Why Don't Law Enforcement Use the Five Seven Pistol?

When discussing firearms used by law enforcement, the FN Five Seven pistol often causes debate. The FN Five Seven was designed primarily as a secondary weapon, intended for non-frontline troops who needed a reliable and versatile weapon, capable of penetrating body armor. Its effectiveness is not in question, especially with its ldquo;APrdquo; (Armor-Piercing) rounds. However, for law enforcement, multiple factors come into play, making its widespread use a far less practical option.

Theoretical Success and Real-world Challenges

The FN Five Seven's ldquo;APrdquo; round is indeed very effective. Given its light recoil and ease of loading, it can penetrate steel plates and withstand a high rate of fire. However, for law enforcement, this effectiveness has some significant drawbacks.

When dealing with unarmored targets, the AP version of the round struggles to replicate the wounding capabilities of modern 9mm bullets. This means that while it might be extremely effective against barricaded suspects or vehicles, it is less so against non-threatened individuals. This limitation in effectiveness against unarmed subjects makes it a less desirable choice for patrol officers and regular street operations.

A Wider Range of Weapons

One of the primary challenges is the availability and widespread issuance of rifles and carbines, typically chambered in .223 caliber, to law enforcement. These more modern and powerful firearms are preferred over the Five Seven for their greater stopping power and versatility in different tactical scenarios. The .223 rounds are designed specifically to penetrate through bulletproof vests, offering better protection to officers from indirect threats. This shift in availability has effectively diminished the need for a secondary weapon like the FN Five Seven.

Legal and Practical Considerations

Another significant challenge lies in the legal and practical aspects of using ldquo;APrdquo; rounds. These rounds are heavily regulated and are illegal for civilian use in most jurisdictions. If law enforcement were to use them, officers would face a number of logistical and security issues.

For instance, officers would either have to use standard (non-AP) ammunition, which doesn't provide the same penetration capabilities, or purchase and track ldquo;APrdquo; ammunition, which poses significant risks. The restricted nature of the ldquo;APrdquo; rounds means officers issued with these rounds would need to be extremely responsible, as the magazines and ammunition have a very high black market value. This raises concerns about accountability and negligence, particularly if rounds are lost or misplaced.

Additionally, training with ldquo;APrdquo; ammunition is risky. If an officer trains with 200 rounds, they might end up losing some of them. Precisely accounting for every round is nearly impossible, and the responsibility for identifying the source of lost ammunition can put officers in a difficult position, potentially jeopardizing their job security and reputation.

The Real Problem: Body Armor Penetration

The most critical issue, in my view, is the inherent risk posed by the ldquo;APrdquo; ammunition's ability to penetrate body armor. This problem adds a layer of paranoia for police officers. If a cop is issued with a weapon that can penetrate their own armor, how confident can they be about their safety? This uncertainty could lead to a significant shift in the dynamics of conflict, potentially increasing the risk of accidental self-inflicted injuries or equipment malfunctions.

The very presence of such effective rounds in the hands of multiple law enforcement officers could lead to a dangerous situation where police body armor might become less effective. With broad adoption of ldquo;APrdquo; ammunition, it's not a stretch of imagination to envision a scenario where large swaths of police forces are exposed to the same vulnerabilities they are meant to prevent. This would create a catch-22 situation where police might become less safe, which would, ironically, undermine the very purpose of body armor and advanced training.

In conclusion, while the FN Five Seven pistol and its ldquo;APrdquo; rounds are undoubtedly effective and reliable, the practical and legal considerations inherent in their use largely outweigh the benefits, particularly for law enforcement. The risks and logistical challenges associated with widespread adoption make it a less viable option compared to the more modern and versatile firearms currently in use.