|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
May 31, 2009, 01:27 PM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2007
Location: N. VA
Posts: 254
|
I think officers should have a rifle or some kind of long arm in their cruiser. I sure as hell know I would want one.
A 12ga with slugs would fit the bill in my opinion as well. Slug effective range 35meters buckshot 25meters.
__________________
“The key is to hit them hard, hit them fast, and hit them repeatedly. The one shot stop is a unit of measurement not a tactical philosophy.” Evan Marshall |
May 31, 2009, 01:37 PM | #27 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,849
|
If the cops "need" rifles.....
Why not just give them .30-30s? Winchester (oh, wait, they're gone, OK, Marlin) lever guns are short, handy, accurate to a couple hundred yards (in trained hands), and provide all the power needed to overcome barriers or body armor.
Plus they have the added benefit of NOT holding 20-30 rnds of ammo, and firing only a single shot at a time! One AIMED shot beats the heck out of 30rnds sprayed as fast as the trigger can be pulled. If a handgun or shotgun isn't enough, and a rifle is needed, a .30-30 will do the job just fine until SWAT gets there with their sniper scopes and long range guns. Sure, it isn't modern and sexy, and it fails the movie image of massive cover fire horribly, but as something able to do the job, if the shooter does theirs, it works. And it isn't military looking. In the oft repeated N.Hollywood shootout, if just one of those cops had a .30-30, and knew how to use it, odds are it would have turned out differently. The patrol officer should have access to a rifle, for those rare times when it is needed. But I feel that it should be a rifle, not a military style arm, especially one using a small caliber high speed bullet! If you just gotta have a semi auto, then the M1 Garand is a fine choice. Half a dozen enbloc clips of ball ammo doesn't take up much space in the trunk, and should serve to handle just about anything (at least until the SWAT gets there), without encouraging officers to spray and pray! Just my opinion, and worth what you pay for it!
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
May 31, 2009, 01:48 PM | #28 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,903
|
Quote:
Last edited by gc70; May 31, 2009 at 01:59 PM. Reason: added .223 vs 30-06 ballistic comparison |
|
May 31, 2009, 01:53 PM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
|
Why don't we let police departments decide what firearms they need themselves?
Civilians should not be picking the firearms cops carry. Sure, maybe you carried an M16 back in the Army, have read "The Art of War" and debated tactics with Clausewitz, but you cannot know the needs of every LEO in this country. How would you like it if "<insert special interest group here>" were allowed to choose what firearm was appropriate for civilian CCW in your state? How many rounds of ammo you could carry? What type of ammo you carry? Let people make decisions for themselves. I would rather hear that every cop in the US had an M16 in the trunk than hear even once that cops are "out gunned" by badguys. As we see in this case, the only time cops are out gunned is when politicians restrict their access to firearms. And yes, I think the '86 machinegun ban totally sucks. No reason to limit the firearms police carry.
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Safety, Personal Protection, Range Safety Officer NRA Life Member |
May 31, 2009, 03:17 PM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 18, 2008
Location: Arizona
Posts: 337
|
I am ok with Peace Officers carrying what I can carry and buy with ease.
SWAT can go all out rocket launchers go for it. They spend ample amount of time trainging or they should. Patrol officer can have his AR15 or M16 that cannot be readily converted to FA.
__________________
XD 9mm service Ruger LCP Colt Python .357 magnum AK-47 Mossberg 500 12 gauge |
May 31, 2009, 09:04 PM | #31 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Eastern, TN
Posts: 1,236
|
Quote:
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska - |
|
May 31, 2009, 09:55 PM | #32 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 25, 2008
Location: California
Posts: 1,951
|
Superhouse15:
The metal Selector blocks you refer to are made of aluminum and can be snapped off with your thumb, I was an armorer for the N.G. during the Rodney King Riots and had to put one on every M-16 our M.P.'s carried while at the riots, then take them off after we got home.. Also If you are going to use a large cal rifle instead of the small cal I would suggest light expamding bullets instead of Military Ball to prevent overpenetration as much as possible. Actually we should have had soft point ammo at the riots for the same reason we weren't covered by the rules of war.
__________________
http://www.armsmaster.net-a.googlepages.com http://s239.photobucket.com/albums/f...aster270/Guns/ Retired LE, M.P., Sr. M.P. Investigator F.B.I. Trained Rangemaster/Firearms Instructor & Armorer, Presently Forensic Document Examiner for D.H.S. Last edited by armsmaster270; May 31, 2009 at 10:03 PM. |
May 31, 2009, 11:20 PM | #33 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,014
|
Quote:
Quote:
Isn't the M-16 the same as a AR-15 as a M-9 is the same as a Beretta 92FS? Outcast what is your beef with having a patrol rifle locked in the car? Dust Monkey, this militarization thing is getting tiresome. Last edited by Wagonman; May 31, 2009 at 11:33 PM. |
||
May 31, 2009, 11:44 PM | #34 | ||
Member
Join Date: April 28, 2007
Posts: 83
|
Wagonman:
When people hear "M-16" they normally assume full auto. The article does say "semiautomatic m-16s" but given most news articles gross mislabeling of firearm related items I cannot say what they really mean. Also you said: Quote:
Quote:
|
||
May 31, 2009, 11:50 PM | #35 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 24, 2007
Posts: 723
|
Yes I agree. The militarization of police is getting tiresome. I am tired of seeing it and sick of what may be the end result in the future. As far as me stopping from taking or opining on the subject, ain't gonna happen. So either debate me on it or place me on your ignore list.
__________________
Civilian Date: 14 Century 1 : a specialist in Roman or modern civil law. If you are not subject to the UCMJ, you are a Civilian. I don't care one bit what updated dictionaries say. |
June 1, 2009, 12:08 AM | #36 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,014
|
Quote:
I have debated the subject, other people with skin or ahammer in the game have also. Like it or not Law Enforcement is a Para-Military profession and all of your debate points aren't going to change that simple fact Quote:
I stipulated that FA has almost no role in urban policing. I don't see the logic in saying M-16 bad Ar-15 good. |
||
June 1, 2009, 01:05 AM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 3, 2009
Posts: 266
|
I have no problem with officers being armed with a rifle that'll let them handle whatever situation they face.
I'm of the opinion that cops should have the choice of being armed up to as well as a civilian. So that means policy should be the police may choose whatever pistol or rifle your typical civilian can easily and affordably acquire and carry. I respect the job they do but they are human. If any restriction on private citizens applied to the police as well, you'd have a surefire way to make sure the police stayed on our side instead of taking the "Only Ones" attitude in urban hellholes like Chicago, DC, NYC, Philly, etc. |
June 1, 2009, 01:08 AM | #38 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,849
|
I believe I am being misunderstood
Quote:
Modern combat is about firepower, throwing large amounts of flying metal in the direction of the enemy. Full auto fire, belt fed weapons, artillery and airstrikes. This is not something our police should be emulating, in whole or part. The military's concept of collateral damage is slightly different that what should be in use on our streets. A .30-30, .30-06, or even larger caliber round (I like the .45-70) have long proven record of delivering stopping power that the .22 cal lacks. Police shoot to stop, not kill. Or they should. Larger caliber rounds tend to stop determined people better than smaller ones. Its that simple. While adequate for war, I feel the small bore round (5.56mm) will prove less than optimum for a police (or self defense) situation. This isn't meant to imply that it won't work, just that overall, as my sig line says....
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
June 1, 2009, 01:32 AM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 28, 2008
Posts: 127
|
I would think by now that we would all know the the MSM can't tell the difference between a full auto M-16 and a semi AR-15 and neither can most politicians. They're all "assault rifles" to them. I think there is some confusion in the article. I agree with everbody who says that FA has limited (if any) value in law enforcement work. A local PD received a few dozen M-16A1's a few years back and they removed the FA FCG and replaced them with SA. The PD had to maintain the FA parts but they are kept in the armory. Not what I'd call readily convertable to FA.
As for some folks who believe that the BOA shootout example is getting tiresome, I'm sure that the anti-gunners feel the same way about some of our arguments regarding our right to have firearms in the first place. I'm a cop and as pro-gun as they come and I find many of the attitudes here towards cops to be less then cordial. I know, I know.....all us cops are part of the conspiracy to overthrow the constitution and turn the US into one big police state....now THAT is getting tiresome. Look up Norco bank robbery for just another example of BG's with automatic weapons. I'm sure that there are many more if you look hard enought. BOA was just the most publicized. Also, should I ever need someone to help me out with a 40-50 yard headshot (with a handgun) on a moving BG, behind cover who is spraying full auto suppressive fire with an AK or a HK-91, I'll be sure to call on JMortensen. I do agree that slugs could have possibly ended the situation but, departments being what they are, none were issued or approved for use. It seems that some here would have all us cops be like Barney fife and that would be fine if we all lived in Mayberry but we don't. Will I ever use my patrol rifle at work? Probably not but I sure as **** don't need a politician telling me I can't carry it. Just like the members on here who would go ballistic should they be forced to give up their (insert favorite firearm here) because of a politician. It's funny that when you go to France and get off the plane, there are soldiers and gendarmerie standing around with FMAS rifles and no one pays attention but put a soldier or a cop in and American airport with an M-16 or MP-5 and everyone thinks the world is coming to an end. You would think that it would be the French who would be all uptight over the blatant display of firepower instead of Americans with our culture being tied so closely to guns. Go figure. To steal a quote I've seen on this forum "it's better to have it and not need it then need it and not have it". When you can stop the militarization of the bad guys, we (cops) will gladly follow suit but no one seems to know how to do that. Of course, we could just ban all the guns and that would make it all better (Sarcasam!) |
June 1, 2009, 01:34 AM | #40 | ||
Member
Join Date: June 1, 1999
Posts: 75
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
June 1, 2009, 01:35 AM | #41 | |||||||
Member
Join Date: June 1, 1999
Posts: 75
|
Earlier I wrote,
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Earlier I wrote, Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Most LE shooting situations happen by surprise and so the officer is forced to use the only weapon at hand, his handgun. But many times the nature of the incident is known before arrival at the scene, making the long gun the weapon of choice before arrival. |
|||||||
June 1, 2009, 01:36 AM | #42 | |
Member
Join Date: June 1, 1999
Posts: 75
|
Quote:
|
|
June 1, 2009, 01:37 AM | #43 | |||
Member
Join Date: June 1, 1999
Posts: 75
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
June 1, 2009, 01:39 AM | #44 | ||||||||||
Member
Join Date: June 1, 1999
Posts: 75
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It's really a shame that you weren't there. We all know that you would have handled the situation in a few seconds saving us all that time and blood. The quality of your Monday Morning Quarterbacking, made from the comfort and safety of your living room, really is quite extraordinary! |
||||||||||
June 1, 2009, 01:41 AM | #45 | ||
Member
Join Date: June 1, 1999
Posts: 75
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
June 1, 2009, 06:33 AM | #46 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Personally, I am all for anything that exposes more people to the idea that AR15s are not lethal death rays that can kill you just by looking at them. The more police understand that, the better it will be for all black rifle owners - and having the weapon widely used by patrol officers and not just special teams doesn't hurt the "in common use" argument either.
Besides, how I can object to police being as "militarized" as I am? I own a rifle and here in Texas I have the same freedom to carry it around loaded in my vehicle if that suits me. So I can hardly complain about the police doing the same. |
June 1, 2009, 08:16 AM | #47 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
This thread, and many like it, have one thing in common: Many ordinary folks simply don't want the police to have access to the exact same weaponry that they themselves have (or want).
You use the same tired arguments, against arming the police, as the anti-gunners use against you. Rather hypocritical, don't you think? You're against the police having FA capabilities, in these threads, yet on others, you wail against government FA restrictions on yourself. Again, hypocritical. Here's the deal. I want my police officers better armed than me, which means they are better armed than the crooks. I want them better trained in both defensive and offensive fire than me, which means they are better trained than the crooks. I would also like to see more citizens partake of ride-alongs (where available), in order to understand what cops have to do, on a day to day basis (guaranteed, you will be bored out of your minds, for the most part). Most of you have no clue. Most of you won't get involved (with the ride-alongs), as it would break those precious stereotypes, you have built up. Some of you belabor the "Us v. Them" mentality, that is so often seen (on both sides), yet you fail to see where and when you yourself are perpetuating that very same mentality. Hypocrites! |
June 1, 2009, 08:37 AM | #48 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 29, 2006
Location: Northern Illinois
Posts: 515
|
I don't have a major issue with police being issued carbines for their squads.
Not thrilled with FA versions though. Just don't see the need. And only 200 of them. I would bet a city the size of Boston has a lot more than 200 cops. But 200 is a start I guess.
__________________
bob Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum. |
June 1, 2009, 08:58 AM | #49 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,014
|
+1 Antipitas
|
June 1, 2009, 09:05 AM | #50 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Eastern, TN
Posts: 1,236
|
Quote:
Michael Anthony, That is correct, and thanks for clearing that up. Bigger Hammer wrote: Originally Posted by OuTcAsT Quote:
Simple, because I do not want a paramilitary force (as described by Wagonman) to be routinely roaming the streets with better weaponry than is available to the public. At some point this "paramilitary organization" may decide that they want to ignore the oaths they took (as they seem to do on a regular basis depending on who is deemed a scumbag, and dregs of society that day) and I want the odds to be even. Now, you may proceed to make arguments against the "tin-foilness" of that comment to your hearts content. I laid my cards on the table, got the cajones to do the same "Big" guy ? What is hypocritical about that stance ? If full auto becomes available to the public, under different terms than it is now, then by all means, the police should have access to them. I don't want an "army" on my block under the guise of "keeping the peace".
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska - Last edited by OuTcAsT; June 1, 2009 at 12:31 PM. Reason: Edited for content on moderators advice. |
|||
|
|