The Gun Seen Round The World 
 
By Stephen Hunter
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 24, 2000; Page C01 

It is one of the most disturbing images of the year: a burly federal officer, 
helmeted, goggled, wearing a flak jacket, battle fatigues and shooter's 
gloves designed to protect the hand but permit the prehensility of the 
trigger finger, confronting a screaming child and the man who protects him.

And, of course, he has a gun.

The officer, wearing a Border Patrol patch on his vest, is holding it 
one-handed by the pistol grip, his naked shooting finger indexed over the 
trigger guard, the butt stock unanchored in the cup of his shoulder. The gun 
looks terrifying, as it is designed to look: a black, plastic-shrouded 
apparition with a bleak little snout, a curved ammunition magazine containing 
32 rounds of what are almost certainly hollow-points, a strange bulge forward 
under the muzzle, which is but 15 inches from Elian Gonzalez and Donato 
Dalrymple.

What gun is this? Where are we now?

The gun is a German-manufactured submachine gun that goes under the 
designation MP-5, a short-barreled 9mm weapon that has been famous in action 
and movies since May 1980, when British SAS troopers armed with it 
successfully assaulted the Iranian embassy in London, killing all but one of 
the terrorists who had commandeered the building and murdered a policewoman.

It is currently issued to almost all Western elite military units, civilian 
SWAT and hostage rescue teams, and movie stars heroically fighting 
international evil. Bruce Willis used it in the "Die Hard" movies; James Bond 
has used it. The Baltimore County SWAT team used it against Joseph 
Palczynski, hitting him 27 times in 42 attempts in about three seconds. It 
was seen in the hands of a bearded FBI agent guarding Tim McVeigh during his 
trial.

As the M-16 became the symbol of the Vietnam era, the MP-5, manufactured by 
Heckler & Koch, of Oberndorf, Germany, has become the symbol of our nervous 
postwar environment. It represents the condition our condition is in, where 
highly trained units may have to act with surgical precision against heavily 
armed opponents in highly volatile circumstances.

"Operators," as SWAT officers and commandos style themselves, love it because 
it is light, easy to manipulate in tight spaces, rugged and reliable. It can 
fire thousands of rounds without so much as a burp. It is easy to maintain 
once its few secrets have been mastered. It is also flexible.

It can be fitted with suppressors (the movies call them silencers), 
shortened, lightened, mounted with a telescopic sight or an infrared one for 
night operations, given a folding or collapsing stock, chambered in more 
powerful calibers, hidden in a briefcase, hung invisibly in a harness under a 
suit coat, configured to fire single shots, shoot two or three-round bursts, 
or rip off an entire magazine in three seconds.

One of the more popular stylings is apparent on the gun in the photograph. 
That bulge at the end of the muzzle is actually a flashlight housing, in 
which nestles the state-of-the-art device in tactical illumination, the 
Sure-Fire flashlight. Fashion dominates the tactical world as it dominates 
any world, and in the past few years illumination technology has become all 
the rage, under the principle that most lethal-force encounters take place in 
low light, and so the operator who can see his target--and know that if his 
target is illuminated, his weapon is correctly aimed--has the advantage.

For the record, the gun is 26 inches long, with an 8.85-inch barrel. It 
weighs 5.5 pounds and fires at a cyclic rate of 600 rounds per minute, which 
means not that you could shoot it 600 times in a minute but that if you had a 
magazine that contained 600 rounds, it would take a minute to fire it.

MP-5s are not issued to troops or police officers routinely; they have 
specific tactical uses. They are frequently used as statements of 
intimidation to ensure crowd control or to dissuade aggressive action. In 
this way, they represent the principle that the weapon brandished is the 
weapon used, even if an actual act of firing is never consummated.

But more often MP-5s are used in killing situations, in high-risk raids, 
where commandos or law enforcement officers are likely to encounter armed 
opposition that must be stopped quickly and powerfully. Unlike their movie 
counterparts, the authentic operators are trained to fire short, aimed two- 
to three-round bursts, never to sweep a room or to fire randomly. Indeed, 
much of submachine gun training is taken up with the issue of trigger 
control, as shooters learn not merely to shoot accurately but also to prevent 
that potentially fatal fusillade of fire.

It so happens that this writer, doing research for a novel, has taken a 
course in tactical submachine gun techniques at a local range, during which 
time he fired close to 2,000 rounds through an MP-5 and practiced some of the 
deployment techniques of a "dynamic entry" scenario of the type that the 
federal officers used Saturday morning in Miami.

Thus, what struck me most about the photograph isn't the gun itself, but the 
way in which it's held. It's very close to being out of control. These are 
not one-handed weapons, and except for emergency circumstances, they are not 
even two-handed weapons. They recoil so persuasively they must be secured at 
three points: They must be moored against the shoulder or the center of the 
chest; the firing hand grips the pistol grip and controls the trigger; and, 
finally, the other hand must secure the muzzle via the foregrip or a front 
vertical grip. The officer doesn't even have the weapon secured against his 
shoulder, as police are taught to do. In fairness it's possible the 
photograph freezes one moment when the gun was loosened from his control 
(photographs will do that) and in the next second, he reclamped it into his 
shoulder, lowered the muzzle and backed off.

Still, his use of the weapon certainly belies the claim that none of the 
entry team ever "threatened to shoot." Whether that statement was made 
verbally is immaterial. If the gun is deployed, it threatens by its very 
presence, and no verbal exchange matters.

And it is also true from the photograph that the safety is off; that means 
the gun is primed to fire and no mechanical device stands between the gun and 
the consequences of firing except trigger pressure. But it's equally clear 
from the photograph that the federal officer has been well trained; his 
trigger finger is set properly above the trigger guard, so that if he falls 
or trips, an involuntary spasm won't cause his finger to tighten and the 
weapon to fire.

However, most self-defense experts counsel students to approach all 
potentially lethal situations that way, reasoning that it is just as quick to 
fire from that position as it is from a finger on the trigger. Whether the 
officer had any intentions of firing cannot be concluded from the picture. 
Regardless of his intentions, that's where his finger would be. Moreover, he 
has trained thousands of times to move his finger from that position to the 
trigger and fire; by this time, it's second nature to him--or he has no 
business being on the raid.

It is also said that the gun was not "pointed" at the boy and his guardian. 
However, if the officer hasn't got the gun under control, then the issue of 
where it's pointed is moot. These guns recoil powerfully when fired; they 
move this way and that. That is exactly why H&K now manufactures them with 
burst-control devices, which limit the gun to two or three fully automatic 
shots. It is impossible to see if the officer's MP-5 had that device. The 
reality is that at that moment an accidental discharge or a mistake in 
judgment, and the gun fires an uncontrollable shower of bullets.

I mean no disrespect to this currently anonymous officer. In the moment of 
highest intensity, things don't go according to plan, minds don't work 
clearly and nobody can really control events. The discipline of keeping his 
finger where it belonged may have saved lives.

But the point is larger than that: It's that these guns, which represent the 
state's most extreme control over its citizens, are immensely powerful and, 
in the hands of the untrained or even the poorly trained, extremely 
dangerous. They are not toys and they should be used only in dire 
circumstances, when it is certain that lives are at stake. 

� 2000 The Washington Post Company 


  
  
 


  -------[Cybershooters contacts]--------

  Editor: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

  Website & subscription info: www.cybershooters.org

Reply via email to