FN FiveseveN Warning *Picture Heavy*

Wristtwister, and other posters,

I am the father of F3rr37, and I am the one who introduced him to firearms and reloading.

So, if anyone wants to throw anything, throw it at me, I'll take full responsibilty for his actions anyday!

My kid is very intelligent and a perfectionist, and he can reload for me any day.

He has full access to my firearms anytime, and has full permission, matter of fact he doesn't need permission he's my kid!

As far as going after my property insurance, that's not going to happen. He has medical insurance to cover his injury, and if it was my fault it would come out of my pockets. We take care of our own.

Even after his accident we have been shooting together.

He also has full access to the range that we have anytime he wants to shoot.

Matter of fact my son uses the range more than I do, and he brings his trusted firearms friends along all the time.

This whole situation came into play when FN failed to come up to the plate. Our biggest complaint is lack of customer service and support. It wasn't until after Jake posted the incident that they decided to contact him to get the ball rolling.

If they had been taking care of their customer this probably wouldn't have made it to the net.

To those of you who blame the reloads, please don't reload as you are a safety concern. Also, don't rebuild your car engine, it might blowup, so go buy a new car!

Thanks to those of you for the support, and those with an open mind.

Arleyg

If you plan to sue, contact the BATF and see if you can get the straight scoop about that business of a returned gun having to be destroyed. Sounds bogus to me, especially if it is to be evidence in court.

By the way, if I were on the jury, I would approve no greater award than the price of the gun plus medical bills; assuming everything said here came out in court and nothing to strongly contradict it.

Arleyg,

Welcome to The High Road.

I'll accept that the pistol fired out of battery.

My question is what held the pistol out of battery?

I have asked in a few of my previous posts for more pictures of the different parts of the reloaded ammo. Basically I was told that the ammo was not a problem, but no pictures were produced. From the 1st post by f3, it's obvious that he has the ability to take/post pics.

Pics that would help me understand that the ammo was proper:

1. Detailed photo of the cartridges from the right side of the photo.
2. Photo of the primer of the detonated cartridge.
3. Photo of the some of the reload batch in a set of calipers.
4. Measurements of the shoulder and neck.


An explanation as to why no crimp was used in an autoloading firearm would also help clear up the confusion.

Again, welcome aboard.

This is quite a story. Makes me glad to have a steel frame. That gun was literally torn apart.

I think you misunderstood me...

Arleyg,
I certainly wasn't implying that your son loaded the ammo wrong or overloaded it or anything of that ilk. Clearly the gun misfired and the evidence is clear in the pictures that something bad happened while he was shooting that wasn't supposed to happen.

My suggestions about filing insurance claims was to cover his expenses and focus the costs associated back at FN. I certainly understand that the problem here is FN's lack of customer service... nothing that your son did.

I'm glad that he's insured and being taken care of for his injuries. That was my concern, not playing the blame game. Sorry if I wasn't clear about that.

I would worry that someone else would have a similar experience if FN's approach is to sweep this under the rug as they appeared to want to do... and destroying the gun after examination appears to be tampering with the evidence in a product liability case to me (by FN).

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I hate to see public companies put out products that put us at risk... and until they could show it wasn't a design flaw, error in production quality, or something of that sort, I would be focused on product liability. I've probably fired a couple of hundred thousand reloads over the years, and few of them ever actually caused a problem, and most of those were shotgun reloads that bulged the barrel or fizzled and failed to eject.

Please be assured that I support both you and your son in this case, and certainly don't think any fault of this mishap was attributable to him. That was not what I meant to imply at all.

WT

This whole thread makes me wonder what a manufacturer must do to prevent problems resulting from someones reloads?

Having also fired tens of thousands of my reloads through a hundred or so firearms, all of which were and are declared to be warrantiless by their manufacturers if reloads are used (wonder why this is? Maybe some reloads cause problems sometimes?) but being careful with my loads has been good enough. And, by using them I have assumed the risks.

In this sad case, being careful aparrantly WASN'T good enough and it went BOOM! No fault of FN.

Should they have printed "We REALLY don't warrant this pistol if you use reloads! REALLY!! Yes, we mean it! No kidding around this time!"ect. Where does it stop?

X-ray vision?

RecoilRob,
did you examine the pistol in question with your X-ray eyes and determine that... or is it just supposition?

Failure analysis on mechanical parts isn't as simple as just saying "this happened and that causes that to happen"... it takes scientific analysis and close examination. Those reloads might have had absolutely nothing to do with the problem... which might have happened with "manufactured" ammo as well as the reloads. It simply hasn't been determined what caused the failure... only that a failure occurred. The pictures show the results, and will provide some information.

This could be a "one in a million" failure, or a "bad batch" of manufactured pieces causing the failure, or a design flaw that will reoccur repeatedly... or "bad mojo" at this point... no one knows until the pistol is examined and some experts figure out how it happened (first) and then "why" it happened. Everything else falls in place from there.

I've done a lot of "failure analysis" in industry, and it takes more than just a theory of why something happened. There could have been a metal failure, a mechanical failure, a faulty primer in the shell... any number of possibilities at this point.

I once had a complete pumping station destroy itself because someone decided to put a smaller diameter drive shaft on the pumps in it, and failed to install a steady bearing to stop the shaft from flexing. It literally ripped the pumps off the floor and tore the piping off the pumps... but no one would know that without scientific analysis of what occurred. There were all kinds of theories before we actually figured out what happened there as well... so be patient... once this pistol is examined, if FN is smart, they will spend some time and money trying to make this re-occur to prove their explanation of the facts.

FN should have the parts X-rayed, hardness tested, etc. to make sure there isn't a material failure first, and then start looking at the design and the other parts involved (ammo). It might be that they never figure out what actually caused the problem... but there are thousands of people shooting reloads without blowing off pieces of their hands. I line up beside them at the range every weekend.

WT

Fun with reloads.

Mis-sized reloads could keep it from locking up, wrong powder charge, wrong length, operator error, could cause problems.

My post was out of frustration in the abundance of broken promises that I had received. I wanted to see if someone else could get more information than I could from FNH, because from the half dozen telephone calls that were made and received I had been told numerous things and they never happened. I never asked for anything from FNH, I just wanted to know if someone would want to take a look at what happen to help me understand further what caused this problem.

Click to expand...

Regardless of the cause of the Kaboom...that ^^^ is THE issue. Had you not posted publicly, you would still be sitting at home, looking at your broken gun, wondering what really happened, and being pissed off. It sounds like you and FN learned a lot. I think we all did. It seems that poor communication creates a lot of income for lawyers these days. God bless the internet.

Wristtwister: IMO, it doesn't matter WHAT the pistol was made of, or whether a mechanical defect was present or not. When someone decides to use ammunition that is SPECIFICALLY BANNED FOR USEAGE in the firearm lest the Warranty be voided......how much clearer can it be? He decided to use his ammo and this clearly is verboten by FN.

Many, if not most, gun builders say 'don't use reloads' but will cover them blowing up when they do out of good will to avoid bad PR. This doesn't mean they are accepting the blame. FN has agreed to replace the pistol...even though the ammo very likely caused it to KB.

Of course, we in the gun realm are being deluged with KB'ing 5.7's aren't we? Yep, every day we hear of another one. Bad design for sure.....not.

Nothing at ALL wrong with the design or build. And, even IF this particular pistol WAS built wrong or defective in ANY way.....the OP took the responsibility upon himself by rolling his own for it. If I was on the Jury there'd be no sympathy for him from me. (Other than the feeling for a brother in reloading who came to grief. I DO feel for him, just don't hold FN responsible for the blowup).

Oh, on this same thought....if you bought a Kerosene heater and decided to put gasoline in it, despite the warnings of what fuel to use, when it blows up in your face do you think there should be a detailed metallurgical analysis of the heater to determine the failure mode? Lawyer talk. Come ON! Let's be men and responsible for our actions when we decide to violate the 'rules'.

YOU reload, YOU take the risk and responsibility, PERIOD. Any question of manufacturing defect goes out the door when you reload. Besides, I have never heard of a 5-7 Kaboom being used in service/public after millions of factory rounds....and one kaboom while "testing" a "reload" and someone (not the OP) is suggesting lawsuit??

You experiment with non-stardard bullet/charge, then you're just asking for trouble. I think the OP is LUCKY to be getting a new gun, I hope that the hand heals well and that you won't experiment with untested loads.

Any suggestion of lawsuit is simply ludicrous and lacking in insight. If I were the company, I would contersue for libel. Do we really want to see an inprint on all of our firearms that says "do not experiment with untested reloaded ammunition"?? Thanks to greedy, worthless lawyers we have enough of those signs, please don't encourage to add more.

What you are saying does not mater, recoilrob, or wristtwister.
The point here is that the 5.7 is an incredibly confined chambering, and the pistol is designed to scrape up every bit of power of the round it was designed for. when you change the design of the round, and push the envelope, you are asking for KB. Just look at the patents and the pistol design.

55 grains was probably too darn heavy. after too many rounds that held the extremely high pressures for just microseconds longer than design, the gun failed catastrophically.

Moral- DONT 'experiment' with pistols that fire bottleneck/spitzer rounds, because they probably weren't designed to be experimented with.

Their guide has load data for 35, 40, and 45 grain bullets for the 5.7 cartridge. They do not show any load data for 55gr.

Click to expand...

Their guide also says to use only flatbase bullets, unlike what was done here. I have to say that 5.7 is alot more finnicky then I originally thought it was.

I feel badly for the young man in question here, and as others
have voiced, I hope his hand is healing nicely.

I own a Five-Seven, and have run approximately 700 rounds of
the factory ammunition that was designed and manufactured specifically for this weapon.
Bullet weights fired were pretty much evenly distributed
between the 28 gr. JHP and the 40 gr. Blue Tip V-Max. Personally, I would never,
ever consider a handload/reload to fire out of this particular firearm.
I'm quite pleased with my Five-Seven, and plan to continue to enjoy
it, heeding the manufacturer's specific instructions with respect to the
use of factory-produced ammunition only. I hope this unfortunate incident
does not dissuade others considering a Five-Seven purchase from doing so.
IMO, this is a great little gun, and a real joy to shoot.

"My question is what held the pistol out of battery?

I have asked in a few of my previous posts for more pictures of the different parts of the reloaded ammo. Basically I was told that the ammo was not a problem, but no pictures were produced. From the 1st post by f3, it's obvious that he has the ability to take/post pics.

Pics that would help me understand that the ammo was proper:

1. Detailed photo of the cartridges from the right side of the photo.
2. Photo of the primer of the detonated cartridge.
3. Photo of the some of the reload batch in a set of calipers.
4. Measurements of the shoulder and neck.


An explanation as to why no crimp was used in an autoloading firearm would also help clear up the confusion."

2. This would help...but you'd need to see it beside a factory round and if the primer brand was different it might be difficult to make a judgement.
4. It would be interesting to see the shoulder height vs. factory, and the total height.

Not sure what you mean by crimp? I haven't reloaded in years but when I did I recall only crimping lead revolver rounds, that had crimp grooves, but not auto rounds that had smooth metal jackets. In the auto rounds it was more of a pressure fit than a roll over crimp.

wristtwrister, RecoilBob has a point. There is a reason why the warranty doesn't apply to reloads. From a statistical standpoint, reloads are a problem.

Arleyg, it is wonderful you are supportive of your son. However, taking responsibility for his actions is just plain silly as he is an adult. He is responsible for himself. As for the whole thing about being a perfectionist and what not, the opinion is nice, but immaterial, just like when folks claim their relative would not commit some crime and they say it with conviction. Perfectionists make mistakes too. Like I said above, I knew the story would be interesting when the words "testing" and "reloads" were being used together.

The gun may be at fault for the problem, but statistically, I would bet the other way. It may be that the gun does have a mechanical/design defect, but that the problem was not the cause of the KB.

While I feel for the OP who was injured, I can't really go along with the idea he is a "perfectionist" if he's using bullets for which there is no load data.

You reload, you assume responisbility for what happens just as when you tinker with your car and it goes haywire it's not really Ford's fault.

I really appreciate threads like this. Although I've never reloaded - I've learned a LOT from reading this. Also, it gives me a "heads up" on different things that could cause problems like these. While we have no way of knowing the exact cause of the problem - this thread has oppened my eyes to many things.

Do not reload this cartridge unless you completely understand this system!

If you do not create the appropriate pressure at the appropriate time you will create a catastrophic failure. I am not saying this is what happen in this case, so let me explain.

The 5.7x28mm has been through milions of dollars of testing to make sure this does not happen. I am sure that no one on this forum or any other has put in the time to develop the exact timing needed to produce the proper timing of this cartridge. Without this timing and proper development of pressure at the exact time you can cause the slide to start the rearward progression too early. This premature movement will result in the pressure spike occuring after the case has been partially removed from the chamber. And I beleive everyone knows what the end result is.

Pressure from the expanding gasses will folloow the path of least resistance. If the case is partially removed before it has developed all the pressure quess where that path is now?

The cartridge is designed to form to the chamber during this process, this is why it the shoulder is not the same after firing factory ammo. The shoulder forms to the chamber and is all a part of this critical timing.

I personally would not reload this ammo. I am saying that as one man to another, not because of company policy. I reload, I have loaded more than 500,000 rounds of .38 super for competitive IPSC/USPSA competition. I understand the need for reloading as it does save money and you can create a load that works for your needs. This cartridge is not as easy to load because of the timing and pressures. It was never intended to use heavy bullets with high velocities. Light bullets create the high velocity not heavy bullets.

Click to expand...

Wow - he is only helping the case of this person and other plaintiffs.

Let's see what we have here:

1. The gun and the round are very, very, very, very different from most auto pistols, in that the timing and the specs of the ammo are CRITICAL to keep the gun from exploding, due to the extremely unique design and extreme sensitivity to out of spec ammo. So different and dangerous in fact, that a technical worker who WORKS for FN says that he wouldn't even try to reload it, due to the high danger factor.

2. Many, many people reload handgun rounds through ordinary auto pistols without a problem - rounds and guns which are not so critically sensitive to slight (and common) errors in reloading. No guns are forgiving of serious errors, but the vast majority are tolerant of very small errors in ammo specs. Morever, FN KNOWS this fact, that many people reload handgun rounds.

3. Given the above, shouldn't FN issue a bold, conspicuous, clear, dire warning to purchasers of its guns, warning either against reloading it at all, or at least giving a strong recommendation not to try to reload it? I think the answer is clearly yes.

4. So the question becomes, to what extent did FN issue a warning to INFORM the owners of the extreme sensitivity of ammo to prevent catastrophic failures? What's in the manual? On what page? How many warnings? How big? How bold? How conspicuous? Is the slide stamped "DO NOT RELOAD FOR" or "FACTORY AMMO ONLY"? Were there any special stickers or inserts on the box, stuck to the pistol upon purchase, or anywhere else, containing this very important warning? I don't know, but it doesn't sound like it. Could very well be a high degree of negligence on FNs part, if it's so very very different from other guns as the FN representative keeps trying to convince us (to the detriment of their defense of this and potentially many other cases). If I was FN, I'd start stamping "FACTORY AMMO ONLY; DO NOT USE RELOADS" on the slide of every gun, starting today. Why not try to protect the unsuspecting public from injuries, and help avoid lawsuits from injuries from here on out?

I mean, issuing these warnings now is great for future purposes, to protect the average joe and themselves, but these warnings are TOO LATE for this person and maybe others, if there weren't warnings on in the manual and other paraphernalia that came with the gun. Not everyone reads thehighroad or accurate reloading's site - nor should they be required to read, in order to buy a gun and reload for it.

In other words, we the public DON'T need after-the-fact, CYA, blame-the-user warnings about the sensitivity of the reloading process. We DO need these warnings when we BUY the gun! Maybe someone with a manual can tell us what warnings about reloads are contained therein? Just saying "using reloads voids the warranty" isn't nearly enough of a warning - the warning doesn't match the potential danger and sensitivity level, seems to me.

Any suggestion of lawsuit is simply ludicrous and lacking in insight. If I were the company, I would contersue for libel. Do we really want to see an inprint on all of our firearms that says "do not experiment with untested reloaded ammunition"?? Thanks to greedy, worthless lawyers we have enough of those signs, please don't encourage to add more.

Click to expand...

I think you'd change your tune in a heartbeat if it was a loved one of YOURS that deciding to take up reloading (encouraged by you), and was as careful as he/she knew how, but made a very small mistake in reloading, and resulting in a serious injury, due to the extreme difference and extreme senstitivity of this gun, if there was no warning at all given to your loved one (or to you, to pass along to them). I'm not saying there wasn't enough warning - I don't have a manual - there may have been. But there definitely SHOULD be a warning, and if it means stamping it on the barrel, then so what? Who cares? It's ugly as sin anyway - why not a warning that might save many a serious injury? Again, it's easy to be all high and mighty and condescending until it's YOUR loved one that is hurt - even if they are exercising *normal* prudence in reloading, not realizing that they *should* be using extraordinary care and prudence.

And by the way, you don't HAVE to stamp something on the gun - it can be as simple as a seal or tag stuck to the gun when you buy it, that must be taken off by the purchaser before using, that issues the warning. It doesn't have to hurt the aesthetics of the gun to be an effective warning - maybe FN did that - I don't know. But I doubt it, or they'd be pointing out that fact now, and they don't seem to be emphasizing the level of warnings.

[P.S. I fully believe the FN rep when he says it won't fire out of battery. I don't think that's the issue here.]

Look on barrels for 10/22 (I think it is those maybe some other brand) it is stamped on there "May cause death or injury" yeah no kidding,
it is everywhere, don't use your toaster in the bathtub scrutiny I'm not saying the OP was careless or anything like that he just tried to see how it worked out and it did not, that risk though was taken upon by him, FN should in no way be responsible for that, They should put a reason for not reloading in the manual, (which it says you should read before shooting).

^^another ambulance chaser??

The fact is...probably a lot of people roload this round already....and do it right according to specs....no problem. Encouraging a lawsuit with a KB caused by an experimental/untested load makes all of us shooters look like fools, not just yourself, so please keep it to yourself.

Loading NOT according to manual is a "small" mistake?? To me (and for the vast majority of reloaders), that's "potentially fatal/disabling". If you think that's "small" then you have no business talking about reloading, period. And to me, that is not the definition of a "perfectionist", but that's just IMHO.

what does the glock warning say?

does the warning about reloading in the glock manual include info about lead bullets and the chance of increased pressure?

I dont own one but that may be an example of a reason vs just CYA

-Tsi

Manufacturing faulty vs careful reloading

This discussion has been interesting, and it makes me wonder if when we buy a gun we shouldn't read every single word the manufacturer has to say about the operation of their piece PRIOR to purchasing it.

The people I know who reload are quite careful to build their bullets to specs that are usually found in a MANUFACTURER'S handbook. While I'm sure that they don't have measuring devices that measure every shell like a manufacturer's quality control does, they are still careful to make their "product" "up to spec" per the manufacturing handbooks... so unless they're supposed to fire the reload just to see if it works, there has to be some faith that it does, and that it does BASED ON THE RELOADER'S MANUFACTURING SPECS.

I've got all kinds of guns that have fired reloads without a single problem. Most of the time, misfires are simply "no fires"... and I fired a .40 cal factory round this past weekend that totally fizzled out of the barrel. That "quality control" device for a MANUFACTURER completely missed that the shell didn't have a full load of powder, and I could have thrown a rock harder than the bullet came out of the barrel of my Smith. Luckily, it wasn't a factory round used in self defense.

Funderb...
you said "The point here is that the 5.7 is an incredibly confined chambering, and the pistol is designed to scrape up every bit of power of the round it was designed for. when you change the design of the round, and push the envelope, you are asking for KB. Just look at the patents and the pistol design."

As somebody who has done failures testing before, it's not always the "advertised" problems which occur, and your suggestion is correct to look at the patents and the pistol design... as well as the loading information of the reloads. The operative phrase would be "figure out what caused the problem", and then proceed from there. Looking at the safety factors involved, you still have to realize that you're dealing with a contained explosion, and whether or not the explosion which occurred was "out of spec" for the design, or simply a mechanical failure which the reload did not have any relationship to causing. The idea that reloading data for the loads in question aren't in the manufacturer's manual don't necessarily mean they exceeded or abused the limits of the pistol's design.

You said "the pistol is designed to scrape up every bit of power of the round it was designed for"... and without a detailed examination of those factors, I don't know how you can make that statement. It's a "pressure vs containment" issue, and I couldn't make a blanket statement regarding the reload exeeding those limits without some data... and we have none, other than what's been posted here.

I would be interested in reading a failure report of the incident and the device involved, however... put together by a lab that does failure testing and after a careful examination of the pieces involved. It would contain data such as the pressures caused by the reload, the maximum allowable pressure of the "standard manufacture" pistol chamber, etc. , examination records of the areas where failure occurred, with hardness and malleability tests... the kind of things that make scientific sense of metal or material fatigue.

Like I said before, I don't have a dog in this fight, but it sure is turning my attention away from using the "new and improved" calibers of firearms when the results appear to be questionable. There are years of data available on .22's, .380's, .38 cal, .357... etc. and the limits of their loading and reloading.
Unless there is comparable testing and information on the "new" rounds, then they are still "experimental"... and failures such as this are to be expected... only most of us would like the manufacturer to experience them before they ship the gun to the local gun store.

WT

thus another reason to never handload........

thus another reason to never handload........

Click to expand...

I don't totally agree with this. Maybe it should read something like this:
"thus another reason to never handload........if you own a tupperware gun"

Seriously though...if a slightly out of spec round caused this,just because it's a handload doesn't mean a thing. How many times have ammunition manufacturers sent out out of spec ammo? I know it's more than never,so don't anybody even try that for an answer. Granted, there's less of a chance of out of spec ammo with automation in ammunition manufacturing, but it is possible. I guess my point here is...if out of spec ammo can cause this type of catastrophic failure....just how far out of spec was it-if at all. An examination of the case involved in the kaboom,and of the ammunition that's left would answer alot of these questions. I just know that I use all metal firearms or firearms that are proven for literally millions of rounds collectively for a reason. The first time I was introduced to the five-seven I was interested in the gun,until I handled it,and saw the ammo that it used. I immediately asked the guy behind the counter if he was kidding about the 5.7x28 ammo actually being the ammo for that gun. I handed it back to him,and told him there was no way I'd shoot that gun. Feels like a toy,no way it can be safe.
JL