NATO'S 'PERSONAL DEFENSE WEAPONS'...

Some time in the late 1980's NATO issued a memorandum for proposal for a "Personal Defense Weapon". Two companies responded to this product request and they were H&K and FNH. The proposal in a very limited sense followed many of the same requirements that had led to the creation of the M-1 Carbine by the United States military prior to World War Two. Essentially, it was supposed to be a military weapon for rear echelon people such as mechanics, drivers, cooks, bakers and supply personnel, but not be the standard issue sidearm or full size infantry rifle.

Additionally it was supposed to utilize a new round of ammo that would penetrate all known 'soft' body armor plus have a 'limited' range. FNH responded with the 5.7x28mm round and later H&K introduced the 4.6mm round. I had a chance in the early 1990's during a visit to Belgium to spend a day on the range with a prototype select-fire P90, which was FNH's answer to this request. The ammo in use at that time employed a 27 grain projectile that was capable of both penetrating soft body armor and having a limited effective range of only 150 meters. The latter being a design parameter. I was told the projectile was designed to fall to the ground within 500 meters, all things being equal.

For several years now the civilian market here in the states has been able to purchase a civilian legal version of the FNH P90 called the PS90 and until recently I owned one. It is an interesting firearm and has several good features. Probably the best being it's 50 round magazine which lays horizontally atop the main body of the firearm. The gun itself has an unusual shape that takes some getting used to, but I found the gun to be almost perfect farm pick-up gun, if you don't have to engage any varmit larger than 40 to 50 pounds in body weight.

I used mine to take a red fox a year ago at our west farm. It was a 'running' shot and the distance approximately 120 yards, but I didn't do it with the supplied optic sighting system which I found was simply horrid. FNH first offered the gun with the UK supplied Ring Sight (that's the name of the company, not a physical description) and it came with a 'white' colored reticle which around here in the winter is completely useless. I replaced the entire sighting system with an after-market tri-rail top I found on the interweb and a Trijicon reflex sight that worked wonderfully. The largest red fox I've seen killed in this area weighed 14 pounds 4 ounces, so they are not large animals. (A red fox is essentially a miniature grey hound 'dog' with exquisite taste in outer wear.) When I hit him he dropped like a bag of wet socks and I attribute much of that success to dumb luck and the projectile now being loading in the 5.7x28mm 'sporting' ammo, which is the 40 gr. Hornady V-Max. That bullet is simply superb.

When I tested the P90 prototype back in Belgium many years ago it was obvious the 27 grain ammo had a problem. As in two complete impact points when the gun was fired in full-auto. I certainly am not privy to the complete story on this ammo and what transpired later, but it is important to understand that all the ammo used presently for both civilian and law enforcement/military applications employs projectiles weighing 40 grains, NOT 27 grains.

The FNH PS90 is a handy carbine and has much to recommend it. Yet, there are two areas that over time and familiarity I became uncomfortable with. The first was the round itself which I will discuss tomorrow and the horizontal 'rotate-a-wheel' Safety at the front of the trigger guard.

I just simply could never get used to it, so like the old Winchester Model 94 .30/30 I kept the chamber empty and the Safety OFF. When the situation called for an immediate action drill I charged the chamber by pulling back on the cocking handle and took aim. Ignoring the manual Safety entirely throughout the process. I won't recommend this procedure, but it worked for me.

Two years ago I got the chance to spend an afternoon with HK MP7'A1', which is all the rage now on the military/shooting shows as seen on Thursday night teevee. It too is a gun that was created out of response to the NATO request from over 20 years ago and it is an excellent piece of equipment. In fact, of the two I think I would prefer the MP7 over the P90, but much of that would have to do with the position of the Safety/Selector switch. On the MP7 it is in a location I am used to and therefore I found it more natural. That's not a recommendation or a criticism, just a reflection of what I'm used to. However, again I have reservations about the round developed for this military/law enforcement weapon.

I think of the two the MP7 would probably be the easiest to conceal (?? Yeah, I know...), but I found a shoulder strap device at a local gunshow that worked well with my PS90, so it isn't hard to carry and conceal it either if a person has a mind to do so.

My reservations about either weapon do not lie with the actual mechanics or the guns themselves (they both are excellent), but the rounds they chamber and the stated purpose of the original RFP. I'm not sure 'soft' body armor is really going to be the problem the NATO planners envisioned it would be. Most everyone in the sandbox on our side is using 'hard' body armor, so this ammo is useless against it.....unless of course I'm missing something which I could very well be. And if they have no body armor at all, then I'm not sure the military ammo for either weapon and caliber is going to prove all that effective.

Tomorrow I'll explain my concerns about these calibers in greater detail...

All The Best,

Frank W. James