The Cutting Edge in Tactical Firearms

When it comes to mission profiles, the only constant is change. When FN designs a tactical firearms system, flexibility in real world military and law enforcement operational environments is a key factor. Tactical Systems are developed from the ground up to address the specific challenges of modern tactical situations. The FN SCAR^® 16 and FN SCAR^® 17 are the law enforcement variants of the newest U.S. military weapon system. The FN P90^® with its innovative 5.7x28mm ammunition is the ultimate tool for today’s VIP protective detail missions, close-quarters combat, urban operations and dynamic entry scenarios.

FN SCAR® Series	FN P90® Series
FN F2000® Series

Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR)

AUTOLOADING SPEED–BOLT-ACTION ACCURACY

Inspired by the legendary Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) made famous in battle by Allied forces around the globe, the FNAR^™ puts autoloading speed and bolt-action accuracy into one powerful package. Chambered in 7.62x51mm NATO (308 Win.) the FNAR^™ is available with either a 16" or 20" cold hammer-forged MIL-SPEC fluted barrel with chrome-lined bore and target crown. The matte black synthetic pistol grip tactical stock is fully adjustable. The FNAR^™ is equipped with multiple MIL-STD 1913 rails for mounting your choice of accessories. It is a multi-role, mid-caliber rifle that is ideally suited for recreational, long-range target and competition shooting.

FNAR™ Standard	FNAR™ Heavy
FNAR™ Competition

THE WORLDS FINEST MACHINE GUNS

Whenever the discussion turns to machine guns, the name FN proudly stands front and center. No other company in the world has more experience in the design, engineering and manufacturing of belt-fed automatic weapons than FN – from the legacy designs of John M. Browning that have protected America’s soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines for nearly a century, to today’s machine gun variations that accompany our warfighters into harm’s way. FN makes the finest machine guns in the world. Period.
FN machine guns cover the entire spectrum: Light Machine Guns (LMG), Medium Machine Guns (MMG) and Heavy Machine Guns (HMG). The FN Family of Light Machine Guns consists of the M249 (also known as FN MINIMI^®) and the lightweight MK 46 Mod 1 in 5.56x45mm, and the larger caliber, lightweight MK 48 Mod 1 in 7.62x51mm. The FN Family of Medium Machine Guns consists of the M240 (also known as FN MAG^® or FN MAG^® 58) series in 7.62x51mm. Finally, the FN Family of Heavy Machine Guns consists of the FN M2HB-QCB^™, FN M3P^™ and FN M3M^™ (GAU-21) in .50 caliber.

M249 Series	MK 48/MK 46 Series
M240 Series	FN M2HB-QCB™

Hillary Clinton Supports Australia-style Gun Confiscation

Friday, October 16, 2015

More

It’s one thing to support gun control. 

It’s another to make it the centerpiece of a floundering presidential primary campaign. 

But Hillary Clinton wasn’t finished when she latched onto the idea of opposing the NRA as a means of diverting the nation from the humiliating scandals and poll results plaguing her own bid to succeed Barack Obama.

First, she announced to her wealthy supporters that “the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment,” which demonstrates her opposition to the individual right to keep and bear firearms, including handguns, for self-defense.

Now, however, she’s gone even further and echoed President Obama’s references to Australian and British style gun control.

Today, at a town hall meeting in Keene, New Hampshire, Clinton was questioned by an audience member who noted that Australia “managed to … take away … millions of handguns, and in one year, they were all gone.” He then asked her, “Can we do that?”

She immediately responded that not just Australia but also the U.K. is “a good example” of a country responding to a “mass killing.” 

 “The Australian example,” she said, “that was a buyback program.” She went on to explain that the Australian government “offered a good price” for “buying hundreds of thousands of guns, and then they basically clamped down going forward … .”  They were thus able, she explained, “to curtail the supply” of guns and “to set a different standard for gun purchases in the future.”  

Here in America, she went on, “I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level if that could be arranged.” She compared the Australian and U.K. regimes to local gun “buybacks” and to Obama’s own “cash for clunkers” program, in which Americans were offered tax credits for trading older, gas-guzzling vehicles for newer, fuel-efficient models. “So I think that’s worth considering,” Clinton said. “I don’t know enough details to tell you … how we would do it or how it would work, but certainly the Australian example is worth looking at.”

The more details you know about Australia and Great Britain, however, the more extreme Hillary’s views become.

The misnamed “buybacks” of Australia and Great Britain were nothing like the failed “cash for clunkers” program, which simply sought to update the cars Americans drove, not to ban them. They weren’t even comparable to local gun buybacks, which attempt to incentivize the voluntary surrender of guns that their owners are free in most cases to replace as they see fit.

No, the Australian and U.K. “buybacks” were merely an attempt to mollify firearm owners whose property had been declared contraband and subject to seizure. They were, to paraphrase Vito Corleone, an offer gun owners could not refuse. The owners had the “choice” to accept the money and turn the guns they had previously been forced to register (supposedly so they could keep them under grandfather provisions), or they could risk the government forcibly confiscating the guns and being sent to prison for possessing them (supposing, of course, that they survived the confiscation attempt itself). 

If you own a gun now, take heed. President Obama and now Hillary Clinton finally made clear what they’re really after – national gun confiscation.

To hear Hillary’s remarks for yourself, see the video at this link: http://freebeacon.com/issues/clinton-australian-style-gun-control-worth-considering-for-u-s/.

The stakes in 2016 could not be higher when it comes to our fundamental freedom and the future of our nation.

President Obama Shows His True Gun Control Agenda

Most of the media attention on President Obama’s renewed calls for gun control has focused on the tone of his remarks, rather than on the substance of what he said. You don’t have to scratch very deep, however, to understand that what the president really wants to see in the U.S. is gun confiscation. 

Reiterating his support for gun control last week, Obama vowed, “I am going to talk about this, on a regular basis, and I will politicize it.…”

For once, we are willing to take the president at his word.

Clearly, the president is infuriated with Congress and the American people for failing to adopt his gun control agenda, but what is he actually promoting by way of solutions? His recent speeches have been long on vitriol, but short on specifics.

Just as clearly, the president has been unwilling to entertain any idea that mass murders can be adequately addressed by means other than gun control. In his Oct. 2 remarks, for example, he dismissed talk of mental health reform, such as that supported by the NRA. He insisted that anger, mental illness, and violence are problems that all nations face, but the U.S. is unique in its level of “mass shootings” and “gun violence.” He admitted, “Levels of violence are on par, between the United States and other countries.” But because American violence more often involves firearms, firearms must be blamed.

Rather surprisingly, the president undermined the gun control movement’s current push for so-called “universal background checks.” According to the president, “we can't sort through and identify ahead of time who might take actions like this….” It’s hard to argue he’s wrong, as the latest tragedy he is politicizing was once again committed, according to ATF, with firearms obtained through dealers, after successful background checks. 

The president has something more ambitious in mind, and he’s been consistent on this point for almost two years. As he has time after time in the past, the president on Oct. 1 invoked Australia and Great Britain – what he called “countries like ours” – as models for the U.S. They “have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings,” the president lectured. They prove “there are ways to prevent it.” 

What Obama is really proposing, despite some platitudes to the contrary, is the end of private firearm ownership for self-defense – which is essentially what happened in Australia and the U.K.  Below are summaries of those nations’ laws from the Library of Congress that make the point:

There is no constitutional right to keep and bear arms in Australia and Great Britain.

If you want to own a firearm in either country, you must first obtain the government’s permission, and you must prove to their satisfaction that you need it. Self-defense is neither a sufficient nor even legitimate reason to own a gun. 

The most popular firearms in America are banned in Australia and Great Britain, no matter what a person’s reasons for owing them. Australia bans AR-15s and other semi-automatic rifles. Great Britain bans handguns.  

After the bans were enacted, both countries forced residents to surrender prohibited guns to the government.

When the president complains that America refuses to enact “common-sense gun-safety laws” and rails against the ability of America to amass “arsenals” of guns and ammunition, confiscation is what he really has in mind.   To this end, he scoffed at the idea that more Americans should be armed or that anyone could in good faith oppose more gun control. “Does anybody really believe that?” he asked.

Obama has made it clear that he will continue to politicize tragedies in order to push his gun control agenda.  That’s really nothing new.  What is new is his admission that what he really wants to do is confiscate legally owned firearms.  Rest assured, the five million men and women of the National Rifle Association will continue to fight him every step of the way.

 

APPEARS IN Second Amendment News

Clinton Says That the Second Amendment DOES NOT Protect an Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Friday, October 9, 2015

More

A recent CNN/ORC International Poll found that 57-percent of Americans do not find Hillary Clinton “honest or trustworthy.” If there are figures in American public life with a stronger disregard for the rights of the American people, they have yet to come to our attention.

Obviously, Clinton is referring to the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. The central conclusion in Heller was that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. The McDonald decision made clear that this right is fundamental and applies to all Americans.

When Clinton said, “the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment,” she was making clear her opposition to our individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense; to her, governments at every level can strip us of this right without restriction.

It is hard to overstate the extremism of Clinton’s position on the Second Amendment. A February 2008 USA Today/Gallup poll conducted prior to the Heller decision, asked those surveyed, “Do you believe the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the rights of Americans to own guns, or do you believe it only guarantees members of state militias such as National Guard units the right to own guns?” The response was unambiguous; 73-percent responded that the Second Amendment guarantees the rights of Americans to own guns, while a mere 20-percent limited that right to state militia members.

A Quinnipiac University poll conducted shortly after the Heller decision, in July 2008, mirrored these results. This poll asked respondents, “Would you support or oppose amending the United States Constitution to ban individual gun ownership?” 78-percent opposed such a measure, while only 17-percent were found to be in favor.

And in May 2009, CNN and ORC conducted a similar poll that asked “Which of the following comes closer to your interpretation of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? In addition to addressing the need for citizen-militias, it was intended to give individual Americans the right to keep and bear arms for their own defense. It was only intended to preserve the existence of citizen-militias, and does not give individual Americans the right to keep and bear arms for their own defense.” Once again, the American public made their position clear; with 77-percent choosing “individual gun ownership” to 21-percent answering “only citizen-militias.”

A professional politician like Clinton is almost certainly aware of the public’s views on this matter, which is likely the reason she’s gone to great lengths to hide her most extreme positions on the subject. To be sure, Clinton has publicly advocated for all manner of gun control; including gun owner licensing, taxation, and bans on popular firearms. However, with Clinton’s latest comments, the discussion has moved degrees of legally permissible controls. Clinton has made clear that she does not recognize that the Second Amendment protects your individual right to have a firearm at all.

During her previous run for president, at the April 16, 2008 Democratic debate held in Philadelphia, Clinton made sure to feign some respect for the Second Amendment. Clinton stated, “I respect the Second Amendment. I respect the rights of lawful gun owners to own guns, to use their guns,” adding, “we will strike the right balance to protect the constitutional right…” When later asked whether she supported D.C.’s total ban on handguns, she staked out a similar position, noting, “What I support is sensible regulation that is consistent with the constitutional right to own and bear arms.” Moreover, Clinton’s 2008 campaign broke new ground in hypocrisy when they attempted to paint her opponent, Barack Obama, as the more radical anti-gun candidate. A Clinton campaign mailer criticized Obama for telling people “he was for the 2^nd Amendment, in order to get votes.” Sounds familiar.

More recently, at an August appearance in Iowa, Clinton called to “balance the legitimate Second Amendment rights with preventive measures and control measures.” Of course, there can no balancing of a right with an individual that does not even recognize that right’s existence.

The importance of Clinton’s extreme views cannot be overstated.  The next president could be responsible for nominating one or more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. In addition to the dissents issued in the Heller and McDonald decisions, we know that not all of the current justices view the correct interpretation of the Second Amendment as a matter of settled law. According to an item published in the Wall Street Journal, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has noted that a “future, wiser Court” could overturn Heller. If Clinton were president, there can be little doubt that she would choose to nominate those who share her false interpretation of the Second Amendment.

America deserves a president that holds a genuine respect for the individual right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment. It is never too early to learn how to help make this a reality. To find out what you, your family, and your friends can do to help, please visit https://www.nraila.org/take-action/, or call 1-800-392- VOTE (8683).

Battle of the Pumps: Mossberg 500 vs. the Remington 870

If you’re discussing 12-gauge shotguns of the pump-action variety, there is an excellent chance that you’re talking about Remington or Mossberg. As the respective makers of the outstanding Model 870 and Model 500, Big Green and Mossy have the shared reputation for developing and successfully selling the two most popular pump-action shotguns in history. But which is the better shotty? The answer may surprise you.

Action Similarities

There’s nothing quite as versatile as a pump action shotgun for hunting or defense.

Both shotguns have dual action bars, which means that the force applied to the bolt when pumping the forend is equally applied, right and left. This has long been a gold standard when it comes to pump action shotguns, due largely in part to the rampant success of both Mossberg and Remington in this genre.
Screw-in choke tubes are fairly standard on guns from Remington and Mossberg in barrel lengths greater than 22 inches or so, and are included on certain special-edition, 18-inch tactical models. For the most part, 18-inch to 20-inch barrels come sans choke threading.
Of course, these guns are both available in a never-ending variety of configurations, layouts and barrel lengths, from hunting to tactical purposes. And there is a literally endless list of aftermarket accessories and gizmos that can be added to customize your pump-action experience to your preferred tastes.
Remington and Mossberg shotguns alike have seen extensive military use around the globe, and have been proven in combat for decades.

Action Differences

One of the biggest practical differences between the two shotguns lies in their extraction methods. Mossberg thoughtfully included dual extractors on the 500, as opposed to the single extractor on the Remington 870. With cheaper ammo, shotgun extractors can sometimes “jump” over the rim of the shell or even tear through completely. That’s bad.
Mossberg’s twin extractor setup gives the platform an extra level of reliability in this arena, especially when the gun gets hot or dirty in the field. Even if one extractor starts to slip, the chances of the other giving out as well are almost nil.
Remington chose to machine the 870 receiver out of steel, while Mossberg went with the lighter choice of aluminum. While the idea of solid steel may appeal to a certain segment of the market, there’s really no practical difference between the two. Few users will ever have the opportunity to stress a 12-gauge shotgun to the point where an aluminum receiver will bend or break. And there’s no guarantee that similar stresses wouldn’t harm a steel receiver as well.

The Mossberg 590 below is a popular tactical variation on the legendary 500.

It’s simply a matter of taste. Although, due to its choice in receiver material, Mossberg makes a lighter shotgun to carry around.
The Remington 870 is far more compatible with aftermarket screw-on magazine extensions. Some Mossberg 500 variants aren’t even able to accept an extension due to their construction, but it’s easy to add more capacity to any Remington 870.

Loading

One thing is for sure, though, the Mossberg is far easier to reload than the 870. A slight digression from our topic at hand will make everything clear as to why.
In competitive three-gun matches, the pump-action king is the lesser-known Benelli SuperNova, for many reasons. Foremost of these motives is the ease with which the SuperNova can be reloaded, due in part to its cavernous loading port and (this is the point) the ability of the lifter to stay in the “up” position on its own after the first round is loaded.
The Mossberg shares this automatically-staying-up-lifter feature, unlike the Remington 870, where the lifter has to be manually moved out of the way for each shell. This competition-style benefit means that stuffing shells into a Mossberg 500 in the heat of a dove hunt is slightly easier in comparison to the Remington 870.

Controls are King

For the most part, pump-action shotguns have a very limited set of controls: The trigger, a manual safety, and a release button that allows the user to unlock the action without first pulling the trigger. And the Remington 870 and Mossberg 500 are no different in this regard.

The dual extractors of the Mossberg 500 on the left may provide an edge in reliability over a Remington 870 on the right.

Where they do differ, however, is in how these basic controls are executed. The Mossberg 500 series is the clear winner here. Mossberg places the safety on the tang of the receiver, which puts it in an ideal position to be ridden by the thumbs of both left- and right-handed shooters. And the action release? It’s conveniently located right behind the trigger guard, again within easy reach of righties and lefties.
The 870, in contrast, features a traditional push-button safety that is better suited for right-handers. And the action release is placed far towards the front of the trigger guard, and is impossible to activate without breaking a firing grip.

Final Thoughts

On paper, at least, it seems as though the Mossberg comes out ahead. Lighter construction, better control placement, easier to load, etc. However, that’s simply on paper.
In the real world though, it really doesn’t matter where your action-unlocking button is. In addition, it really doesn’t matter if you’re a half-second slower on your reloads because you use a Remington 870, or if your shotgun weighs a few ounces more than another model.
Think about this: If you are one of the millions of Americans who can’t remember life before his or her Remington 870—or Mossberg 500—came along, you’re not going to be held back by your shotgun no matter who made it. A lifetime of familiarization beats any specification sheet or online article telling you which is best any day of the week.
The fact remains—both the Remington 870 and Mossberg 500 have won their places at the table, while putting food on it as well and remaining the defensive (and offensive) tools of choice for citizens and professionals around the world. You just can’t go wrong with either of these hardy workhorses.