testtest

The 5.7

RandomHero

RandomHero

Custom
Founding Member
So, since the release of the Ruger 5.7 there has been much discussion about purchasing it since it is affordable. However, I heard that you can not carry the 5.7 legally because the round it shoots is classified as rifle round. Anyone have any lawyer friends proficient in firearms law to clarify if this is true or not?
 
I’m not a lawyer, so my answer is only my opinion, but since there is no prohibition against openly carrying a rifle, though unusual in itself, why could it possibly matter if a handgun were chambered in a ”rifle” round. Moreover, as the 5.7x28 was designed as a Personal Defense Weapon to replace the Nato 9mm, why do you call it a “rifle” round?
 
markr6754 said:
I’m not a lawyer, so my answer is only my opinion, but since there is no prohibition against openly carrying a rifle, though unusual in itself, why could it possibly matter if a handgun were chambered in a ”rifle” round. Moreover, as the 5.7x28 was designed as a Personal Defense Weapon to replace the Nato 9mm, why do you call it a “rifle” round?
Click to expand...
I personally don't call it a rifle round. I have never had any interest in it in the past due to the FN's price tag and the ammo is super expensive. Then Ruger dropped their 5.7 much more appealing for the wallet. Then a employee at the local gun range said the 5.7 could not legally be carried because the 5.7 round is classified as a rifle round.
Super confused in the info he was giving when it is in a pistol both in FN and Ruger. I started second guessing my knowledge which was very little.
 
The first 5.7 was/is the P/PS90 is a carbine therefore the 5.7 is a rifle round.

It was designed to replace 9mm chambered submachine guns which are technically rifles.

I wish someone would chamber it in a light bolt action rifle.

Savage did in their Model 25 for a very short time.
 
RandomHero said:
So, since the release of the Ruger 5.7 there has been much discussion about purchasing it since it is affordable. However, I heard that you can not carry the 5.7 legally because the round it shoots is classified as rifle round. Anyone have any lawyer friends proficient in firearms law to clarify if this is true or not?
Click to expand...
I know Magnum Research’s BFR (Big Frame Revolvers (among other names :sneaky: )), are chambered in rifle calibers (45-70, 30-30, etc). I don’t see a lot of them carried, but I’d think it would have to be more of a state restriction if any. I don’t think my state has any restrictions on carrying rifle chambered revolvers/pistols, but I’ve never looked into it to be honest.
 
Talyn said:
The first 5.7 was/is the P/PS90 is a carbine therefore the 5.7 is a rifle round.

It was designed to replace 9mm chambered submachine guns which are technically rifles.

I wish someone would chamber it in a light bolt action rifle.

Savage did in their Model 25 for a very short time.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification Tayln. I have lots of knowledge on other things, but zero on the 5.7 so your input really helps.
 
RandomHero said:
So, since the release of the Ruger 5.7 there has been much discussion about purchasing it since it is affordable. However, I heard that you can not carry the 5.7 legally because the round it shoots is classified as rifle round. Anyone have any lawyer friends proficient in firearms law to clarify if this is true or not?
Click to expand...
The load data that I have seen it is listed in the pistol section.
 
At the risk of sounding like that guy.

Just another product to sell us new weapons. It may have a specialized role, and definitely nothing wrong with buying one, but I do love having all my pistols in the same caliber except for my 1911.
 
TEXASforLIFE said:
The load data that I have seen it is listed in the pistol section.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I was wondering. Because the guy at the range said it was classified as a rifle cartridge. When he said it, kind of made me think No way! A 5.56 AR-pistol is legal to carry but not the 5.7? I just know nothing about the 5.7 so I had no educated way to debate or challenge what he was telling me.
 
RandomHero said:
Yeah, I was wondering. Because the guy at the range said it was classified as a rifle cartridge. When he said it, kind of made me think No way! A 5.56 AR-pistol is legal to carry but not the 5.7? I just know nothing about the 5.7 so I had no educated way to debate or challenge what he was telling me.
Click to expand...
It's the same caliber too!
 
This just out in email. The first (per Speer) 5.7x28 mm round specifically designed for self-defense. If I had a Ruger 57, I’m betting I start carrying with these. Reloading can wait...don’t have any empty brass.
DDF3A28B-B1A3-4A4D-AF06-986CC3DADCBF.jpeg
 
I think the question is what are you FIRING the round from? A rifle or a pistol? The ballistics for the 5.7x28mm is not even comparable to the 10mm. While the velocity is higher for 5.7x28 from a service pistol length barrel, the lightweight 40 to 55 grain bullet has so much less mass than a 10mm or other high powered handgun cartridge with a heavier bullet, that stopping power is much less. The data I've found shows the muzzle energy in foot pounds for the 5.7x28 is less than 10mm, and somewhere between .40 and 9mm +P.

Just because it is a necked round doesn't make it a "rifle" cartridge either. My Winchester 1873 is chambered in .38-40. It's a necked case, and looks like a rifle round, but was actually considered a handgun round in the 1800's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top