KelTec PMR 30 VS FN 5-7

Discussion in 'Semi-Auto Handguns' started by ROENIGK, Jan 16, 2012.


    ROENIGK New Member

    I was wondering which gun you guys would consider the better carry gun.
  2. robocop10mm

    robocop10mm Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    While I want a Kel-tec, I do not consider it a "carry gun". A rimfire is a poor choice for defensive use as the priming system is less reliable than centerfire (let the flames begin). While the .22 Mag is a potent round, one I would not like to be shot with, I would not carry one for self defense unless I had no alternatives.

    WTS, the FN is probably a better choice, just not one I would make. IMHO trying to make a submachinegun (P-90) act like an assault rifle has limited usefulness as it is not an assault rifle. Then trying to stuff that underpowered rifle round in a pistol where it loses even more velocity and energy, then give the pistol bad ergonomics and a spotty reputation for reliability, add in a price tag that is out of most people's range and warranty service that is second to AMT and you have a real fine offering there.:rolleyes:

  3. Brennan16

    Brennan16 New Member

    Why would you want to carry such a large frame handgun everyday? I understand wanting a light carry gun but that Kel-Tec is ridiculous. Would I like one? You damn skippy but not for everyday carry. There are better options out there for a lot less money too.

    Sent from my iPhone using FirearmsTalk
  4. sweeper22

    sweeper22 New Member

    That's easy. The FN 5.7, because it's proven to function reliably.

    I think they're both interesting guns. Neither would ever be considered a potential carry weapon, in my opinion. The 22wmr isn't the greatest immediate threat stopper of a round, and the FN 5.7 is a pretty large framed gun.
  5. Snowman

    Snowman New Member

    If I had to stop a BG, FN all the way. Because it has more energy. Neither is good for it. That said, my father has a PMR-30. Runs 100%. Fun gun. And, .22wmr can penetrate 12+ in of ballistics gel... Still rather have the FiveSeven.
  6. JonM

    JonM Moderator

    neither one is a good carry gun. they dont even rank with anemic. ive experienced the infamous "reliabilty" of the fn 5-7 first hand. my opinion fn is selling a 350$ gun for 3-4 times that.

    the keltec is super light and by lightweight i mean its like a handfull of feathers. i think the 30 rounds of 22wmr weighs more than the gun and mag combined!! buttttttt..... its a rimfire. rimfire es no bueno for SD.

    personally i consider the minimum caliber for SD to be .380acp. if your looking at a unique carry gun get the original 5-7 something chambered for the 7.62 tokerev. it does everything the 5-7 does far far far better. the 7.62 tokerev out of a pistol makes the 5.7fn restricted to military rounds only out of a p90 rifle look like the poop it is.
  7. billy396

    billy396 New Member

    I love the 5.7, and I haven't had any trouble with mine at all. I'd like to try a Kel-Tec PMR-30, but I wouldn't consider either one to be a handy piece for concealed carry. While I agree that anything from FN is generally overpriced, the 5.7 is definitely a deadly round, even out of the 5.7 pistol. The 40 Gr. Hornady V-Max is a proven killer, (certainly not "anemic"), particularly when compared to a .380. It has high velocity and good expansion and fregmentation, along with decent penetration. I certainly wouldn't want to be shot by either one. I'd love to see some comparison shots between the 5.7 and the .380. I'm sure that the 5.7 with the V-Max round would do much more damage.