavier than a 28 grain bullet, making your comparison invalid, and secondly, according to Hodgdon, an online reloading manual (due to Hodgdon's interface, I cannot link you to the exact page), the .22 Hornet will produce 2,861 fps with a 35 grain bullet from a 10" pistol barrel (Thompson Contender/Encore) at standard pressures, while according to online reloading manual loaddata.com, the 5.7x28 FN will produce only 2450fps with the same weight bullet from the 10" P90 barrel. While in bolt actions, the 5.7 FN can be loaded more hotly, so too can the .22 Hornet. At standard factory operating pressures, the .22 Hornet significantly outclasses the 5.7x28 FN. This makes sense, despite the similar case capacities of the two cartridges, since the .22 Hornet was designed for bolt action rifles, and the 5.7x28 FN was designed for a very mildly delayed blowback weapon (the P90) BabyOlifant (talk)
If we step back for a moment - the discussion about what class the cartridge is in appears to be original research by wikipedia standards. Meaning that someone has checked a couple of facts and is now making a judgment based on them. We're not allowed to do such things here. Everything needs a reliable source that makes such claims. So if you have a source that says the cartridge is in such-and-such a class, then feel free to include it. If you have to make your own energy or weight or speed comparison, then it doesn't belong. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
That, and the comparison currently in the article (from G&A) is valid anyway. When both cartridges achieve 3060 ft/s, the only difference is that the .22 Hornet is slightly heavier. However, the .22 Hornet in question has been fired out of a 24-inch rifle barrel, while the 5.7x28mm has been fired out of the 16-inch PS90 barrel. If the 5.7x28mm were to be fired from the same 24-inch barrel as the .22 Hornet, would it conceivably parallel its performance? Absolutely; so yes, the G&A comparison is valid. ROG5728 (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not submitting my own research; I seek to prove that the G&A source is unreliable. Sure, you can down load .22 Hornet so it produces the same performance as 5.7x28 FN, and you can up load the 5.7 to make them match, but in actual factory loads and reloads safe for their respective firearms, the 5.7 FN produces much less energy. Data available on numerous websites (which may face liability if their data is incorrect) disagrees with the source (which is of a notoriously unreliable nature), and thus, the source should NOT be considered reliable. It's absurd to claim that the 5.7 FN is in the .22 Hornet class, when from the same barrel lengths, one produces 150% the energy of the other. Numerous data available on the Internet says G&A's numbers are wrong, so the source should be reevaluated and that line either deleted from the article or a suitable source found and used to replace it. It's also worth noting that your 13.85grs H2O case capacity figure is most likely wrong; not only do 5.7 case shoulders move forward when they are fired from a P90 or PS90 (because the weapon is delayed blowback), and thus several very high figures for the case capacity of the round may exist, but also information on various reloading websites gives us figures for the actual case capacity of the round to be anywhere from 10.5 to 13.4, with the smaller value probably more likely due to the advancing shoulder issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BabyOlifant (talkcontribs) 23:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
EA's 5.7x28mm ammo types are "safe for their respective firearms" and are indeed similar to the .22 Hornet in terms of performance. Again, compare EA's 28-grain 5.7x28mm load at 3060 ft/s to the 35-grain .22 Hornet at 3060 ft/s. The .22 Hornet in question has a projectile only 7 grains heavier than the EA load and it has been fired out of a 24-inch barrel, whereas the 5.7x28mm load has been fired out of a 16-inch barrel. If the same 5.7x28mm load was fired out of a 24-inch barrel, it would easily match or exceed the performance of the .22 Hornet load. ROG5728 (talk) 00:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Simply saying that it's in the hornet class or any other class is WP:OR unless you have a source that says it. Putting data and making your own conclusion is the definition of original research. Either we have an article that compares it to the hornet, or we do not. If we have an article, and someone disagrees with the article, they need to provide an alternate source and explain why it's "more correct". AliveFreeHappy (talk) 00:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Savage stopped 5.7 bolt actions. Excel may have, also.[edit]

I noticed that the link to the savage 5.7 was dead, and none of their current firearms are offered in 5.7. In addition, it appears that the development of Excel 5.7's is on an indefinite hold. Skiendog (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Caption In Bullet Comparison Photo Cannot be Correct[edit]

Near the bottom of the article is a helpful photo comparing the 5.7x28mm to other bullets. The caption on the photo cannot be correct, because there are 8 bullets in the photo, and only 7 listed in the caption. One of the two rifle cartridges near the shot gun shells is missing from the caption. Unfortunately I don't know which is which, I would just be making stuff up, so cannot fix it. Crispincowan (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I count 8 listed in the caption. Lklundin (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
You're right, i miss-counted the self-referential 5.7x28 because it didn't have a hyperlink. Sorry for the bother. Crispincowan (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Bad numbers on SS90 AP FMJ?[edit]

The listed mass of the SS90 AP FMJ round doesn't seem right. The listed value for the kinetic energy is 540 J, however if you use KE=(1/2)(m)(v)^2 the actual value should be around 360 J, using the values m=1g and v=850. If you rearrange the equation using the listed kinetic energy and velocity to solve for mass, m=2(KE)÷v^2, the value of the mass should be near 1.5g. Is this an error, or is there a reason for this strange energy output? (Or alternatively if you solve for velocity while keeping kinetic energy and mass the same the result comes out about 1,040 m/s.) BradandRose725 (talk) 06:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The SS90's mass is 1.5g, not 1g. The table shows it as 1g due to its display properties. ROG5728 (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I see now. Thanks for clearing it up. That makes much more sense, before I also didn't check the conversion between grains and grams(23 grains comes out at around 1.5g). Anyways, thanks again for clearing up my confusion and sorry for causing any trouble.BradandRose725 (talk) 06:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)