Before today I had never heard of RECOIL Magazine.
Which is probably not a Bad Thing, because the editor appears to be a gun-banning wolf in geeks clothing.
By way of George Hill, we learn that the afore-mentioned magazine apparently ran an article on the H undt K MP7A1 in which said editor writes:
“…the MP71A is unavailable to civilians and for good measure. We all know that’s technology no civvies should ever get to lay their hands on. This is a purpose-built weapon with no sporting applications to speak of.”
Why do the gun-banners always, ALWAYS bring up “sporting purpose?” Or in this case “sporting application”?
It’s right up there with the “For the chhhiilll-dren!” trope.
Once again, I have re-read my copy of the Constitution of these United States, and — yet again — nowhere in the Second Amendment to that Constitution do I find any Freyja-be-damned thing about “sporting purposes” or “sporting applications”.
As an aside, I have to wonder just exactly how good the firearms knowledge of that editor is, because the technology of the MP7A1 is based on designs developed in an Ogden gun shop by John Moses Browning in the 19th century.
If they mean the 4.6X 30 cartridge the MP7A1 was designed to fire — there are plenty of 40gr bullets running at 1900 FPS at Wal-Mart. We just call it the .22 WMR. Oh, wait. The 40-grain .22 WMR generally runs about 100 FPS faster than the 40-gr 4.6.
Not sure that I’ve heard very much about the death-dealing potential of the .22 maggie — but since it’s actually faster with the same weight bullet as the 4.6 I’m sure DOD will be all over it right skippy.
It gets better.
Apparently there was a bit of a backlash, so the very same editor who wrote the article decided to double-down on the stupid on Facebook.
“Hey guys, this is Jerry Tsai, Editor of RECOIL. I think I need to jump in here and clarify what I wrote in the MP7A1 article. It looks like I may not have stated my point clearly enough in that line that is quoted up above. Let’s be clear, neither RECOIL nor I are taking the stance on what should or should not be made available on the commercial market although I can see how what was written can be confused as such.
Because we don’t want anything to be taken out of context, let’s complete that quote and read the entire paragraph:
“Like we mentioned before, the MP7A1 is unavailable to civilians and for good reason. We all know that’s technology no civvies should ever get to lay their hands on. This is a purpose-built weapon with no sporting applications to speak of. It is made to put down scumbags, and that’s it. Mike Cabrera of Heckler & Koch Law Enforcement Sales and veteran law enforcement officer with SWAT unit experience points out that this is a gun that you do not want in the wrong, slimy hands. It comes with semi-automatic and full-auto firing modes only. Its overall size places it between a handgun and submachine gun. Its assault rifle capabilities and small size make this a serious weapon that should not be taken lightly.”
Let’ also review why this gun should not be taken lightly. In the article it was stated that the MP7A1 is a slightly larger than handgun sized machine-gun that can be accurately fired and penetrate Soviet style body armor at more than 300 yards. In the wrong hands, that’s a bad day for the good guys.
As readers of RECOIL, we all agree that we love bad-ass hardware, there’s no question about that. I believe that in a perfect world, all of us should have access to every kind of gadget that we desire. Believe me, being a civvie myself, I’d love to be able to get my hands on an MP7A1 of my own regardless of its stated purpose, but unfortunately the reality is that it isn’t available to us. As a fellow enthusiast, I know how frustrating it is to want something only to be denied it.
Its manufacturer has not made the gun available to the general public and when we asked if it would ever come to the commercial market, they replied that it is strictly a military and law enforcement weapon, adding that there are no sporting applications for it. Is it wrong that HK decided against selling a full-auto pocket sized machine gun that can penetrate armor from hundreds of yards away? It’s their decision to make and their decision they have to live with not mine nor anybody else’s.
I accepted their answer for what it was out of respect for those serving in uniform. I believe that we as gun enthusiasts should respect our brothers in law enforcement, agency work and the military and also keep them out of harms way. Like HK, I wouldn’t want to see one of these slip into the wrong hands either. Whether or not you agree with this is fine. I am compelled to explain a point that I was trying to make that may have not been clear.
Thanks for reading,
– JT, Editor, RECOIL”
Well, that just speaks volumes about the mindset of the staff over at RECOIL Magazine, doesn’t it?
Makes me wish I had a subscription so that I could cancel it.
Far be it from me to offer advice to those who are neither kith nor kin, but I’m thinking that the hard-earned money of gunnies can be better given to people who actually support the Second Amendment. Unlike RECOIL Magazine.
But that’s just me.