Talk:FN Five-seven/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1

old comments

Please add encyclopedia content, so that this is more than a catalo entry or ad. Thank you. Wetman 22:32, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I attempted to add some more content, but you must understand the 5-7 is a fairly new weapon and has not been proven "on the streets". There's certainly not as much information available on its performance, design, history, etc. as there is on, say, the M16. Tronno 17:39, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Can anyone explain to me exactly what the strangely shaped trigger guard is for? I suppose one could use it with two fingers, but I just can't figure it out. Also, isn't "plastics and polymers" redundant? Lostchicken 23:29, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Added info for unique trigger guard shape. (I have read on FN's old site it was for gloved use, and have seen one or two 'promo' shots showing gloved use.) Yes "plastics and polymers" is redundant and should be changed. The Deviant 20:53, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Added external link and Variants info

I've added an external link on the Five-seveN page (also the FN P90 and 5.7x28mm pages) to point to my blog, where I have been collecting information about the 5.7x28mm weapons system. My hope is to distill/sanitize much of the information that I've been blogging into the Wikipedia entries.

I also added information on the IOM and USG models and a parenthetical note that 10 round magazines are available.

Esteves 21:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Speaking of external links, maybe someone could fish up a link to the Gemtech suppressor and LDI laser "made specifically for the Five-seveN", because I've been able to find any information of either (not that I've thouroughly researched it).--Seven11groove 20:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Added Sentence

I added "(written Five-seveN to accent Fabrique Nationale's initials)"

The Five-seveN capitialization format is non-standard. The firearm is simply, the Five-Seven.
Wrong. The pistol IS called "Five-seveN." Try checking FN's websites.
This seems to be correct [1], is it worth moving the page to FN Five-seveN? Riddley 00:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This Article Already Needs a Rewrite

There is too much information in the first few paragraphs with regard to the cartridge (already discussed in the 5.7x28mm page) that has little to do with the handgun itself.

There are also too many "this gun can do this" references, again, which should be (and probably are) in the 5.7x28mm page, as the handgun itself can not do these things, the cartridge, however, can (certain ones, at that).

Anyone have a comment?

Your complaint should be lodged with User:, who wrote over everyone's contributions on August 11. I vote for a total revert, while keeping in mind that he did add a few bits of new information. Anyone else? Tronno 14:29, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Ah. I see now. Maybe some of that could go to the round's (5.7x28mm) page, and the corrected info stick around on this one... I dunno. The Deviant 20:49, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)

---I am the user who wrote over the previous description. I felt the previous overview was too short, so I pasted in a lengthened description containing some more new info. The 5.7x28mm has everything to do with the handgun itself. The entire design and characteristics of the pistol revolve around the rifle-like ammunition. I included the info on what the Five-seveN will do, because it is necessary to distance the capabilities of the 5.7 ammo when fired out of the Five-seveN from the capabilities of the ammo when fired out of the P90. That can only be done if you give unique figures in both the Five-seveN and P90 sections. I also edited the contents of the Variants section as much of it was entirely incorrect. (there has never been a DA version of the Tactical, IOM, or USG versions.)
I understand your motivation, but the next time you feel information in an article is missing or incorrect, edit it selectively instead of doing a complete rewrite out of the blue (rewrites are also discussed on the talk page well in advance). Moreover, I agree with The Deviant that you went off-topic on the ammunition - we already have a separate page for that. Tronno 01:25, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

--Sorry about the rewrite. Feel free to edit or remove any unnecessary references to the ammunition.
I take issue to the comment about the bullet entering and then tumbling, end over end. I'm sorry I don't remember the source but I remember reading recently that there was a controversy over that tumbling concept, and it was studied and determined that the bullet does not tumble. It in fact does one half turn after impact, causing the heavier trailing end of the bullet to end up in front due to the momentum. It didn't tumble repeatedly.

The image needs to be updated as well. That's the first generation model, and the newer ones don't have that bulb on the front of the trigger guard. 06:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

All are still Five seveNs, regardless of "generation", however, I think a pic of each of the generations would be a good idea. The Deviant 15:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


Anyone have an objection to me templatizing the insert on the page to the wikipedia firearm template? The Deviant 15:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Battlestar Galactica?!?

I don't think I've EVER seen a Five-seveN (or a P-90) on BSG... Was the person who put that in there thinking of Stargate-SG1 maybe? It (and it's spin-off, SG:Atlantis) uses the P-90 regularly, and the Five-seveN occasionally. MyrddinEmrys 02:45 March 9, 2006 (EST)

I havent seen every episode of BSG, and it is a sci-fi Channel show (home of SG-1, definate P-90 users.) However, the long arm ive seen used most often is the Beretta_Cx4_Storm Cmschroeder 23:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Originally they used a modified revolver for the Colonial sidearm. But obviously it had only a limited amount of ammo despite appearing to be semi-auto. Later they switched to the Five-SeveN to get some real semi-auto action. The newer pistols can easily recognized by their black grip instead of the wood. They feature in "Home, Part" and very prominently in "Flight of the Phoenix" on the firing range 15:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

See . --CalculatinAvatar(C-T) 21:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

They definitely use Five-seveNs in BSG. The newer episodes have more of them. They often have some type of attachment on accessory rail to make it look more ..uh.. futuristic? Just look for ugly pistols, and a closer look will likely reveal a Five-seveN or a disguised Five-seveN (don't get me wrong, I love this pistol, I even own's just not the prettiest thing to look at). -user:Bobbfwed 17:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

First season had a custom 'thing' that seems to be a revolver in disguise. Other seasons have used random pistols such as the Vector CP1. FN 5-7 introduction is recent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Five-Seven production year

Would it be safe to say if the Five-Seven was made back in 2000? 03:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Five-seveN Image

I added the latest image to the article, and we have had some controversy on whether it is a USG or IOM model. I bought the gun about 2 months ago (so I assumed I was getting the USG model), but the box it came in had IOM as part of the SKU (or some other series of numbers and letters), and the manual which was in the box also said it was a manual for the IOM model. Is there anyway to prove what model it is? Bobbfwed 16:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The image used at the top of the page is of the USG model, not the IOM model. You can tell by the design of the trigger guard and the hand grips. As you can see on the official FNH USA site (see the link at the bottom of the wiki page), the USG is identical to the one shown in the picture shown here. Furthermore, to the best of my knowledge, the IOM is not available to civilians — only the USG is. JGoodman 22:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS to move page, per discussion below, and per WP:MOSTM. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

FN Five-sevenFN Five-seveN — from WP:RM#Uncontroversial moves, as clearly not uncontroversial. Original rationale was "Correct capitalization. — 23:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)" [ Chris cheese whine 02:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC) ]


Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

  1. Support- It makes sense for the title to be the official one decided by the company, not some unrelated people on the Internet. - 06:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    Actually, it makes no sense at all. Chris cheese whine 01:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  1. Support - The weapon is called the Five-seveN simple as that. Just because it lies outside some of our standards (some of which are debatable and should be open to further discussion) doesn't mean we can't use the proper naming. It would be like calling the MP5 the SMG5 because those arrogant Germans are using their German Maschinenpistole 5 designation as a fancy marketing gimmick. Koalorka (talk) 18:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

  1. Oppose, since according to WP:MOSCL and WP:MOSTM, Five-seveN is not the correct capitalisation. FN have their house style, we have ours. However, it may need a move to Five-Seven. Chris cheese whine 02:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Not our style to use fancy marketeer's typography; they could change tomorrow; general usage won't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


Add any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

How about some description of how the thing works? I agree that a lot of the terminal ballistics info should be on the cartridge page, the gun is the means of delivery, so lets have something about it, for example a description of the delay system? someting about the trigger and striker mechanism? how about some pretty pictures of the parts? by all means stick something over the serial numbers for anonymity's sake

Controversy section

Its unfortunate that the words "cop killer" have made it on this page, when in fact the phrase itself is a lie. There is not certain weapons that kill police officers, unfortunately they are just as vulnerable as the rest of us. I was thinking of adding this to the end of the controversy section:

"The term "cop-killer" was coined by anti gun enthusiasts in an attempt to demonize certain weapons and ammunition. Armor piercing is the correct term for most of these weapons. Unfortunately, just like any human, a cop can be killed by a .22 caliber hand gun (when shot in a vulnerable area) which is considered the weakest of the widely distributed low power guns."

I can back all of that up with references but I was concerned about editors thinking it was all opinion, so I posted it here first. Viperix 22:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The first line of the overview is bogus, it could actually be the subject of a whole essay discussing whether any handgun cartridge is adequate for stopping an armed assailant at reasonable range. Massad Ayoob (firearms instructure, expert witness, author and cop) writes that a man bringing a handgun to a fight should always consider himself underarmed. Handguns come in many many calibers and none can be considered typical. Many of those won't reliably stop anyone or anything. Chann94501 06:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This entire section appears to be a political statement about the nature of "cop killer" ammunition, and is lacking in sources for several important claims, particularly that the Five-seven has not been "used in any recorded crime". Objective presentation of controversial information requires both sides of a debate, properly sourced, and treated with neutrality (See: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). Not being an expert on this firearm, I won't attempt to re-write this section, but I'm highly skeptical of some of the unsourced statements and frankly they come off as biased, which is not in keeping with the purpose of Wikipedia. I'm not arguing the truth of any particular statement or suggesting that the author is incorrect, merely advocating for a more objective article. Additionally, parts of this section aren't specific to the Five-seven firearm at all; perhaps presentation of the larger debate over armor-piercing bullets more properly belongs within the Armor-piercing article; it would probably attract more attention there from knowledgeable users on all sides of the debate and thus give us a richer understanding of the different points of view (and hopefully better sourcing too). -- Daqron 19:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Tagged as NPOV and with a few {{fact}}s. If the AP ammo isn't available to the public, why is it a "cop killer" weapon? I agree; the entire section looks POV - I'll add a link to Armor-piercing as a "main article". OSbornarf 22:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC) - update: I couldn't find a section in armor peircing round about "controversy", if someone can find that, please add a {{see}}-also tag. OSbornarf 22:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This BBC article mentions the Five-seveN (though not by name), and its increasing popularity in Mexico with drug cartels, and includes this: "Newell says the round has a special nickname in Mexico. "It's called 'mata policias,' or 'cop killer,' " he says." I'm not sure how this factors into this debate, just wanted to point it out. Fogster (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

See WP:GUNS#Criminal use. I would be careful, that article you just cited has a rather glaring error, calling the 5.7 round a "rifle" round. I also question the nickname, though I have no evidence disproving it, just doubts when it comes to the reporting of nicknames by the media. The Five-seven being found in Mexico is true, though.--LWF (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

New Variants

The FNH USA site includes two new variants, the ODG, which appears to have a greenish handle and the FDE, which has a more tan handle. As astute as these observations are, it would be better encyclopedic information if we could gain insight as to why these new variants have been made, and what (besides the color change) if anything, has been changed. edit: The site has no information to this end, seek other sources of information. LIMEY (talk) 07:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggesting move cartridge data out of this article

The Overview section contains many paragraphs that concern the cartridge this gun fires, not on the pistol that is the subject of this article. These contents should be removed here, and perhaps put in another article. Spectre9 (talk) 04:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


Since FN markets the gun as "Five-seveN" the article title ought to use the given name, FN Five-seveN. (The FN handgun for "5.7x28mm" was named the "Five-seveN" (with cap-F cap-N) to emphasis the ammunition (5.7) and the maker (FN).

I believe this has been argued before. See the archives. Essentially, Wikipedia's style guidelines trump marketing. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 01:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Muslim terrorist Nidal Hassan - Ft. Hood rampage

Hassan is the most famous Five-seveN user in history, and as such deserves a listing under the Users section. Please do not revert this addition. --Akbar XP (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

No, the shooting is already covered in the controversy section. The users section is only for military and law enforcement groups that issue the pistol, not individuals. — DanMP5 17:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Nidal Hassan is waging war on behalf of militant Islam. Based on your criteria that clearly qualifies. --Akbar XP (talk) 18:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
That certainly doesn't clearly qualify. The "religion of islam" does not issue any firearms. Hassan bought his Five seven himself, and went on a one man killing spree. I will repeat: the users section is only for countries who's military or law enforcement issues the firearm to their personnel. It is simply not for individuals who used the firearm in a single incident. Subjects such as this, when notable enough, are covered in the main article; in this case the controversy section. To avoid WP:3RR which would get us both blocked, I will kindly ask you to remove the disputed content until this issue is resolved. — DanMP5 18:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I made the original addition noting that Hassan had used the Five-seveN on his rampage at Ft. Hood. How is it not relevant to an entry on the weapon that it was used in such a notorious and cowardly act? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gooseinoz (talkcontribs) 01:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
By your logic, we should go back to every major terrorist act and put them into the pages of the guns that were used. Sorry, no. There was nothing unique about his use of this gun in this shooting. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 02:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Five-Seven vs Five-seven

The title of this article is FN Five-seven (as opposed to Five-Seven), so I edited the contents of the article to follow that spelling. If you disagree with this change discuss it here. ROG5728 (talk) 05:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw this note after posting my comment below, "Trademark." "Five-seveN" is a registered trademark and its usage should comply with the MoS and, to the extent the meat-grinder approach of the MoS to trademarks permits, with proper trademark usage. (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Current model

As of today, lists the Tactical, not USG. (talk) 07:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Despite what the text says there, that is a USG variant pictured. The international FN Herstal website isn't updated as frequently or as accurately as the FNH USA website.[2] The FNH USA website lists the USG (and accompanying FDE/ODG frame colors) as the current model of the Five-seveN.[3]
There are also other citations in the wiki article that give dates of introduction for some of the models. I can't find an exact date for the introduction of the Five-seveN Tactical, but I do know it was introduced shortly after the original DAO model in the late 1990s. I can find mentions of the Tactical variant in gun articles as early as 2000. Meanwhile, the USG variant was introduced in 2005. The Five-seveN FDE and ODG (from 2009) are simply different colors of the USG, so I included them briefly in the USG section rather than giving them their own sections. ROG5728 (talk) 08:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:FN Five-seven/Archive 1/GA1


This pistol is not "marketed as" the Five-seveN. "Five-seveN" with the unusual capitalization (not spelling) is a registered trademark of FN Herstal Corporation, Belgium, Serial No. 2096923. This is clearly indicated (by ®) in the Owner's Manual cited in the article. As a patent & trademark attorney I disagree with the Wikipedia Manual of Style on how trademarks should be presented, but even within the bounds of the MoS it should at least be correctly described and used. (talk) 03:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You are correct and I clarified the article on that point. Looking in the archive here, the capitalization usage was discussed awhile back and no consensus was reached. I agree that the manufacturer's capitalization style should be used throughout the article for sake of clarity. The pistol is always referred to as the "Five-seveN". ROG5728 (talk) 05:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

User section

I'm not convinced the table format is appropriate for user sections, it compresses too much information into a single non-sentence and doesn't allow for other minor details to be mentioned. Fallschirmjägergewehr 42 (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

All of the minor details (model, quantity, date) were retained when the users list was converted into table format. ROG5728 (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
One could always add a "notes" column if necessary. SCΛRECROW 02:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

"Controversy" section not neutral

I've created a thread at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#FN_Five-seven_.22controversy.22_section_has_a_pro-gun_stance. I invite responses there.--Father Goose (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I incorporated some of your feedback into the article: the NRA quotebox was replaced with a neutral quotebox discussing the controversy; the chronological placement of some text was edited; and the specific wording was edited in some places (e.g. one case of "both bills failed to proceed" was changed to "neither bill proceeded"). Some of your other feedback is misguided. Some comments here, since the noticeboard is already crowded:
  • The term "sporting ammunition" is being used to denote that the ammunition is not defined as being armor-piercing, and that it is therefore legal for importation; it's not a euphemism. For example, FNH USA said: "The only 5.7x28mm cartridge commercially available for the Five-seveN handgun are of a sporting nature as per BATFE classification." [4] And similarly, with regards to the pistol itself, ATF said: "The FR 5.7 (Fabrique Nationale) pistol is a semiautomatic pistol in 5.7 X 28 mm caliber approved for importation as a sporting firearm."[5]
  • The NRA pointed out that ATF-classified armor-piercing varieties of the 5.7x28mm cartridge are only offered by FN to military and law enforcement customers.[6] You are correct in stating that this doesn't necessarily mean SS192 cannot penetrate body armor (like the Brady Campaign claimed), but it is still important for readers to understand that ATF-classified armor-piercing 5.7x28mm ammunition types are not offered by FN to civilians. If this was not mentioned, readers might assume it's the other way around.
  • FNH USA's testing (using a Level IIIA vest) is relevant to a counter-argument because a Level IIA vest (as used by the Brady Campaign) offers a relatively low level of protection. A large number of calibers (including pistol calibers) will penetrate a Level IIA vest, so FNH USA's indications could be used to argue that the Brady Campaign's findings were not surprising or notable, because a higher level of protection (Level IIIA) did stop the SS192. With this in mind, there is no reason to include the very vague statement you mentioned that says that "while the commercially available ammunition can in rare cases penetrate some body armor used by law enforcement, these bullets cannot pierce other models of bulletproof vests."
  • The primary concern of gun control groups is that the pistol would be used to kill American police officers.[7] With that in mind, yes, it is definitely worth noting that since its introduction to civilians in 2004, the pistol has never been used to kill an American police officer. ROG5728 (talk) 08:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll get back to the above points in a bit. I've done a fair amount of research and I am suggesting something along the following lines be added to the article:

The Five-seven is the only widely available pistol on the market that fires modern personal defense weapon rounds, a class of ammunition developed explicitly for the purpose of defeating body armor.[1] Although FN restricts sales of all rounds officially defined as armor piercing by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to law enforcement and military customers only,[2] the SS192 and SS195 hollow point bullets still have substantial armor-penetrating ability.

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ), the US agency responsible for setting standards for body armor, has listed the SS192 round as a "special type threat of particular concern to law enforcement".[3] FN has claimed the SS192 will not defeat Level IIIA armor (the NIJ's highest defined grade of "soft" body armor, suitable for all-day duty use), although FN did not specify what protocol they used for their tests.[4] Armor manufacturers following NIJ standard testing protocols have identified the round as being capable of defeating standard Level IIIA armor. Manufacturer Pinnacle Armor ranked the SS192 round's penetrative ability (as fired from the Five-seven) as belonging in a class with the SS190 armor-piercing round and several AP rounds in other calibers.[5] Manufacturer Blackhawk's "Elite" ballistic vest, certified to stop the SS192 and other NIJ "special threat" rounds, uses 43 layers of bullet-resistant fabric versus 32 layers in its standard IIIA-compliant vest.[6][7]

According to manufacturer ArmorShield USA, the slower SS196 V-Max round can be stopped by NIJ Level II or IIIA vests, depending on velocity.[8]

--Father Goose (talk) 06:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

  • The first source you cited (Future Weapons) doesn't say that the Five-seven "is the only widely available pistol on the market that fires modern personal defense weapon rounds." Regardless of whether or not that is true, to say it in the article without a supporting source would constitute original research because the claim would not be verifiable. On top of that, the statement you propose is misleading because it implies that the 5.7x28mm cartridge types as a whole were "designed explicitly for the purpose of defeating body armor," when in fact that is not true with regards to many of the types; only the SS190 and other restricted types were explicitly designed by FN for that purpose.
  • The second source you cited (BATFE) doesn't say that "the SS192 and SS195 hollow point bullets still have substantial armor-penetrating ability." Again, without a source this statement would constitute original research.
  • The third source you cited (NIJ) is speaking very broadly because it also lists common 9mm, .40 S&W, and even subsonic .45 ACP rounds as "special type threats of particular concern to law enforcement." Most of the bullets listed are not capable of penetrating even the weakest types of soft armor.
  • It is true that "FN did not specify what protocol they used for their tests," but this argument is not used by the Brady Campaign or other gun control groups. The Brady Campaign's unclear testing protocol is only brought up in the article because the NRA explicitly used it as a counter-argument.
  • The fifth source you cited (Pinnacle Armor) may be worth including in the article; so long as it is also made clear that a common shotgun slug was listed in the same category, and more importantly that the SS192 has not been offered to civilians since 2004.
  • The sixth and seventh sources you cited (Blackhawk), again, also list common 9mm and .40 S&W rounds as "special threat." This makes it obvious that when they use the term "special threat" they are speaking very broadly, or simply using wording that markets their product more effectively. ROG5728 (talk) 06:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Controversy section...again

I know this horse has been beat before, and to the best of my knowledge it's still dead...but I'll give it a whack anyway. I fail to see the point of the 'Controversy' section for this article. Numerous types of guns have been used to commit crimes (as well as knives, hammers, cars, and nun-chucks). Specifically listing the Ft. Hood massacre and the Mexican Drug War will certainly elicit emotion, but that isn't sufficient justification to mention them in the article, let alone having a separate section. It brings an element of ridiculousness to the article as an information piece. I'm new to the Wiki world, so I'm still learning the rules before I edit articles so as to avoid starting an edit war.

That said, if Wikipedia is going to be a useful tool, this kind of silly 'agendizing' must end. I just made that word up...feel free to coin it as your own. --Jazzcat23 (talk) 12:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

See the WikiProject Firearms guidelines. Per the guidelines, criminal use is noteworthy if it resulted in legislation being passed, or if the weapon's notoriety was greatly increased by said criminal's use of it. In this case, the notoriety of the Five-seveN pistol was dramatically increased as a result of the Fort Hood shooting; the Mexican Drug War is lumped into the same section because it is one aspect of the gun control argument. If you read the rest of the talk page, I was actually recently accused of "agendizing" against gun control proponents, not for them, so it's not that simple. I do happen to be a gun enthusiast myself, but I want the article to be neutral, and I have strived to make it so. At this point, I don't think the article leans one way or the other in terms of neutrality. The gun control arguments are presented, but so are the counter-arguments.
In the end, regardless of which side you take, it is most certainly noteworthy that there is substantial controversy surrounding the Five-seveN pistol -- and this controversy is expanded in great detail only for sake of completeness. It hasn't been given undue weight; keep in mind, this same article goes into great detail across the board. For example, it mentions tiny details about the pistol such as the fact that its chamber indicator can be felt by hand in low light. ROG5728 (talk) 07:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I understand where you're coming from, and my statement about an agenda could have been clearer. Aside from those who have a particular point to make (anti/pro-gun(me included)), did the events listed in the controversy section bring substantial, widespread notoriety to the Five-seveN? The media and gun control crowd made a stink about the ammunition it fired (based on faulty information) and the magazine's capacity. The pro-gun crowd reacted as it always does when a gun is faulted for a crime (instead of the individual). From my personal experience (which carries no weight with Wikipedia), most people at the range I frequent have no idea what the pistol is when I pull it out. Upon learning it's a Five-seveN, not a single person identified that weapon with Fort Hood or the Mexican Drug War...and these are regular shooters. Again, that's just my personal experience...add $1.09 to it and you can get a cheeseburger from Mickey D's.
By no means am I ragging on the article's quality. It's a good piece and I appreciate your willingness to expand on why the section is included. Thanks! --Jazzcat23 (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


There is video available on Youtube of the FN Five-seveN being fired with and without a suppressor. It serves as a reminder that all the commercially available 5.7 x 28 ammunition has a muzzle velocity in the neighborhood of Mach 2 and even with a suppressor there is the pronounced crack of a supersonic round. Only the restricted access SB193 is subsonic. Should this be noted in the section that mentions suppressors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Infobox image

I replaced the infobox image with a new image and moved the old image. The new image is higher quality and it shows the pistol as it normally appears—without any accessories attached. The old image illustrates the pistol with a light attached, so I moved it to the Sights and accessories section of the article. ROG5728 (talk) 12:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The all-black controls model shown in the new photo is also non-standard, as it was available exclusively through the distributor Acusport. They are still available new on the market, but are not mentioned in the current FN catalogs. (talk) 11:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
The only "non-standard" details visible in the current photo would be the color of the safety and magazine release. Aside from that, the model pictured in the infobox is identical to a standard Five-seveN USG pistol, as currently offered by FN Herstal. ROG5728 (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Muammar Gaddafi death

I removed the recent addition on Gaddafi's death -- it is pure speculation at this point (two of the sources included in the paragraph say he was instead killed with a 9mm), and speculation certainly does not belong in GA articles. At the very least, the paragraph would need to be completely reworded. It also has no relation to the Controversy section of the article, where it was added. ROG5728 (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Secret Service Use

The 2010 FN Military & Law Enforcement Catalog cited as one reference for use of the Five-seveN pistol by the US Secret Service contains no statement to that effect. Likewise the Tactical Life article. The Belgian article also cited on this point appears to conflate the Five-seveN with the P90, which is well known to be used by the Secret Service. It would appear that only the Janes book clearly supports the claim.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 06:10, March 17, 2012

The 2010 MIL/LE catalog is cited as a source for the number of law enforcement agencies using the weapon, not as a source for the U.S. Secret Service. The Tactical Life source does support the statement it's cited for, and the Jane's source supports usage by the Secret Service. With that in mind, nothing you tagged in the article is dubious, nor does any of it fail verification. ROG5728 (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


Hi, is there a page on internet (obviously don't have the publication referenced) that lists all 40+ nations that use the gun? --Amendola90 (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


While I was searching on the net, there was a lot questions like: "Should I reload the 5.7x28mm? Also, one Five-seveN USG owner got injured by his own Five-seveN pistol, here's the link - [8] Gladius123p (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Anything about reloading would go on the page for the round itself, FN 5.7×28mm. As for injuries, a forum post isn't considered a reliable source. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Handloading any caliber for any firearm may result in injury if not done correctly; this has nothing to do with any particular cartridge but is a general principle. That said however, I believe there is a reference on the 5.7x28mm page that says handloaders consider it a "difficult" round as it has very precise tolerances.Darthpaul23 (talk) 04:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


Seeing as how the Five-seveN has dozens of users, why isn't there a section or information on the reliability of it (like the Beretta M9), or the effectiveness of the round (like the M4 Carbine). Grizzly chipmunk (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Scrath the effectiveness part. Grizzly chipmunk (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)