 |
||
How the FN Herstal Five-seveN pistol used in the Fort Hood shooting--originally designed as a military-only handgun/ammo combination capable of piercing the body armor worn by soldiers on the battlefield--came to be sold on the U.S. civilian market is a stark example of the increasing militarization of the U.S. civilian gun market and the enabling role played by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)--even in the age of Obama.
As detailed in Big Boomers--Rifle Power Designed Into Handguns, a study released last December by my organization, the Violence Policy Center:
"FN Herstal originally created its novel 5.7X28mm cartridge as the ammunition for a submachine gun, the P-90, designed at the invitation of NATO and in response to military needs for a weapon to be used by 'troops who needed both hands for other tasks, such as officers, NCOs and technical troops,' and that would be effective against the body armor that has become a standard accoutrement on the battlefield."
Eventually, as one gun writer noted, "it became clear that a pistol was needed as an adjunct to the P90 SMG, so in the mid-1990s FNH set out to design a handgun to accompany the 'high-tech' P90 SMG."
Originally, FN Herstal stated that the pistol would not be sold on the civilian market. In 1996, a spokesman for the company described the pistol as designed for anti-terrorist and hostage rescue operations and "too potent" for normal police duties. In 1999, the National Rifle Association's American Rifleman magazine stated, "Law enforcement and military markets are the target groups of FN's new FiveseveN pistol," adding, "Don't expect to see this cartridge sold over the counter in the United States. In this incarnation, it is strictly a law enforcement or military round." In 2000, American Handgunner magazine assured the public, "For reasons that will become obvious, neither the gun nor the ammunition will ever be sold to civilians or even to individual officers."
To address rising concerns about the ability of specific types of ammunition available with the pistol to penetrate the body armor worn by law enforcement (and in effect acknowledging the severe limitations of the federal ban on armor-piercing ammunition which uses a content, as opposed to a penetration, standard to determine whether a round is "armor-piercing" or not) in January 2005 ATF announced that it had reached a voluntary agreement with FN to stop the civilian sale in the U.S. of specific types of ammunition available for the gun--including one type labeled SS192 ammunition. The effect of this gentleman's agreement between ATF (which, in an all-too-revealing choice of words, often refers to the gun industry as its "customer") and FN has been less than impressive. In writing this blog, yesterday I went on the Internet and within minutes found two sites offering "banned" ammunition for sale:
Ammunition to Go : "This is 5.7X28 FN SS192 Hollow Point Ammo. This ammo has been banned from importation because of its penetrating abilities. This ammo has been almost impossible to find for the last few years. This ammo is packed in 50rd. boxes, 2000rds. per ammo can." Fifty rounds can be purchased for $29.95, marked down from 39.95.
Gilbert's Guns: Now In Stock!. FN 5.7 x 28 SS192 Hollow Point Ammunition. This ammo has been banned from importation and we have a small qty of SS192 AVAILABLE...We do have multiple lots available. Please call to reserve this ammunition--these lots will go quickly."
As "Big Boomers" concludes:
"[T]he gun is being freely sold to civilians today, along with clearly problematic ammunition, through a variety of channels. What changed was precisely nothing. FN, like other gun manufacturers, simply followed the well-worn path of hyping its new cartridge and gun combination through widespread publicity in the gun press about 'restricted' sales to military and police, and then--having whetted the gun-buying public's appetite--moved into the much bigger and more profitable civilian market."
Anyone who doubts the proven success of this approach need only visit FN's web site to see photos of the PS90--the civilian-legal semiautomatic version of the full-auto NATO machine gun the Five-seveN was initially designed to complement.
Among those who have noticed the anti-personnel virtues of the Five-seveN are illegal arms traffickers helping feed the drug-related violence in Mexico (where the Five-seveN is known as the "mata policia," or "cop-killer") with military-bred weapons purchased from the U.S. civilian market. The recent VPC study Indicted reviewed records filed in 21 federal firearms smuggling prosecutions in Arizona, California, Nevada, and Texas between February 2006 and February 2009 and found:
"There were 501 firearms listed in the documents, with specific information about the weapon type for 492 of those firearms. Of the total of 492 firearms with detailed weapon type listed, nearly two thirds (63 percent) were either assault weapons (209 or 42 percent), armor-piercing handguns (88 or 18 percent), or anti-armor 50 caliber sniper rifles (11 or two percent). The remainder were primarily semiautomatic pistols (148 or 30 percent). Of the armor-piercing handguns, all were FN Herstal Five-seveN pistols."
The Obama administration could act today to prevent any more Five-seveNs from entering the country. The decades-old "sporting purposes" test contained in the Gun Control Act of 1968 grants ATF wide discretion to ban the import of the Five-seveN, the PS-90, and any other foreign-made, military-bred, "non -sporting" firearms. But since the agency treats the gun industry as its "customer," such an action--without direct engagement by the White House--is more than unlikely. And so far, the only consistent action from the White House on the gun issue is a virtually unmatched ability to ignore it.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
In an interview with Mr. Kalashnikov, the father of the AK-47, he stated that he wished he'd invented something else.
Better mousetraps, smarter mice, gun laws only prevent law-abiding citizens from purchasing firearms, people that want such things and don't care about laws will obtain them. But, who really wants these things, why do people buy any kind of guns, including this kind? Is the whole world turning into the OK Corral, now, where the Dalton gang or whatever is going to face down with Wyatt Earp? Guns don't kill people, maybe, but they do make it easier.
WIth civilian ammunition, a FiveSeven won't penetrate any vest rated to stop civilian .357. With restricted military/LEO AP ammunition, the FiveSeven won't penetrate any vest that would stop military/LEO restricted .357 AP. Out of a pistol-length barrel, it is more comparable to a .22 rimfire magnum than to typical centerfire .22's like .223.
FWIW, the Colt 1911 pattern pistol was originally designed for the military; so was the .30-06 cartridge, the bolt-action rifle, the lever-action rifle, and the Brown Bess musket. The majority of civilian firearms (even hunting weapons) were originally developed for military purposes, and that has been the case for centuries.
Bad news for Josh...
http://www
Kansas has had CCW laws on the books for 3 years now without your predictions coming true.
What a fool.
The 5.7 is a weak round that is the ballistic equivelant of a .22 magnum,a cousin to the .22 LR, a squirrel/small game cartridge.
The SS190 ammo needed to make the weapon pierce body armor readily is NOT available to us "lowly" citizens. It is available only to Police.
The FN 5.7 is only in use by a select few agencies and foreign governments. Same for the p90.
The 5.7 is a marginal self defense weapon. I don't carry one, I prefer one of those evil, sniper all plastic ceramic heat seeking 9mm teflon bullet hoses known as a Glock in 17 in 9mm.
So what if the Five-Seven was originally designed for military use? The hummer was originally designed for military use, and it's very popular with civilians.
Josh calls it a cop killer when it hasn't been used to kill a single American cop, and complains about it's ability to penatrate body armor with a type of ammunition that isn't on the civilian market even though there is no evidence anyone's body armor was penatrated at Ft. Hood
This is how the gun control movement works. They lie in wait for a tragety to exploit so they can promote an agenda that has nothing to do with it.
Silliness abounds.
"The hummer was originally designed for military use, and it's very popular with civilians.
Unfortunately for your analogy, the Hummer created for the civilian market was radically redesigned for the civilian market. In fact, very little of the HMMV original components made it into the H-1.
"the Hummer created for the civilian market was radically redesigned for the civilian market. "
No they weren't. The H1 and HMMWV came off the same assembly line. They shared every single body panel. The only difference between the two was the painting process and interior trim after the assembly.
It doesn't matter. The Civilian "H2" which is an overgrown Suburban that calls itself a "Hummer" has killed more innocent civilians than the military version (of the HMMWV), PLUS the civilian version (H1), PLUS the Five-seveN COMBINED! Should we ban those from the US? Yeah, right...
Josh, try this one on for size. BOEING aircraft, designed EXCLUSIVELY for the civilian market, were used in the terror attacks of 9/11.
I don't really mean to say that you are a propagandist, but see if you can explain that one in terms of military firearms or ANY firearms.
Propaganda is great as long as no one bothers to think about your statements. If they do, you fail on the merits of your case.
.
The thing is that F
It's pretty easy to debunk.
First, the 9/11 hijackers weren't able to gain access to military aircraft.
Second, as bad as 9/11 was--you can't imagine how much worse it might have been if the 9/11 hijackers were using, say, F-18s to attack NYC and the Pentagon.
Many Boeing aircraft are used by the military.
TERRORISTS don't use F-18s. TERRORISTS use what they can get. Josh was blaming a firearm for the action of a terrorist and he made a big deal about it being a MILITARY firearm...
I am trying to explain that logic goes nowhere. If he hadn't had a firearm, he could have used a bus or a can of gasoline or a civilian aircraft. The fact that the military flies Boeing aircraft has nothing to do with anything.
In point of fact, an F-18 has a limited ordinance load and would have caused NOTHING like the damage caused by the fuel in those commercial aircraft.
I won't be insulting, but there is some logic involved here that some of you are missing.
If somebody has the statistics on people murdered with a gun please post.
How many are murdered by criminals during a crime?
How many by crazy multiple murders?
How many family or accidental killings?
How many people are murdered using other weapons ?
Try the FBI's CIUS/UCR
“The Cost of America's Gun Addiction” could have been written about Ft. Hood, instead of six weeks before it happened.
“All of these shootings were followed by news coverage of how shocked the community was. …
And it's going to happen again. Every day. In the near future--this year, most likely--someone is going to open fire on a university campus. Another at a high school. Another in a restaurant. ….
If you believe that it is a worthwhile trade-off to lose thousands of lives every year in return for the unrestricted right to own and carry a 9-millimetre semiautomatic handgun or an assault rifle ... then so be it.
However, for those of us who do not believe this trade-off is acceptable, then how dare we be shocked, shocked every time this happens? We need to stop being shocked every time someone gets shot to death in a "safe" community and start acting unsurprised and outraged instead.
Shock only perpetuates the problem of gun violence. Only when we expect that thousands and thousands of people in every kind of neighbourhood will die at the hands of other people with guns every year - only then, perhaps, at last, will we be able to generate the public support necessary for effective laws to seriously restrict access to guns.”
http://www
"And it's going to happen again. Every day. In the near future--this year, most likely--someone is going to open fire on a university campus. Another at a high school. Another in a restaurant. …"
Let's hope you're wrong. However, if it does happen, it will no doubt happen in a 'Gun-Free Zone, as it has always happened in the past. Mass murderers don't like 'return fire'.
"If you believe that it is a worthwhile trade-off to lose thousands of lives every year in return for the unrestricted right to own and carry a 9-millimetre semiautomatic handgun or an assault rifle ... then so be it."
You guys keep beating this dead horse, and it's still not true. The only states that allow carrying handguns without a permit are Vermont and Alaska. I haven't hear of any mass shootings in either state.
And in every state, you need to go through a NICS check to purchase a firearm from a FFL.
The majority of these 'thousands of lives every year' are taken by criminals, who don't care about restrictions, or the law in general.
"And in every state, you need to go through a NICS check to purchase a firearm from a FFL."
Omitted are two facts. One, in every state, you don't need to purchase a gun from a FFL; you can get any gun you like without a NICS check. Two, as we've seen, many FFLs are quite willing to find a way around that NICS check, if you desire.
mike,
I hope that you're not expecting our "Southern Socialist" friend to actually respond to the flaws and fallacies you've identified! He's far too important to stoop to anything like that!
Old SF MJT
"If you believe that it is a worthwhile trade-off to lose thousands of lives every year in return for the unrestricted right to own and carry a 9-millimetre semiautomatic handgun or an assault rifle "
No one is asking to own assault rifles and no one is advocating unrestricted ownership of handguns.
I am. I think everyone should serve in the military and take their firearm home with them upon an honorable discharge. Like Switzerland. Crime in Switzerland? Almost none.
While this argument has a certain shock value, the conclusion that you are attempting to draw does not make sense.
You are characterizing the right to keep and bear arms as a "trade-off" between "the unrestricted right to own and carry a 9-millimetre semiautomatic handgun or an assault rifle" (on the one hand) and preventing disturbed people from attacking others (on the other). **IF** this actually defined the "trade-off" then it would be a straightforward response to say, "no, that trade-off isn't worth it." The problem is that this "trade-off" does not exist.
No one (not even Mr. Sugarmann) has suggested that simply placing additional restrictions on gun ownership would eliminate acts of gun violence. While it is a point of fact that guns are not "unrestricted" to start out with, even if this premise were true it would still not follow that a new "restriction" would eliminate mass shootings. Indeed, the mass shootings that you allude to have taken place across the United States -- in states with relatively strict and relatively "loose" gun laws -- and they have also taken place in countries with much more restrictive gun laws such as Canada and Germany. Obviously enacting the level of gun control that exists in Canada or Germany would not eliminate mass public shootings and the entire premise of a "trade-off" is faulty.
and besides--the vast majority of shootings take place at BC/VPC endored gun free criminal empowerment zones
These same observations apply to Mr. Sugarmann's article. Mr. Sugarmann makes a rousing case that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco & Firearms (and the Obama Administration) has sold out the American public to its "customer" the gun industry and is now allowing a sinister gun -- both a handgun and an "assault weapon" -- to flood our streets and military bases.
Not once does Mr. Sugarmann explain how selectively banning this handgun would have prevented this shooting or would have in any way mitigated the results of this shooting. While Mr. Sugarmann's article belabors the contention that this particular handgun could apparently penetrate light body armor, he fails to explain how that has any relevance at all to the Fort Hood shooting. (Virtually all rifles will similarly penetrate light body armor. So we need to ban not just the FN 5.7, but also all rifles.)
Mr. Sugarmann's apparent motivation has nothing to do with preventing mass shootings or REGULATING guns. From the faulty premise that the ATF and President Obama could have prevented the Fort Hood shooting by banning one particular handgun (only), Mr. Sugarmann then moves to the "prize" -- his argument that ATF should re-interpret the "sporting purposes" test of the 1968 Gun Control Act and impose new restrictions that (if history is any teacher) will be nothing but lists of prohibited design features. Mr. Sugarmann does not explain how this new gun ban would have prevented the Fort Hood shooter, or anyone else for that matter.
Nope. You've misread Sugarmann's thesis.
As I've sagely noted in other comments, firearms are designed for specific purposes. Some are designed for hunting, some for self-defense, some for competitive shooting, some for military purposes, some for being cheap, etc.
There really is no reason for civilians to own a firearm that is designed for military purposes. Unless, of course, that civilian intends to use the weapon for its designed purpose.
"If you believe that it is a worthwhile trade-off to lose thousands of lives every year in return for the unrestricted right to own and carry a 9-millimetre semiautomatic handgun or an assault rifle ... then so be it."
There was no right to carry at all at Fort Hood and people still died.
I don't see how restricting the right to carry is going to save lives.
Repeating your "ad hominem" and strawmen attacks, while willfully ignoring opposing opinions, do not lend legitimacy to your position.
The author of the editorial that you have referenced claims that there exists an "unrestricted right to own and carry a 9-millimetre handgun or an assault rifle". Civilian ownership of both handguns and assault rifles are regulated restricted by legislation. The author of the editorial that you have referenced is therefore engaging in willful lying as a means of advancing a position; this is unsurprising, however, as it is consistent with my observation that advocates of civilian disarmament are frequently irraitonal and dishonest. As such, your repetition of the author's willful dishonesty is also unsurprising; you have established in previous statements that you are uninterested in addressing actual reality in advocating civilian disarmament.
The point our NRA adherents would rather not discuss is the fact this weapon (and others like it) are designed for military and police uses. They aren't designed for hunting. They're not designed for sport shooting. They aren't designed for self-defense.
It's odd how NRA adherents like to portray themselves as knowledgeable about firearms; they wll often launch into highly technical bloviations about performance and specifications of certain firearms and their ammunition. Yet, when was the last time you heard a skilled or master carpenter suggest a t-square was just the thing to drive a nail?
But this is exactly what NRA adherents do--they advocate using firearms for purposes that are very often unsuited for the purpose they claim to need weapons. Moreover, those claiming they need the same firearms as the police or military betray an ignorance of both police and military tactics.
You can pound a nail into a board using a t-square--it's just the wrong tool to do so.
So what if it's designed for military and police use? How does that make it any less suitable for hunting, sport, or self-defense? The most popular sporting arms in the world are based on military designs (Colt SAA, Mausers, Garands, Stoner rifles, 1911s, Glocks, etc etc).
So what if a stapler is designed to staple sheets of paper together? You can still use it to pound nails or saw through wood, right?
Again--and I'm typing slowly--why would anyone want a product for some other purpose than what it's designed for? The answer is they wouldn't if they were knowledgeable.
The last time I checked - the only Constitutionally protected right for firearms ownership is to use against people in a defensive manner. So one is forced to conclude that a type of firearm that is Constitutionally protected are those designed for use against people in a self defense event.
The firearms the police carry are for self-defense only, not for coercing compliance with the law. As for military - the militia approach results from a community providing for its own security in an event where the police and military are not available for a prolonged period of time. A substantial natural disaster or act of war can present such a scenario.
Ultimately, we as individuals and as members of a local community are responsible for our own security and weapons designed for such purposes are explicitly protected. Hence the protection granted to firearms similar to those employed by the police and military.
Sadly, LindaCat, your understanding of police and military tactical firearms is non-existent.
We do not equip our soldiers and marines with 'defensive' firearms; the military tactical concept is about bringing concentrated, massive amounts of firepower to bear on a situation. That is why if you were to join the USA or USMC, you will spend many more magnitudes of time learning about how to keep your weapon in good functioning order than out on the range. Unless you become a sniper, the Army and Marines only really care that you become a semi-competent marksman. That's because tthe concept of operations depends on unit tactics which is based on ovrwhelming firepower.
Similarly, the weapons used by our military (and police in certain tactical situations) are not defensive in the least. They are in fact designed to contribute to an aggregate massive firepower. IOW, claiming military weapons are defensive is like claiming a chainsaw is a good tool for heart surgery.
"Moreover, those claiming they need the same firearms as the police or military betray an ignorance of both police and military tactics."
Ever read U.S. vs Miller?
"They're not designed for sport shooting. They aren't designed for self-defen
While the genisis of the cartridge was with a military purpose in mind, this firearm happens to be quite good for sport shooting.
As for self-defense, considering the lackluster terminal perofmance of the this firearm, I would not recommend it for that purpose.
But if you are going to consider the genisis of an item for restricting it from civilian hands, consider the Internet or anything involving satellites, both of which were designed with military purposes in mind.
The reality is that almost all firearms were originally designed for military use. The fact that a gun was "designed for" military and/or police use is essentially meaningless.
What evidence do you have that the five-seven pistol is unsuitable for sport or self defense?
I know it's great for sport. You can hit targets with it just as you can with any other pistol, and it's 20-round magazine means you don't have to take as many reloading breaks.
As for self defense, it seems unlikely that an attacker shot by the five-seven would be able to shrug it off. I think it's powerful rounds would prove very effective.
But hey, never let facts get in the way of a good argument right? That's the gun control way.
"What evidence do you have that the five-seven pistol is unsuitable for sport or self defense?
I know it's great for sport."
It definitely does well regarding accuracy and low recoil. It is also quite good for varmint hunting as the lightweight, decent velocity projectiles availible for civilian use expand/fragment rapidly, usually within an inch or two of entering the animal.
" I think it's powerful rounds would prove very effective.
No more so than any decent 9mm, .40, or .45. The 5.7 fails the FBI testing protocols miserably. Basically it is not much more powerful than a .22 WMR.
"The point our NRA adherents would rather not discuss is the fact this weapon (and others like it) are designed for military and police uses. They aren't designed for hunting. They're not designed for sport shooting. They aren't designed for self-defen
The initial design purpose of a firearm is not relevant. That the Five-seveN handgun was not initially designed for purposes of target shooting or for civilian self-defense does not affect its ultimate usefulness in such endeavours. Mr. Sugarmann's suggestion that such a firearm should be prohibited merely because of its initial designed purpose is fundamentally irrational and unreasonable.
If we look at the comments below, you see that none of the NRA's adherents address the subject.
Instead, we see the usual ad hominem attacks, off-topic deflections, and wild claims that .22 s are far more deadly and the like.
"If we look at the comments below, you see that none of the NRA's adherents address the subject."
Your assertion is demonstrably false.
Let's take a look at another 'military firearm' the VPC wants banned, the M-24 Sniper Weapon System.
It is a highly accurate, bolt-action rifle developed from the Remington 700. One of the most common and popular hunting rifles on the market. They also want the ammo for it classified as 'armor piercing".
The VPC will use any terminology or tragedy in their pursuit to ban civilian ownership. Good thing noone listens to them anymore.
Just like Kelli and her support for banning "military style firearms"--she was seriously offended when we pointed out that "military style firearms" was Kellispeak for ban all civilian firearm ownership (since all firearms have been used by the military at one point or another)--but then again facts seem to offend the gun ban brigade (I guess facts tend to throw a major gorilla wrench in their plans)
I have not seen it reported anywhere that any of the victims were even wearing body armor. But telling the whole story is not something we could expect from the gun banners. The poster shows a picture of a machine gun even though the machine guns are already effectively banned and the attack had nothing to do with a machine. Apparently people are supposed to think that since the bullets could be fired from a particular type of machine gun that makes them scarier? Their goal is to scare people not educate people
As a citizen who doesn't have body armor I'ld much rather be shot by a five seven than a .45 .44 9mm etc... Not that I'ld want to be shot by anything.
Yes they needed a gun that shared ammunition with the p90 to save on kit weight. Five seven isn't a outstanding pistol round however. Works great with a 50 round magazine on a fully auto p90.
The bigger issue with the five seven in terms of a spree killing weapon are low recoil and a potential 20 round magazine capacity. Not the armor piercing potential of certain ammunition configurations. Those are likely the charachteristics that made it more effective than a .44 or .45 and even possibly a 9mm would have been as this gunman used the weapon.
"Five seven isn't a outstanding pistol round however. Works great with a 50 round magazine on a fully auto p90"
If you are going with a .22 caliber carbine like the P90, you might as well go with something in .223 Rem/5.56x4
Paranoia reigns. The 5.7 round is a .22 on steroids. The shooter could have done EXACTLY the same thing with a .22. The reason NO police department adopted the arm and that almost NO civilians have bothered buying it and that the military doesn't use it is that it is almost the worst choice possible for anything except shooting at unarmed, defenseless people....
That's why there were 30 wounded and 12 dead instead of the reverse. If he had chosen a .45 automatic or 9mm, the most common handgun calibers in the US and probably the world, they were also designed to be military cartridges.
It's very difficult to rationalize how an inanimate object could be responsible for the actions of a madman. He could as easily have stolen a bus and driven it into a school cafeteria, even though the bus....and the cafeteria were originally designed for the military.
Paranoia reigns. The 5.7 round is a .22 on steroids. The shooter could have done EXACTLY the same thing with a .22. The reason NO police department adopted the arm and that almost NO civilians have bothered buying it and that the military doesn't use it is that it is almost the worst choice possible for anything except shooting at unarmed, defenseless people....
That's why there were 30 wounded and 12 dead instead of the reverse. If he had chosen a .45 automatic or 9mm, the most common handgun calibers in the US and probably the world, they were also designed to be military cartridges.
It's very difficult to rationalize how an inanimate object could be responsible for the actions of a madman. He could as easily have stolen a bus and driven it into a school cafeteria, even though the bus....and the cafeteria were originally designed for the military. Then what would your argument have been?
Very true, and what geniuses like SL forget is that the military and civilian sides interact on the technology constantly-as an example, military shotguns and handguns tend to be civilian models with some basic added features
The mutual use and improvement of items between the civilian and military/weapon venues goes back as far as the mind can comprehend and touches nearly every aspect of our lives inlcuding all forms of transportation and communication. One comes up with an idea, and then a cycle of each making improvements to it and using it in different ways commences. This has happened with planes, radios, ground vehicles, ships, phones, computing, data transfer (including the Internet), etc. Firearms are no different.
How many people in America have been killed by school buses driven into cafeterias?
Maybe the walls would stop the bus?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
