FN "Five-Seven" and "American Handgunner" has really gotten my goat now

Status
Not open for further replies.
The 5.7x28mm FN cartridge has more in common with the 5.7mm Johnson Spitfire that the .224 BOZ. The cartridge design itself should be perfectly legal; however, the SS190 load uses a projectile with a steel penetrator. This would be enough to run afoul of the Federal restrictions against AP handgun ammunition. On the other hand, the SB109 subsonic load reportedly uses the 77gr Sierra MatchKing and should not pose a legal problem. The 5.7x28mm FN loaded with say a 35gr Hornady V-Max would make a dandy varmint cartridge...spliting the difference between the .22 Magnum Rimfire and the 22 Hornet.

Rosco: Don't forget, those Husqvarna prototypes were scaled up to become the Wildey.
 
a few possible reasons why FN claims to have no plans for civilian sales;
1- as Karanas said, they don't want to lose their M16 contracts with Uncle Sam
2- FN is a Belgian organization, this may be a Euroweenie "we know what's best for you" attitude
3- concern over lawsuits, rational or otherwise
4- they may be trying to generate greater demand! create an artificial shortage, get lots of free press, hold prices up, make tons of money (can you say, "beanie babies?").

another problem with the article that I had was that the intent was seemingly to be handing these suckers out to beat cops. now the average cop nowadays can barely draw and fire without hitting anything; what good is it going to do to hand a specialist's weapon to an untrained patrolman? if the patrolman runs into a particularly though customer, he should radio for the blue van crowd, who are properly equipped with ARs and don't need a in-betweenie gun.



[This message has been edited by Ivanhoe (edited November 27, 1999).]
 
As far as civilians mixing in with
a law enforcement operation where
the police are outgunned - please
read the history of the University
of Texas Tower in Austin incident.

Every history points out how return
fire from civilian high powered rifles
pinned down the sniper, Whitman and
probably lowered the death toll.

The police had no comparable weapons
at the time.
 
Maybe all LEO'S should be diarmed and the US military should take over since many of them have much more firearms related training. We could use Airborne, Force Recon, Rangers, Berets, and many other better trained people, plus they could practice for all of these Urban senarios that klinton has them participating in.

Didn't the belgians get snooty with there old buds the Germans and not give them licensing to produce the G1 aka FAL so the Germans just created the G3 aka Hk 91 and took a lot of business in third world contries from FN,to bad we can' do a similar thing with this pistol.
 
12-34hom...ya know, the ATF could use a good man like you. Keep those unruly peasants in line. We have to do that of cource, because non LEO's aren't citezens, they're subjects.
 
12-34hom, I REALLY dislike your attitude.

Either you trust civilians to own firearm or you don't.

I'm not going to become a cop killer just because I have bullets that are capable of defeating body armor.

If criminals start wearing body armor, you have just hurt the honest civilians ability to defend his family.

As for your remark about not wanting "civilians" helping you out in a gun fight, well civilians kill 3 times the number of criminals police do, with less bystanders injuried.

I'm not trying to slam LEO, but most diehard gun enthusist are better marksman. I have personally watched some LEO that are very poor shooters. Really, I wonder sometimes what kind of training they get.

I personally have recieved countless hours of training by our goverment and have always qualified expert. I consider my self to be a good shoot.

The problem is that when ever I go to the local "civilian" tatical match, some "civilian" wins.

The LE community and Defence Department have no monopoly on good marksmen.

------------------
The new guy.

"I'm totin, this pistol because my dang SKS won't fit in my holster"
 
Anybody knows that you can't have untrained, uncoordinated civilians just join in a combat situation. A single gunman in a tower is obviously an exception, as is a single officer facing multiple threats, but if the police are facing down a group of armed felons as in LA and you decide to pull your piece and join in, you're going to get either arrested or shot.
 
Gentlemen of the jury, I will try and answer each reponse as they were posted if i don't i'm sure i will hear about it. #1 Dan: Yes i think that there are certain types of weapons that don't belong in the hands of civilians. If my attitude bothers you, so be it. I have never thought civilians were "lowly" as you put it, that's your spin on it. If you want to flame me and my beliefs that's your option, i won't take it personally. #2. 45b i know, i know..... #3. Protoolman: Fine if you want civilains with "deer rifles" helping you out in some dire situation while all hell is breaking loose by all means "go for it". When some innocent is killed and or wounded by one of them and the civil suits that are sure to follow, how many of them will [civilian or otherwise] back YOU in court? Yea; the feeding frenzy that follows that one sure will be interesting. Far as civilians being "good shots" no question about that, i'm sure there are countless numbers. #4. Mylhouse: just my views, take it or leave it your choice. #5. Cheapo: Yes it is TRAINING that allows police officers to deal with situations civilians can't. Where in my post did i refer to anyone as a "peon"? If you are alone and someone attacks you; where did i say [in my post] you have no right to defend your person? What i said was there are certain types of weapons that don"t belong in civilian hands.[imho] #6. Ed Brunner: In that case let's get a bunch of tee shirts with "TFL" printed on the front and back so the cops know who the good guy's really are!!!!! #7. Texas Lawman That's your view and if so; i can respect it. #8. cdf: get your head out of your ass...... #9.Jimmie: Criminals already wear body armor, you state civilians kill three times the number of criminals police do, first off i don't want to kill another human being, that's my very last option, period. reason for that stat = number of civilians vs. number of police officers. I applaud your training scenerio, that's what i've advocated to others and if your abilities are honed, good for you. It would seem that some took my post as a personal attack on them and thier rights or just the public in general. Others just stated there feelings on this matter and i enjoyed reading there replies as well as everyone elses. {almost] So there you have it; cause "thats my story and i'm stickin to it". Ducking for cover!!!!!

[This message has been edited by 12-34hom (edited November 27, 1999).]
 
A very good example of why the second amendment was put there to start with. To protect citizens from the government and its agents as well as others who would harm you. Its OK if my guns can kill you in a vest but you cannot have a gun that would kill me. You can only have guns for sporting purposes. Why? Because I have been slected by the government as being elite.Only I know whats best for you and I will protect you. Right!
 
Baseball bats defeat body armor, too.

Blah blah blah.........

IMHO law enforcement personnel and civilians should work together against the common enemy, the criminal.
But I also recognize the 'us vs. them' (civie vs. cop) mentality that exists, and THAT must be reformed first.

And maybe Hopkins isn't getting enough.......

------------------
"All my ammo is factory ammo"
 
Deletion of post submitted accidentally before completion. See below.

[This message has been edited by 45King (edited November 27, 1999).]
 
Rant mode on.

OK, damnit, for the second time some of you have gone and picked on a friend of mine, Charlie Petty (author of the article.) A few years ago, Charlie took a bunch of heat when he did an article about Federal ammo which was being sold to law enforcement only.
Similarity? In both cases, the MANUFACTURER made the decision as to whom was going to be sold to. Charlie only reported the facts. What is this, "kill the messenger?" Geez.

You doubt Charlie's dedication to RKBA? Geez, would that everyone in the country share his "doubt about RKBA." There would be no anti's anywhere except in insane asylums.

Just recently, I and others from Prodigy's old Shooting Sports Bulletin Board gathered for the final "Gunstock-Summer of Lead" at the Charlotte Rifle and Pistol Club-hosted by none other than the fine man you vilify. (Interestingly enough, one of the attendees, who posts here occasionlly, brought along a Baer gun which, when tested from Charlie's Ransom Rest, turned in a 10 shot .93" group at 25 yds., and will do it all day long.)

As another friend, Dean Speir, recommends, perhaps one should apply the "critical thinking process" before one pops off.

Want some facts about the FN 5.7X28 bullet? OK, here's some: the forward 1/3 of the bullet is aluminum, the back 2/3 is steel. The combination allows BA penetration without causing overpenetration. It will pentrate body armour and 10" of ballistic gelatin, out to 200 meters. It is chambered also in FN's P90 subgun. These weapons are designed to meet 21st century criteria for tank crews, artilery support crews, etc, who will more than likely be facing, at short ranges, BA clad troops.

Would I like to own one or both of these guns? You betcha. Wanna bitch at someone about it? Bitch at the gov't which has created a myriad of insane and contradictory gun laws which make such things only a pipe dream if you ain't a LEO or military person.
Rant mode off.

As an aside, if you'd like to see a picture of the crew which attended Gunstock, follow the link in my signature. Click on the webpage tab at the top of the screen, then follow the link to the Rogue's Gallery. All of Schmit's photos are there, too, as well as some other odds 'n' ends.

------------------
Shoot straight regards, Richard at The Shottist's Center http://forums.delphi.com/m/main.asp?sigdir=45acp45lc
 
1.Many cops as well as "civies" are criminals. 2.The second amendment doesn't care who your friends are.
 
Futo,

Yes, a sabot will stabilize the .22 round just fine - the sabots are designed for .308 rifles for long range varmint shooting. Pistol ranges will be no problem at all!

Body armor is designed to stop low velocity, blunt-nosed handgun rounds.
Any spitzer bullet at high velocity will defeat body armor! FN knows this, every cop on the street knows this, and we all know this.
That FN wants to make a politically correct splash in hopes of getting government contracts shouldn't concern us. Police agencies are just as susceptible to marketing ploys as the rest of us. Getting a weapon "unavailable to the general public" will appeal to the arrogance of the more statist minded law enforcement people out there.
If the weapon is successful there will be a dozen weapons chambered in the round within a few years of its release available to all of us.


------------------
Keith
The Bears and Bear Maulings Page: members.xoom.com/keithrogan
 
12-34,

Like it or not, the average civilian already has more weapons choices than you do! We can carry any gun we want while you are limited to what your department dictates. If Futo wants to have a FiveseveN he will have one (or its ballistic equivalent) and theres nothing you can do about it.

In my state, I can carry any weapon I want, openly or concealed. I have wider powers of arrest than any cop because I'm not saddled by Miranda or the many other limitations imposed on you.

Deal with it or move to some other country where cops really ARE the powerful "ubermensch" you envision.



------------------
Keith
The Bears and Bear Maulings Page: members.xoom.com/keithrogan
 
RAJ,

Right on in your defense of CP, he's just reporting the facts not editorializing about it.
In defense of Futo though, I think he was questioning the legality of banning the weapon rather than directly attacking the story per se.
And of course theres no legal "ban" in effect. FN can sell or not sell to whoever they want to. Thats a corporate policy rather than a legal issue.

------------------
Keith
The Bears and Bear Maulings Page: members.xoom.com/keithrogan
 
45King-

I didn't see where anyone made any personal attacks on your friend. If you had read the article in question, how is it that you can doubt the obvious elitist and condescending tone. Even if the mfg determines who they sell to, the slant of the article was almost supporting the the mfg's decision.

Does Charlie Petty feel this way? I don't know, but it comes across as if he does. Perhaps the editorial staff shouid have taken a closer look at this particular article. That's who I take issue with, the magazine. I feel that a publication that caters to shooters should be a little nore careful of the subtle messages they give to thier readers.

Perhaps you could do a little critical thinking prior to your popping off on a rant mode.

12-34hom-

Let me start off by saying I fully support LEOs. It's a difficult, dangerous and often time thankless job. All LEOs have my support.

But does this mean that LEOs are entitled to equipment that the common populous is not? To me no. You cite training as the primary reason that you are entitled.

I have seen the officers of a local agency shoot for qualification at the range I frequently shoot at.

I'm not impressed. They were some of the worst weapons handlers I've ever seen. Thier R.O. was just as bad, worse in fact. He did nothing to enforce proper handling. Thier shooting skills reflected accordingly.

To take this further, just do a recent search here on TFL and you find more than one thread covering a SWAT team killing an innocent. Aren't these the elite of LEOs?

Now let's consider our FEDS. Ruby Ridge, Waco and the Miami shoot out immeadiatly come to mind as prime examples of top notch training and leadership coming together.

Now tell me that we lowly commoners shouldn't have access to the same equipment you have. Again, it's this type of attitude that many LEOs have that help create the rift between LEOs and the populace.

If you really feel this way, maybe you have a bright future working for Janet Reno in say the ATF perhaps?

My opinion of your attitudes remain unchanged.

------------------
Dan

Si vis pacem para bellum!

Check me out at:
<A HREF="http://www.mindspring.com/~susdan/interest.htm" TARGET=_blank>

www.mindspring.com/~susdan/interest.htm</A>
www.mindspring.com/~susdan/GlocksnGoodies.htm
 
12-34hom,
Artfully put. Head and ass. The cornerstones of a good round of verbal fencing. Refined and balanced just like a good ATF officer should be. With champions like you around I think I'm just going to turn in my armaments and let you take care of me. Or maybe I'll take you on a visit to Camp Pendleton and we'll see who's more trained and qualified. 53area would be a good place.
In the meantime, enjoy your elitism. Things won't be like this for much longer.
 
>>>>Even if the mfg determines who they sell to, the slant of the article was almost supporting the the mfg's decision.<<<<<

I read the article and I didn't notice any "slant" supporting the mfg's decision. I have corresponded with Charley Petty for years and I assure you that he is as pro-second amendment as anybody you'll ever meet.

Heres the options, you tell me which one is the right way to go:

1. Don't report on any new round or weapon unavailable to American citizens.

2. Report on the round/weapon but then bash the manufacturer and never again get a look at any new weapon in the future. Keep doing it until mfg's won't talk to you and your stories are limited to the intense and fascinating 9mm vs .40 S&W debate.

3. Report on both the round/weapon as well as the fact that its limited to military and law enforcement without editorializing about it. Trust the reader to sort out the facts and form their own opinions.

Its funny how we bash the liberal media for editorializing about the news, but when its one of our own we bash them for sticking to the facts. What do you want?


------------------
Keith
The Bears and Bear Maulings Page: members.xoom.com/keithrogan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top