FN 5.7 handgun controversy 19 replies

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,014 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,003 Posts

6 Threads

#1 6 years ago

Been a while since we had a decent gun law discussion. So I was browsing wikipedia and read that FN is producing a handgun designed to penetrate military-spec kevlar vests. Eventually they offered this gun with a supposedly non-armor piercing ammunition on the civilian US market, which met with some resistance from anti-gun groups. Attempts to ban the gun or the ammunition have failed so far.

The gun has been used in the Ford Hood shooting (although I don't know whether armor piercing ammunition was used or whether the victims were even equipped with protective vests). It also seems to be popular in the Mexican drug war.

What are your thoughts on making such weapons (i.e. weapons designed to defeat protective gear) available to civilians?




Andron Taps Forum Mod

Faktrl is Best Pony

261,593 XP

10th September 2007

4 Uploads

21,746 Posts

1,754 Threads

#2 6 years ago

I love that gun, it's the main weapon of Sam Fisher in Splinter Cell. Therefore everyone should get one.

But in all seriousness, I guess you should treat it as any other gun, but maybe hold it to some higher standards set forth by the ATF. In fact, IIRC, this gun actually does go through a fairly strict filter before you can actually buy one.


"I'd shush her zephyr." ~ Zephyr.



Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,365 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,147 Posts

5 Threads

#3 6 years ago

As I recall police in America don't weary body armour on a regular basis. And if you were going to be shot with something - wouldn't you rather it be a little hole-puncher than a .45?




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,014 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,003 Posts

6 Threads

#4 6 years ago

computernerd;5608456 But in all seriousness, I guess you should treat it as any other gun, [/QUOTE] If it has different capabilities then maybe it shouldn't be treated as any other gun. Maybe the difference in capability is not so great, but why risk it?

[QUOTE=Nemmerle;5608459]As I recall police in America don't weary body armour on a regular basis. And if you were going to be shot with something - wouldn't you rather it be a little hole-puncher than a .45?

"Today about 75 percent of officers nationwide work in departments that require the equipment to be worn while officers are on duty or in certain high-risk situations" source

As for the lethality, a small high-velocity bullet is likely to tumble, so the difference is probably not as great as the caliber suggests. Also, what such a round may lack in lethality is compensated by higher magazine capacity and reduced recoil, which increases the probability of a hit.




Crazy Wolf VIP Member

Snipes With Artillery

277,420 XP

22nd March 2005

0 Uploads

27,192 Posts

0 Threads

#5 6 years ago

MrFancypants;5608455Been a while since we had a decent gun law discussion. So I was browsing wikipedia and read that FN is producing a handgun designed to penetrate military-spec kevlar vests. Eventually they offered this gun with a supposedly non-armor piercing ammunition on the civilian US market, which met with some resistance from anti-gun groups. Attempts to ban the gun or the ammunition have failed so far.

The gun has been used in the Ford Hood shooting (although I don't know whether armor piercing ammunition was used or whether the victims were even equipped with protective vests). It also seems to be popular in the Mexican drug war.

What are your thoughts on making such weapons (i.e. weapons designed to defeat protective gear) available to civilians?[/QUOTE]As is, the ammo designed for defeating armor is rather difficult for civilians to acquire (laws vary, but the manufacturer doesn't like selling to civilians). There are other manufacturers who try to step up to the plate, and IIRC they've had only limited success (and in the USA they aren't keen on armor-piercing rounds developed for pistols, so the ATF tends to crack down on them. There is contention on how to handle this, as, IIRC, armor-piercing rounds for the P90 would be OK, but the same rounds for the Five-seveN are not).

I'm fine with the pistol and the ammunition being available. Aside from the whole "2nd Amendment" thing my country has, this pistol and ammunition have not proven themselves to be unusually effective at killing people, let alone killing people illegally.

[QUOTE=Nemmerle;5608459]As I recall police in America don't wear body armour on a regular basis. And if you were going to be shot with something - wouldn't you rather it be a little hole-puncher than a .45?

Actually, IIRC most of the people shot with the Five-seveN in the Fort Hood attack survived. The victims of the Fort Hood attack were not armored, Kevlar is not commonly worn in offices in the USA. It's not terribly effective at killing people unless careful aim or multiple rounds are used. Things that punch through armor usually aren't as effective against flesh; the qualities needed to defeat armor are not qualities well-suited to maximizing the trauma dealt to living tissue.

Far more effective weapons with a well-demonstrated ability to kill people are legal.

I would also like to argue that the idea of "armor piercing" rounds could negatively affect a criminal's aim. With a round that won't defeat armor, to kill an armored person you would have to aim at their head or legs, to ensure that your hit would do something. If you are given a round that can defeat armor, then you would feel more comfortable in imprecisely aiming, since any hit will draw blood. Less precise aim = less rounds hitting a vital area.

EDIT: Fort Hood shooting: 13 dead, 29 wounded, with at least 9 empty magazines of 20 or 30 rounds each.




Pethegreat VIP Member

Lord of the Peach

70 XP

19th April 2004

0 Uploads

20,892 Posts

0 Threads

#6 6 years ago
What are your thoughts on making such weapons (i.e. weapons designed to defeat protective gear) available to civilians?

FN won't sell the AP ammo to anyone but the armed forces and police agencies. It is a moot point on either side.

Surplus steel core 7.62x25 can penetrate body armour and it has been around since the 30's. The US has banned importation of such ammo since it can go through type I, IIA, and II vests.




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#7 6 years ago

I have no problem with the gun being sold as long as the AP ammo is not sold to public. There are a number of guns that could penetrate armor vests if AP rounds were sold for them.

IMHO ammo such as the Military/Police issue AP rounds are the types that should be serial numbered so if they show up somewhere they are not supposed to it could be traced.

It was my understanding that Soviet era 7.62x39 was not illegal in US and I thought it was steel core.




Pethegreat VIP Member

Lord of the Peach

70 XP

19th April 2004

0 Uploads

20,892 Posts

0 Threads

#8 6 years ago
It was my understanding that Soviet era 7.62x39 was not illegal in US and I thought it was steel core.

A few of listings I looked at for 7.62X54 and 5.45x39 were surplus steel core from USSR satellite states.

Ammunitionstore.com - 7.62x54r Ammo 148gr FMJ Waterproof Spam Can Russian Mfg 440 Rounds for sale! Cheap, low, bulk, wholesale pricing!

Russian 5.45x39 53grn FMJ 1080rd Can

I can't seem to find any 7.62x39 steel core though.




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,365 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,147 Posts

5 Threads

#9 6 years ago

MrFancypants;5608465"Today about 75 percent of officers nationwide work in departments that require the equipment to be worn while officers are on duty or in certain high-risk situations" source

As for the lethality, a small high-velocity bullet is likely to tumble, so the difference is probably not as great as the caliber suggests. Also, what such a round may lack in lethality is compensated by higher magazine capacity and reduced recoil, which increases the probability of a hit.

That doesn't tell you much (anything?) about the prevalence of body armour in day to day activities. At least not without the ratio of 'high-risk' to just on duty. High risk situations may be the majority of it, and may just qualify as kicking down the door to someone's home.

If you plan to fight under those sorts of conditions, surely the obvious thing to do would be to rig a load of explosives up to go off when they stick the door in. Or, use one of the guns that are capable of inflicting catastrophic compression. Drive the front plate of the body armour back towards their spine. Squishy-squishy.

Pistols seem likely to be weapons of opportunity. Something you'd reach for if caught off guard while out and about. And if that's the case the cop's probably not wearing body armour anyway - at least not if TV's anything to go by.

#

I can't comment too much on the odds of the thing tumbling. Don't know enough about ballistics. Based on what I know I'd guess that twist rate and the relative densities of the different parts of the bullet strongly determine how stable your bullet is.

The centre of gravity of the bullet, naturally being more towards the heavier parts of the bullet, will attempt to come to the fore as the bullet is rapidly decelerated in the body of the target. Assuming that the twist rate isn't high enough to offset any pitching or yawing motions that the bullet makes, of course.

#

Higher capacity mags seem to make the assumption that the person is going to get to fire all their bullets. But the critical part of most engagements seems to be over in the first few seconds, if it occurs at close range. Having a lot of bullets doesn't let you fire them any faster.

Under those conditions, I'd want a really big bullet, so that the first one I landed had a decent chance to put him out of the fight. I wouldn't want to be standing there while he shoots me full of holes and I shoot him full of holes. The longer the fight goes on the better his chances of getting a hit.

Something small enough you could get it out REALLY quick would be ideal. Maybe a short .45

Though a lot of it's going to come down to shot placement.

But those are the sort of things I'd be worried about. That or small automatic weapons with some ridiculously high rate of fire so that he would get to use all those bullets.

If the fight occurs at longer ranges - yes the guy's ability to keep firing at you will up the odds of your getting hit. But in the sort of timespans where that's going to be an issue, reloading is going to represent a relatively small part of it anyway.

And, let's be honest, most people are such bad shots you could probably just walk down to the next intersection and leave.

If the criminals were staring to learn to shoot properly, getting automatic weapons, or there was a proliferation of ACOG sights or something like that, that'd be a lot more worrying. Just having more bullets though. Gneh. I don't see the time they'd take to reload as particularly significant.

Besides - lots of people sacrifice accuracy for rate of fire by keeping on pulling the trigger before they can aim the next shot - and if a larger mag encourages that sort of behaviour I'm all for it. =p




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,014 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,003 Posts

6 Threads

#10 6 years ago

Crazy Wolf;5608471Aside from the whole "2nd Amendment" thing my country has, this pistol and ammunition have not proven themselves to be unusually effective at killing people, let alone killing people illegally. [/QUOTE] The 2nd amendment doesn't specify what type of weapon should be made available, so it doesn't seem relevant. As for the gun - it is a matter of fact that it is more capable of defeating body armour, which makes it more effective at killing people who try to protect themselves with body armour.

EDIT: Fort Hood shooting: 13 dead, 29 wounded, with at least 9 empty magazines of 20 or 30 rounds each.

That sounds pretty bad. Considering that the shooting took place at a military base this indicates that the gun was quite effective. But with regard to the discussion about body armour the Ford Hood shooting is probably not so relevant as I doubt that many of the people walking around there wear body armour all of the time.

Pethegreat;5608478FN won't sell the AP ammo to anyone but the armed forces and police agencies. It is a moot point on either side.

Surplus steel core 7.62x25 can penetrate body armour and it has been around since the 30's. The US has banned importation of such ammo since it can go through type I, IIA, and II vests.

Crazy Wolf just said that private companies might sell such ammunition and that the same ammo for the P-90 is possibly legal. But yeah, if it is impossible to get AP-ammo it wouldn't be much of an issue.

[QUOTE=Nemmerle;5608506]That doesn't tell you much (anything?) about the prevalence of body armour in day to day activities. At least not without the ratio of 'high-risk' to just on duty. High risk situations may be the majority of it, and may just qualify as kicking down the door to someone's home.

It says many cops have to wear armour while on duty while others wear it during high risk operations. So those 75% of cops are likely to wear some sort of armour when someone is shooting at them.

This: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/leoka/leoka-2010/officers-feloniously-killed says that almost all officers killed in the US in 2010 were wearing body armour at the time. So the prevalence of body armour seems to be very high in those situations where it might matter. Out of those who didn't wear armour most weren't wearing uniform either, so they might have been shot while not on duty.

If you plan to fight under those sorts of conditions, surely the obvious thing to do would be to rig a load of explosives up to go off when they stick the door in. Or, use one of the guns that are capable of inflicting catastrophic compression. Drive the front plate of the body armour back towards their spine. Squishy-squishy. Pistols seem likely to be weapons of opportunity. Something you'd reach for if caught off guard while out and about. And if that's the case the cop's probably not wearing body armour anyway - at least not if TV's anything to go by.

I don't think many criminals have boobytrapped their house or an elephant rifle next to their bed. If you can get a handgun which is easy to conceal, accurate, has lots of ammo capacity and can defeat body armour why would you bother with other weapons which might draw attention?

I can't comment too much on the odds of the thing tumbling. Don't know enough about ballistics. Based on what I know I'd guess that twist rate and the relative densities of the different parts of the bullet strongly determine how stable your bullet is. The centre of gravity of the bullet, naturally being more towards the heavier parts of the bullet, will attempt to come to the fore as the bullet is rapidly decelerated in the body of the target. Assuming that the twist rate isn't high enough to offset any pitching or yawing motions that the bullet makes, of course.

It seems obvious that a light bullet is more likely to tumble than a heavy bullet due to inertia. As for what you write about the centre of gravity, the 5.7 round is rather long for a pistol round, so that also suggests that it should tumble. Besides, it is a military round, chances are that it has been designed to tumble.

Higher capacity mags seem to make the assumption that the person is going to get to fire all their bullets. But the critical part of most engagements seems to be over in the first few seconds, if it occurs at close range. Having a lot of bullets doesn't let you fire them any faster.

Having more rounds and lower recoil means that you can either fire faster with the same degree of accuracy or with the same rate of fire at a higher accuracy. Also, being the first to score a hit (which is more likely if you have a lighter gun that can be brought to bear more quickly, which is more accurate or has a higher rate of fire) should improve your chances to survive quite a bit.

Under those conditions, I'd want a really big bullet, so that the first one I landed had a decent chance to put him out of the fight. I wouldn't want to be standing there while he shoots me full of holes and I shoot him full of holes. The longer the fight goes on the better his chances of getting a hit....

If you are shooting at a cop in body armour you'd want a gun that can penetrate body armour. Or a gun that is accurate and can be fired quickly to allow you a chance to hit the areas without armour.

A more powerful handgun may be useful in other situations though. For many shooters it is probably a subjective matter or something determined by their strength.




  • 1
  • 2