Talk:FN 5.7×28mm/Archive 1

Archive 1

External Link

I've added an external link on the 5.7x28mm page (also the Five-SeveN and FN P90 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.

Esteves 21:50, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ammunition descriptions

I've personally handled/fired both the SS192 and the T194.

The SS192 does not have any identifying markings. The T194 is green-tipped (rather than brown.)

Esteves 21:52, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The references I've seen contradict each other, or themselves:

• FNH USA official product page - SS192 supposedly green-tipped, in the pic it's brown (no reference to T194)
• FN Manufacturing - T194 is green, no referece to SS192
• SPA Tactical - SS192 is green, no reference to T194

Since you actually handled the ammunition, I'll take your word for it, but we'll still have to find some concrete proof. Tronno 22:45, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

From the Internet Archives:

• FN Official product page T194 mentioned as green-tipped, no reference to SS192 (circa 2002) The link is borked, but cutting-n-pasting the URL should work.

Esteves 19:18, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The SS190 tip color also varies. Earlier versions had no color marking on the tip, whereas newer ones have a black tip. I think they changed this when the SS192 came out to replace the T194 (Since the T194 had green tips, and SS192 did not have a tip color). I have only handled the black-tipped versions of the SS190, but I know non-tip-colored versions exist.

The Deviant 13:14, 18 Jul 2005 (UTC)

---Added the not-yet-available SS197SR round. I will need someone else to add it to the table of ammo types as I am unexperienced in this. Velocity is 2000 fps (out of the Five-seveN), bullet weight is 40 grains, tip is blue polymer.

-Nobody has yet added anything about Elite Ammunition and their tracer/subsonic offerings, so I did. Also a bit added about handloading, especially since not many people might realize that 5.7 ammo uses the same bullets featured in 5.56 NATO. Pilot 2023 (talk) 04:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Would anyone putting stuff into this article have a vague understanding of gun laws before making edits? Please? There is no such thing as "Class III" ammo. Also none of the 5.7 rounds meet the federal daffynition of "ap ammo". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.219.35 (talk) 04:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Photographs

I added photographs of all the civilian legal 5.7x28 cartridges and included a size comparison with XM193. I thought about using the quarter again for the 5.7x28 comparison but I felt the Air Force lighter gave it a nice Stargate-ish touch.

Metroplex 14:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The "Air Force" lighter may look "cool" but is useless as a scale comparison. Please use either a ruler/measuring tape or else another very well known catridge - such as a 5.56x45. I believe the main/infobox photo should be the one that includes a size comparison. Please don't use a coin such as a US 25c piece, there are many people (myself included) who have never seen one and have no idea what size it is. Roger 16:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No response to my comment above after several months, so now I'm asking - what is the lighter's size? It is an utterly useless photo! Please can someone provide a photo with real "scale". Roger (talk) 11:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It was never intended to be used as an exact scale. You're obviously not a Stargate SG-1 fan, so the reference is lost. (Metroplex (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

How is Stargate SG-1 relevant? I do not understand your expectation that anyone interested in this cartrige also be a fan of a US television series. This is an encyclopedia article about a technical subject, not a personal style statement. In my opinion the photo with the very well known 5.56x45 cartridge is a better choice for the infobox, as it does give a scale indication. Please note also that there is a Wikipedia policy against using coins as scale indicators - Template:NoCoins Roger (talk) 08:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is anyone more likely to be familiar with the size of a 5.56 NATO round than they are with a lighter? The whole 'Stargate' thing is admittedly a little silly, but lighters are pretty common, I am fairly sure overseas though maybe not so much as here, and more people not obsessive about firearms will be able to note its size.--24.255.175.182 (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Because "a lighter" is not a univerally standard object with precisly defined dimensions. BTW what does your use of words "overseas" and "here" mean? On the internet the words "overseas", "here" or "foreign" have no meaning on their own. Roger (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the concept of 'context' is unfamiliar outside the confines of the United States as well, I apologize for assuming this was not the case. To get us processed and on our way, by 'here' I meant the US and by 'overseas' I meant somewhere other than here. So I am saying I do not believe that the US is the only place that lighters are common. In any event, "[b]ecause "a lighter" is not a universally standard object with precisely defined dimensions" is not an answer to the question "Why is anyone more likely to be familiar with the size of a 5.56 NATO round than they are with a lighter?" While it is true that the 5.56x45mm has 'precisely defined dimensions', this does not mean that it will be at all helpful to the average person visiting the page with no particular knowledge of firearms. There is no reason to believe this person will have any particular idea of the size of a 5.56x45mm, and using your argument it would be no less sensible to use some esoteric round like 7.62x45mm for comparison. It does, after all, have 'precisely defined dimensions.' An object more common outside the realm of shooting is called for, and, as you point out, there is a policy against using coins. Which is helpful to point out here, seeing as a coin wasn't used. Anyway, the photographer had to find some alternative to a coin, so the photo features a common object that the photographer had handy. If you have a better idea, you should probably contribute a photograph using an object you would deem more appropriate rather than complaining about someone else's unpaid contribution. Perhaps a 5.7 shell being measured by a micrometer, with a closeup of the measurement.--24.255.175.182 (talk) 11:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The lighter was admittedly included in the photograph as a weak trivia reference. It gives a vague indication of scale and in the author's own words, it was never intended to be used for scale. With that in mind, it doesn't deserve to be included in the photograph at all. I've changed it to a cropped version of the same photograph. A photograph of 5.7x28mm with 5.56x45mm is already included in the Media subsection of this article. If that is insufficient I can personally photograph the cartridge with a measurement, but either way the Zippo lighter doesn't have any relevance. ROG5728 (talk) 10:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

393J

The kinetic energy of the bullet types provided in the side panel do not agree. The first bullet a 2.1g with a muzzle velocity of 716m/s is listed as having 538J of energy, this agrees with the equation for kinetic energy (1/2)mv^2 (Keep in mind you need to divide the mass by 1000 to convert to kg). However, the 1.8 with a muzzle velocity of 701m/s is listed as having kinetic energy of 393J. Given that the first bullet is apparently at its muzzle kinetic energy, if it is not it would have lost some energy in the air, then the 1.8g should be at muzzle energy as well. The problem is that the 1.8g bullet is that the mass, muzzle velocity, and kinetic energy do not agree as (1/2)(.0018*701^2)=442J not 393J.

Specifications should obey the laws of physics. Either the bullets are not at muzzle velocity, in which case the 2.1g bullet should have less energy, or they are at muzzle velocity and the 1.8g has a kinetic energy of 442J. Or, I guess, all of the data could be bad. SMakabwe (talk) 03:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. the other to bullets were slightly off from muzzle energy but within the margin of error because of the 2 digit precision of the weight, though I guess if the grams aren't derived from the grain weight then it would have 3 digit accuracy, I however do not feel like converting gr to g to check. SMakabwe (talk) 03:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

AR-57 rifle

I added the AR-57 rifle to the list of weapons chambered for the cartridge. I'll follow up with a citation. But as this round becomes more popular, when do we quit listing different weapons in that one sentence? Wesbo (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Diagram

The case in the diagram appears to be necked down farther than the photographs show. In fact, it looks identical to the drawing on the 4.6x30mm page, with altered numbers. I'm unfamiliar with diagrams of some sort, so could someone compare the two and make sure they are correct? qwe 18:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Many if not all (rifle) cartridge diagrams use the same drawing with altered numbers. The diagrams for the .223 Remington, .308 Winchester, and 7.62x39mm, are the same basic drawing detailed with the appropriate measurements. 216.196.86.78 (talk) 03:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Photo Boo-Boo

In the 'Photographs' section, the first picture, depicting a number of rounds, is misleading/confusing. The fifth cartridge from the left is clearly mis-identified as a Winchester .300 Magnum, and everything to the left is incorrect, up to the last one, which is not ID-ed at all. I'm no expert, but the fifth cartridge appears to be a .223 or similar (please correct me if I'm wrong), with the sixth being the .300 Magnum. Would someone more knowledgeable please fix this blunder? Terry Yager (talk) 22:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The 5.7x28mm "Cop Killer" Cartridge Myth

Nowhere is the "cop killer" claim specifically mentioned in 5.7x28mm so this article is off-topic for external links. Also as a personal webpage, it is unsuitable here. While I understand the intent of the author in dispelling the "cop killer" myth, the article itself is poorly reasoned or incorrect on several points. ROG5728 (talk) 04:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ballistics graphs

What is the original source of the ballistics graphs? They should be referenced to a reliable source. If they were generated by a user, they should be deleted as original research. 96.35.172.222 (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

GA review

Well-written

• Variations section - List time of service for all bullets listed unless already noted. Some section have them introduced while one has them discontinued. Are some of these variations still in use? If so, state it.
  • SS190 duty subsection
• In the first sentence of the second paragraph, when did the Houston Police Department test these bullets?
  • Non-FN ammunition, use {{Convert}} for the 0.224" bullet for the mm showing listed in the first sentence of the second paragraph. For the last sentence of the second paragraph, define twist rate for those who non-firearms readers.
• Specifications section
  • Define P90 muzzle velocity, P90 muzzle energy, Bullet type, and Effective range listed in the first column of the table.
• Controversey section
  • In the first sentence of the lead paragraph, when did the controversey for the civilian shooters take for the 5.7x28 mm first take place? For the second sentence of the lead paragraph, when did the Brady Campaign make claim on the SS192 testing? Also WP:WEASEL on Brady Campaign "claimed".
  • In the lead sentence of the second paragraph, spell out Five-seven as FN Five-Seven. Also, when were the 5.7x28mm subject to the controversey? Specify?

Factually accurate and verifiable.

• For all sources, list the publisher in italics. See WP:MOS on italics for more information.
• Reference #2, put (in French) in sourcing since this is written in the French language.
• Link not confirmed in Reference #36.
• Reference #39 is the same as Reference #8. Merge.
• Reference #40 is the same as Reference #15. Merge.
• Reference #42 only shows an image instead of a print. Why is an image being used as a reference?

Broad

• Covers all aspects of the bullet's history. - No issues.

Neutral

• No issues - Covers all aspects of the bullet.

Stable

• Last edit done prior to review was on April 30, 2010.

Images

• All images shown are valid. - No issues.

Overall

• Hold. Some minor edits needed, but can be done.

Chris (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Revised 05/06/10

• I added some wording to the Variations section to clarify which cartridges are discontinued and which cartridges are current. Note that the specifications section also lists this information.
• Unknown, no date is given for Houston Police Department's testing of 5.7x28mm.
• In the Non-FN ammunition section I added a millimeter conversion for the .224 in bullet diameter. I also clarified the meaning of twist rate.
• In the Specifications section, I added wikilinks for muzzle velocity and muzzle energy. I also changed 'bullet type' to 'projectile type', and 'bullet weight' to 'projectile weight' for clearer meaning.
• In the Controversy section, I added an exact date for when the controversy and testing took place. I also changed 'claimed' to 'stated', where used.
• I changed the first use of 'Five-seven' in the section to 'FN Five-seven'.
• The controversy essentially concerns both the Five-seven pistol and 5.7x28mm ammunition simultaneously. Much of the controversy is related to the ammunition's capabilities, but specifically when fired from the Five-seven. There is no controversy surrounding the FN PS90 carbine, for example, even though the PS90 is also offered to civilians and uses 5.7x28mm ammunition.
• I looked at the Italics section in Wikipedia:MOS and it doesn't say that publisher names should be italicized. It does say book names should be italicized so I did that.
• I added the French language note to the French citation.
• I fixed the EA citation (#36) link.
• I merged the duplicate citation links.
• I changed the image link (#39) to a link to the actual page where the image is located. ROG5728 (talk) 04:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Use {{Convert}} on effective range of the bullet variations. Forgot to mention that in review. Sorry about that. Chris (talk) 02:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I went back and added foot conversions for effective range in the table. ROG5728 (talk) 04:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Good job. Passed GA. Chris (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to express reservations about the competence of a reviewer who indiscriminately mixes the terms "bullet" and "cartridge". (Just a remark - not intended as an attack.) Roger (talk) 11:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Your reservations are Noted, as are the other comments. The Cartridge, when refered to, is the entire encasement that includes the Bullet, Propellent, Casing and Primer. The Bullet, is the projectile that is fired or propelled from the barrel when the 'firing pin' of the weapon strikes the end of the casing that causes the primer to ignite the propelant and discharging the firearm:: —Preceding unsigned comment added by WatchingDragon (talk • contribs) 12:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Heading Variations should be renamed

The heading Variations is misleading. Variations in the firearm's and ammunition world is a variation on a cartridge. The 5.7x28mm is a Cartridge. Notice what the first sentence says "The 5.7x28mm cartridge is a small caliber cartridge developed by FN Herstal ..." The 30-06 was a variation/variant of the 30-03 which it superseded. Under the misnomer heading variants the article goes on the speak about specific ammunition made in the 5.7x28mm cartridge. So the heading of Ammunition should stand as it provides are far clearer meaning of what is to be discussed. A variant/variation is in fact a separate cartridge. If no specific reason is provided I believe that the Variations should be renamed Ammunition or Available Ammunition as the connotation attached to Variation/Variant is misleading.

Variations is still a better heading than Ammunition, because the entire article is about the ammunition. Ammunition types or something of that sort may be a better heading than either. ROG5728 (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree Ammunitions types is good lets go with that. DeusImperator (talk) 01:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Varieties is another possibility. It's more succinct and it doesn't seem to imply that these cartridges are of some type other than 5.7x28mm. ROG5728 (talk) 01:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Varieties of Ammunition would work DeusImperator (talk) 01:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Varieties of 5.7x28mm Ammunition may also work or or Ammunition Varieties

Change made to Ammunition Varieties DeusImperator (talk) 01:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Why was this changed to Varieties suddenly ? The sub-header was more succinct. The worst choice is Variant.DeusImperator (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I have changed to Factory Ammunition Varieties. If changed or reverted I would like an explanation as it is the most succinct subheading. Do not just revert without providing a reason. In fact this should be taken up by the Wiki firearms project if reverts are taking place ad-hocDeusImperator (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Factory Ammunition Varieties is definitely not succinct. See the definition of succinct here. The new header goes into unnecessary detail. It is also incorrect to call the entire section "Varieties" because non-FN ammunition is mentioned in one subsection. ROG5728 (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

SO what is non-FN Varieties is mentioned??? The heading did not read "FN Factory Ammunition Varieties" DeusImperator (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It also mentions handloading. I think the heading should be "Varieties" - a single word that says everything it needs to. Roger (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

So what? According the that definition we can keep talking about everyone's and their dog's handloads (including my own) as verieties. There is a lot of puppetsocking going on with this article. DeusImperator (talk) 16:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I have been approaced by user:DeusImperator, who stated on my talk page that "Variants implies that there is a dimensional or specification change (as construed by an official agency SAAMI or CIP), this is what most other cartridge related articles treat it as and this is the definition used by the Wikifirearms project. The article is about a cartridge: 5.7x28mm (this appears clear in the first sentence) and a discussion regarding variations pertains to the cartridge. This is how all other firearms articles treat the subject be it the 7.62 NATO or .223 Remington etc. So the article are about (subject) cartridges not ammunition per se. Ammunition is made in a cartridge type (a subtle difference). No one at present makes a variation on the cartridge. They (FN) make various types of ammunition for firearms chambered for the cartridge. This is the idea I was trying to get across. That is the reason why "Ammunition Types" will work but "Variants" is not technically correct." I am posting this for your consideration. --MoRsE (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This editor has already created four different sections here on this subject and we seem to be going from one to the other. To put it briefly, this editor found "Variants" to be misleading, and I agree that it could be changed to "varieties" for clearer meaning. Apparently he prefers "Ammunition Varieties" but this is redundant because the article is already discussing ammunition. Another user agreed that this was a redundant header so DuesImperator decided that that user is a sockpoppet of mine and our edits "constitute vandalism." ROG5728 (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. This is about a cartridge. That is the subject of the article is the cartridge (not the munitions), one for which specs and dimensions have been issued by the CIP. The munitions are made for the specific cartridge. All ammunition which carries a label that declares itself to be a 5.7x28mm cartridge has to comply with the CIP standards governing the cartridge. Cartridges which do not conform to the norms of the cartridge are variants. The header Varieties is ambiguous as the subject is the cartridge not the ammunition. A header such as Ammunition Varieties clarifies that ambiguity. The attempt to treat the article as a personal prefecture where only edits reflecting the will and opinion the a cabal remain is nothing more than ownership of the article. This is not what the Wiki is about. DeusImperator (talk) 21:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

You are creating a very large issue out of something that is not an issue at all. It is extremely obvious that the "Varieties" section header means the various loadings offered in 5.7x28mm. It does not in any way imply that these loadings are something entirely different from CIP's 5.7x28mm. SS190 is one variety of 5.7x28mm. L191 is one variety of 5.7x28mm. SB193 is one variety of 5.7x28mm. Etc. A list of these cartridge types is therefore a list of the 5.7x28mm varieties that are offered. The "Ammunition Varieties" header you propose is redundant and so are the four sections you have already created here on this topic. ROG5728 (talk) 02:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Specifications should be about Subject matter

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)

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

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)

Factual errors

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)

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

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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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)

New title

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)

Savage stopped 5.7 bolt actions. Excel may have, also.

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

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)