Steel Fan,Congratulations. I commend you on your insightful post. Most folks do not think about these weapons/rounds getting into the "Wrong" hands. Perhaps they were just out to make money, then again perhaps not. I don't know their reasons therefore I can not truly say what their reason was/is. It's still a good post you put up though.

Whew! This thread just got me all hot and bothered! May have to take a few pics of my own. Sooo....the LC9? I was looking at getting a S&W Bodyguard .380 since it comes with a laser and slips right in the pocket or a micro eagle 380, but if the new wave is tiny 9mms, I may hold off--one less caliber I need to reload for.

Interesting thoughts Steelfan. I gotta admit, when I saw it, my first thought was "here's a handgun gun I can nail deer with at 100 yards!" LEO/military concerns never crossed my mind. I can see how it might be an issue though.

My take on it is that it is a bit underpowered for Deer at 100 yards and is not really designed for hunting with such a short barrel .... but we all have a different take on that sort of thing .... when we looked at these pistols over here they did'nt really do anything a teflon round in 9mm could'nt do ... then it dawned on us that simply by doing that with a copper jacketed bullet they were pushing for a different market ... that that was the whole purpose of the calibre ...

FN you see made a lot of money with the Browning HP on military sales in the past ... they lost these contracts mainly to SIG for us and Berretta for you and CZ for the Eastern European market and the Germans have always gone for H&K's or Walther's ... and virtually everyone likes the Glocks .... combine that with the loss of the SLR as our battle rifle and one used by many other Nations ... and they must have been hurting a lot financially.

Some of us felt their going down this route was a bit like giving the finger to the LEO/Military market for not choosing any of their products. Here in Europe nearly all cops day to day armour is the low profile level II ... and whilst pistols can be legally purchased in most countries ... assault rifles and especially cut down pistols of these cannot ... and ofcourse teflon rounds are not available to the civilian market ... so it begs the question whether the FN marketing guys thought "right, lets see what we can do in the "other" side of the market" ... because these pistols can now be bought over the counter throughout Europe and for anyone looking for a pistol to shoot "centre mass" with little or no advanced skill and still take down guys in armoured vests they now have the ideal "solution".

A bit like a London market trader shouting to the crowd ... " get your cop killers here" ... "roll up roll up" ... "so ugly you won't mind dumping them after use" .... "ideal for the up and coming Al Kieda" .... joking I know but you get the point ...

You know Peter, Americans have always wanted to be well armed in defense against a tyranical government. That is really what our Second Amendment was written for. It goes back to King George III. Colonials using those squirrel rifles to knock off British officers wasn't cricket. But having freedom does entail some risks to us all, not just LEOs. Hoodlums and gangsters like firepower, too. And we have all seen just recently in Arizona what mayhem a demented person with a Glock can cause. But the sin is in the user, not the round or the weapon. I'm quite sure that any of my .223 rifles could penetrate the vests most LEOs wear. I have no plans to find out, though. I also have no need of the FN "vest puncher" pistol. But in the event of a complete totalitarian takeover, it would be nice to know that at least some of my fellow peasants could resist the King's knights in their armor with a pistol. You know, peasants were not allowed to own swords, either.

I wholeheartedly agree Vic ... pistols like that in lawful citizen's hands are an example of the practical truth of owning weapons to keep the land free for the citizens who live there and who are entitled to this fundamental right of freedom ....

No greater truth is there in saying that the "sin is in the user" where any weapon is concerned ....

And should the unfortunate situation arise where the bad guys are using them with their own armour vests .... it could be critical that these sort of pistols are also in the hands of the lawful potential victims ....

However, sometimes it just appears that the concept of "peace" and "freedom" being assured by "parity" with arms of all types being available to all sides of any potential conflict .... simply benefits the people who make "the arms" ... and not those who step forward and try to protect those rights to freedom for the benfit of all ...

Your difficulty is when the "Mutually Assured Destruction" theory starts to filter through and then you worry about who has an ability to kill everyone .... and who has not ....

If we all went around strapped with semtex "party jackets" on which could take out the whole neighbourhood .... would we have a "polite society" or a "worried society" and what would be the quality of our freedom ?

Sometimes you have to draw a line in the sand as to what is "out there" and say that if we want our freedom then those who are in the firing line are entitled to ask the arms companies to curb what they sell and to whom the sell it ....

Well said, Peter. I gave up a long time ago in my quest to achieve neighborhood nuclear superiority. Somehow, the word "reasonable" comes to mind. I never got a machinegun, either, even though they are lawful to own in Georgia, and fun to shoot. I can't afford to feed them. It was Ok when Uncle Sugar was buying the ammo. I figured that any gun that I could hit with was a reasonable deterrent. The lowly .22 rifle would likely be the real weapon of the peasants in a resistance anyway. If I can shoot a squirrel in the head at 40 yds, I can place a shot on something bigger. Then when the oppressor falls, I have what he has. It's all in On Guerilla Warfare by Mao Tse-tung. Hopefully, the current revolution will remain at the ballot box. Those of us who have seen the carnage of war and armed revolts are not anxious to see it where we live.

The arms merchants have no motive but profit. That goes at at the macro level, too. There really is a military-industrial complex. Sometimes I think we get into unnecessary conflicts just to justify our massive defense budget. But that's another topic altogether. Certainly the world would be a better place if we could all seek to change ourselves intead of trying to impose some utopian system on others. But until that happens, weapons will remain a necessary evil.

Peter, and HD, thanks for an insightful discussion. Of course HD and I have a lot of the same points of view because we both are American and have been raised in a different society than Peter. Peter I understand your point of view too--and appreciate you sharing it with us.

This is exactly my feelings on the topic.

To question the legitimacy of any cartridge or gun because it poses a threat to law enforcement is the same as questioning spoons for making people fat.

Spoons don't make people fat, and bullets designed to penetrate armor are no more dangerous than a BB for those of us that aren't criminals.

Once we buy into the "for the greater good" argument we might as well line up and wait for our turn in the "shower" at the FEMA camp.

I want the most potent equipment to become and remain available to the civilian population because as Vic stated: the Second Amendment is specifically designed to be used as a defense against tyranny. The purpose for the 2nd was brilliant, because the threat of tyranny will never cease to exist...and therefore...the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms should never be infringed.

Well it's hard for me to make a post without going off into the yonder about whatever. My phone typing skills can't even handle a couple lf sentences much less a bunch of yadda yadda. So I will try to keep it simple.

I'm not a picky type but when I see something unique or very close to what I feel I want then I tend to go for it. I completly understand why anybody could feel the FiveSeven round is a step in the wrong direction. I am also the kind of guy who would agree that a 1911 platform wasnt ever necessary. But I also would've gone out and bought one for myself the first day they showed up in stores. In it's day im sure plenty did not agree with it's design or purpose. I recall some of the earlier days of the Glock and wanted one before I could legally buy a gun (1990ish). When I had the chance to buy one I didn't like it so I bought something different. Ath the time I had learned more about the firearm and it's history spoke volumes. I don't tend to follow the "everybody" way of rationalizing things so I opted for something else. If it doesn't work for one person It doesn't mean dismiss it for everybody or marginalize it's existance.. The FsN fits the "not for everybody" category in way more ways that just its design. Im not qualified enough to justify its true purpose though. But I do understand the reasons for the "Why???" and Im afraid the only really appropriate answer I can see is "Because.."

If I had not purshased the FsN I had planned to purchase another abomination in the form of the AR15 pistol. I doubt my choice means more or less to the local police but I am aware of the many processes it took to place the firearm in my possession. I personally can't see any blame that can be placed on Bass Pro, Toyota, Addias, or the treasury deparment if I wake up tomorrow and do horrible things with a XXXXX product in my hand. I think of it in the same way that we don't generally blame alcohol company's for drunk drivers either. People still would never commit the crime without the supply. I believe a drunk is at his/her most efficient with 151 and a souped up mustang. 151 would be pretty effective but we dont compare a drivers ability to drive though a house while drinking 151 .vs the same house with 80 proof. I do stupid analogies all the time by the way...

I can't say anything that hasn't been said in this thread so far. Good conversation though.. [color:"red"] [/color]

I know there are times/reasons for rounds of this sort. And I am NOT just talking Military/LEO. Heck, I wouldn't mind having a bit of them for "just in case". But my personal theory is I want a bullet that will make as big a hole as it can, to STOP a threat. But again on the other side, at times it IS more beneficial to have one or two others to have to carry a fallen comrade off the field. Catch 22, if you do or if you don't.

Personally I am NOT against the so called Cop Killer bullets and those classified in this catagory. I know there are times when they are the ONLY round that will work for a certain situation, and Not just for shooting someone, but shooting through something.

I just wish that the rounds were open to buy by folks that could prove a "clean" record, perhaps much like having to buy a firearm or CCW license (not talking the FiveSeven here. Heck if it was left up to me ALL the specialty rounds would be available to everyone, but I would be tempted to make sure they were "Good" people, which opens up a whole other ball of wax.

My 2 cents and not stated very well, but perhaps you can get the gist of my thoughts.

Good discussion guys

This ^^^^^ is exactly right, and exactly why the other side wants to ban our weapons.

Kinda off the original topic, but still some good discussion.