Armor-Piercing 5.7mm Pistol Used at Fort Hood Originally Designed for Military Only

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.

 

Comments

[fadedsun]

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.

[Ohio9]

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.

[prayforroy]

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.

[HisXLNC]

"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.

[tc399]

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

[prayforroy]

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.

[OdinsEye]

Many Boeing aircraft are used by the military.

[tc399]

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...which it was not..

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.

[martin2]

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 ?

[OdinsEye]

Try the FBI's CIUS/UCR

[SewaneeLeftist]

“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.pdamerica.org/articles/news/2009-10-01-00-24-17-news.php

[mike102]

"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.

[prayforroy]

"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.

[OldSFMJT]

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

[OdinsEye]

"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.

[tc399]

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.

[DaveNYC]

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.

[djcrsn]

and besides--the vast majority of shootings take place at BC/VPC endored gun free criminal empowerment zones

[DaveNYC]

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.

[prayforroy]

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.

[HisXLNC]

"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.

[prayforroy]

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.

[HisXLNC]

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).

[prayforroy]

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.

[prayforroy]

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.

[Dimensio]

"If we look at the comments below, you see that none of the NRA's adherents address the subject."

Your assertion is demonstrably false.

[Thirdpower]

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.

[djcrsn]

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)

[AngryOhioan]

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

[AJH]

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.

[OdinsEye]

"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/5.56x45 like the M16/M4. It is far more effective against hard and soft armor and has much better ballistics and terminal performance than the 5.7. Basically all the 5.7 amounts to is a reduced load .223 Rem.

[tc399]

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.....in which case ANY firearm is equally effective.

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.

[tc399]

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.....in which case ANY firearm is equally effective.

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?

[djcrsn]

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

[OdinsEye]

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.

[SewaneeLeftist]

The usual gun addict microscopi­c-distinct­ion-makers have already weighed in on this, but that was inevitable any time someone wrote about any of the specifics of the gun(s) used in the gun violence at Ft. Hood. But Mr. Sugarman's points are good ones, of course -- regulatory agencies and gun manufacturers have been enablers of the gun obsession psychosis. No reason exists for civilians to have these military weapons, regardless of the civilians' paranoia or their personal lack of power.

And of course the gun fetishists will make the same sort of specious arguments to say the gun violence at Ft. Hood couldn't be stopped or that all the people killed being armed would have saved them.

But some of what all this shows is that the military is sometimes more common sensical than the civilian world in America. At Ft. Hood, no one is allowed to carry (I'm sure the word is incorrect -- brandished, worn, or some other baloney distinction must be made or my argument is all wrong) guns except designated people, and all guns must be registered (another place for gun addict specious distinctions; the word is probably "inscribed" or something) with appropriate authorities.

In the non-military world, these would be good first steps to rationality about gun addict psychosis. Another common sense move would be the legal end of availability of military weapons to civilians.

Too many good people have died for us to allow this to continue.

[Dimensio]

Your "ad hominem" attacks do not constitute a logical argument in support of your position, nor do they negate the fact that Mr. Sugarmann is lying regarding the capabilities of the Five-seveN model handgun.

Your suggestion that prohibiting the carrying of firearms by civilians would be a "good step" for accomplishing a meaningful goal is wholly unsupported, and in fact is directly contradicted by the fact that private citizens who are legally permitted to carry firearms are, in general, more law abiding than the public at large. Your suggestion that firearms be universally registered is directly opposed by the fact that such a registration system could be used to enable efficient confiscation, a cause-and-effect relationship that has already been directly observed within various locales in the United States; your refusal to address this objection does not constitute a logical negation of this objection.

Rather than provide a logical and coherent argument against your position, you have instead engaged in "ad homimen" attacks by suggesting that those who do not share your position are "gun fetishists" and"gun addict microscopi­c-distinct­ion-makers­", you have engaged in the strawman argument that "military weapons" are avaible to civilians and you have suggested courses of action to which objections have already been made without making any attempt to address those objections. Your actions suggest a fundamentally irrational approach, as is common amongst advocates of civilian disarmament.

[OdinsEye]

Name calling verbosity is all he has.

[OdinsEye]

"The usual gun addict microscopi­­c-distinc­t­ion-make­rs "

You mean folks caught Josh telling fibs. He is infamous for this. As an example he routinely exchanges the terms assault rifle and assault weapon, in keeping with his memo that confusing the public furthers his cause. Your attempt to spin this fails miserably.

"But some of what all this shows is that the military is sometimes more common sensical than the civilian world in America."

Only if the military outnumbers the civilians. What it shows is that the military has enacted some restrictions which you personally favor, not ones that necessarily make sense, common or uncommon. FYI common sense is not always good sense.

"At Ft. Hood, no one is allowed to carry (I'm sure the word is incorrect -- brandished, worn, or some other baloney distinction must be made or my argument is all wrong) guns except designated people, and all guns must be registered (another place for gun addict specious distinctions; the word is probably "inscribed" or something) with appropriate authorities. "

And yet the outcome was what exactly? Oh yes, I know: yet another mass shooting in a designated gun free zone.

[djcrsn]

People like SL, Jade, Paulie, Dennis the Menace and the 2 Joshes always seem to ignore the fact that all the shootings occur in gun free criminal empowerment zones

[OdinsEye]

"Another common sense move would be the legal end of availability of military weapons to civilians."

The Five-seven is not used by our military and I am not aware of any military which uses it. Furthermore, just about anything and everything has been or is a military weapon. Military sniper rifle, nothing more than a standard bolt action hunting rifle. Shotgun, several types are or have been used by the military. Revolvers, standard issue until the 1980s. Not to mention a myriad of knives, both fixed and folding, including Gerber, SOG, and Leatherman multi-tools.

[djcrsn]

Sewanee--the only people demonstrating mental illness here are you and jade. Choosing to own a gun does not make a law abiding person psychotic or a gun addict. In this case, the real screw up was by law enforcement and the military that should have caught the red flags the shooter was flying

[splathrop]

Two good points, but:

1. Being psychotic or a gun addict does seem to make people more likely to want to own a gun, or a at least a hell of a lot more dangerous if they do own one.

2. Can you imagine any system of personal surveillance you would want to live with which would be sufficient to arrest everyone flying "red flags," as you call them--that is, arrest them BEFORE they commit criminal acts with their guns?

[tc399]

Between 600 and 900 people A DAY die in hospitals from simple, preventable medical mistakes or infections they acquired in the hospital. Too many good people have died for us to allow this to continue. Highway deaths? ~58,00 a year.

The PRIMARY weapon used in ALL homicides now and throughout history are edged weapons...typically kitchen knives in the US.

But firearms are the root of all evil? I recall right after the musical "West side Story" came out in the 50s there was a hue and cry that switchblade knives, the worst POSSIBLE object to use as a weapon because the blade is supported on a weak pivot pin were going to cause the ruination of our youth and gang wars in the streets. It caused the US Congress to outlaw them but except for the movie, they were never any threat.

I slammed my fingers in a car door once. It was a Japanese car. I can make a good case for outlawing them.

[OdinsEye]

"It caused the US Congress to outlaw them but except for the movie, they were never any threat."

Only the importation of auto-opening knives (AKA switchblades). Benchmade makes some pretty good ones here in the US. But your point regarding them is correct. They were never really a threat and the law regarding their importation is silly.

[Blak]

The media's obbsession with demonizing firearms needs to end. This animal would have done almost the same amount of damage with any other type of round. And as for the FNH five seven...armour piercing....hardly.

[OdinsEye]

Oh, and Josh, the SS192 ammo was never restricted ammo. The SS90, SS190 (restricted by the BATFE), SB193, L191, and SS198LF are restricted.

Most likely the Major was using the SS196 (unrestricted), SS195LF (unrestricted), or SS197SR (unrestricted).

[tc399]

Ya know, I have access to the restricted versions.....but I don't shoot down unarmed people...or anyone else for that matter. What's the point, Josh? That nutloafs do nutty things?