PDA

View Full Version : Incomprehensible article about AWs in Miami


CCWFacts
09-16-2007, 6:04 PM
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/09/16/national/a170015D94.DTL&tsp=1

I'm not sure what they are saying. M16s are not assault weapons and never have been. Assault rifles are not assault weapons and there has never been overlap between the two. AR15s are not AWs in Florida because there is no statutory definition of AWs in Florida.

Other than that... AR-15s make good sense as a patrol rifle. They have reasonable stopping power, good range, can punch through vests, and have light recoil. There's enough body armor floating around these days that having something above and beyond a plain old cop pistol is a good idea. Patrol cars have had shotguns for many years, and an AR-15 fills the same role. Compared to a shotty, the AR-15 gives up some stopping power, in exchange for greater range, less recoil, and body armor capabilities. But it certainly isn't some big escalation of force. In fact it's a de-escalation of force compared to a traditional patrol car shotgun.

I hope they are not using FAs. Given that each shot is its own separate use of force and must be individually justifiable, FA weapons are inherently problematic for defensive use.

SemiAutoSam
09-16-2007, 6:09 PM
Looks like the media once more using terms they know nothing about.

It must be nice to not be accountable for your actions I suppose thats part of the first amendment that they love so much but they dont seem to give a hoot about the 2nd amendment.

CCWFacts
09-16-2007, 6:42 PM
They seem to love to mix up assault rifles with non-full-auto weapons (as if FA makes that much difference anyway). They love to talk about keeping "guns off the street" as if a gun in the hands of a person who has had a FBI BG check and mandatory training and has a CCW is the same as a gun in the hands of a violent felon.

CSDGuy
09-16-2007, 6:50 PM
Assault weapon isn't a military term to describe these rifles. It just sounds scary. A non select-fire or non FA M-16 type rifle isn't an assault rifle. AR-15's are nice semi-auto magazine fed rifles that will do the job. If an officer is familiar with pump action shotguns, there are pump action mag fed rifles that operate VERY similarly to the Remington 870...

If FA weapons truly is an issue, it would have become a very bad problem for SWAT units as I'd imagine that most of their sub guns are FA capable and used that way...

M. Sage
09-16-2007, 7:02 PM
If an officer is familiar with pump action shotguns, there are pump action mag fed rifles that operate VERY similarly to the Remington 870...

The Remington 7600 series is billed as having an action based on the 870, and a version marketed to LE for that exact purpose. I've used an older 760, and can tell you that other than the magazine and caliber, it's just like using an 870.

SWAT seems to be moving away from SMGs and toward M4s. FA is still a weird thing for any police to use, since they shouldn't be laying down suppressive fire (high-volume, barely-aimed fire, that is) anyway.

SemiAutoSam
09-16-2007, 7:12 PM
There is always the possibility that they meant one of these AR15's

The top pic is a very early US Air Force issued AR15 But its also a select fire weapon I purchased this one very early in 88 on a form 4 at that time it was worth in the area of 7500.00 I cringe to think what it would bring now as I have only run 1 30 round magazine through it in the last 15 years.

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j184/mag-lock/RIFLES/ArmaliteAR51.jpg

The one below is also a somewhat rare weapon as the numbers of M16A2's were not that great in a transferable NFA weapon. Its a pre sample on a form 3 this means when I dropped my SOT I was able to keep it unlike a Post 86 sample I would have had to sell before I ceased doing business as a class 3 dealer.

The Bottom pic is a M16A2 Its also a select fire weapon.
http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j184/mag-lock/RIFLES/M16A22.jpg

TO the media these are both Machine Guns or Assault Weapons / Rifles as the Media does not know the difference. And they also DO not seem to be accountable for the misuse of words they use.


Assault weapon isn't a military term to describe these rifles. It just sounds scary. A non select-fire or non FA M-16 type rifle isn't an assault rifle. AR-15's are nice semi-auto magazine fed rifles that will do the job. If an officer is familiar with pump action shotguns, there are pump action mag fed rifles that operate VERY similarly to the Remington 870...

If FA weapons truly is an issue, it would have become a very bad problem for SWAT units as I'd imagine that most of their sub guns are FA capable and used that way...

CSDGuy
09-16-2007, 7:18 PM
I'd imagine Police units that use M4 type rifles would primarily use select-fire, but they'd still have the same basic issues with FA vs select fire when it comes to accounting for all bullets... it just takes a little more training to teach the officers how to do controlled bursts with a FA M4...

CSDGuy
09-16-2007, 7:20 PM
SAS: I completely agree with you that the media does NOT seem to be accountable for their misuse of words... nor their inability to get the facts correct in their rush to break a sensational story.

M. Sage
09-16-2007, 7:30 PM
I'd imagine Police units that use M4 type rifles would primarily use select-fire, but they'd still have the same basic issues with FA vs select fire when it comes to accounting for all bullets... it just takes a little more training to teach the officers how to do controlled bursts with a FA M4...

Ok... I have to question the need for a controlled burst. It's a rifle. I know 5.56 catches a lot of flack, but it's still a better stopper than 9mm or .45 ever could be. Controlled burst? Double-tap.

CCWFacts
09-16-2007, 7:59 PM
If FA weapons truly is an issue, it would have become a very bad problem for SWAT units as I'd imagine that most of their sub guns are FA capable and used that way...

The only reason that SWAT units are doing OK with FAs is because grand juries, courts and shooting review boards have, over the past ten to twenty years, given them a free pass, not because of any legal reason, but just because. SWAT teams get away with doing stuff that other units, and civilian self-defense shooters, couldn't possibly justify. Some of the reasons for this is that the guys who get shot by SWAT teams are usually poor "low-life" type of people who don't get much sympathy from anyone. But legally and morally, poor low-lifes have just as much right to protection from unjustified force as anyone else.

Like this case:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/26/AR2006012602136.html

They shot to death an unarmed non-violent guy who was not resisting or threatening while serving a warrant. Anyone who wasn't on a SWAT team wouldn't have gotten a pass on that. There should have been manslaughter charges on that, but somehow SWAT operates in its own extralegal world.

As more and more departments create SWAT teams, and as these teams are called on to do more routine police work (serving ordinary warrants) there will eventually be a back-lash on these types of incidents. But until then... the rules don't apply to SWAT teams.

morepoop4u
09-16-2007, 10:57 PM
http://home.comcast.net/~evil_merlin/inconceivable.jpg

Prc329
09-16-2007, 11:19 PM
Ok... I have to question the need for a controlled burst. It's a rifle. I know 5.56 catches a lot of flack, but it's still a better stopper than 9mm or .45 ever could be. Controlled burst? Double-tap.

I am no expert but I would imagine a police officer would need to use controlled burst to minimize the chance of a bystander getting hit or over penetration from to many rounds. Think if the officer dumped 30 rounds at a suspect and couldn't hold on the target, it may "spray" and kill someone in a near by house.

fireblast713
09-17-2007, 12:29 PM
"Officers using the weapons in Miami will shoot "frangible" bullets, which shatter after they've hit something to avoid striking bystanders or other unintended targets."

If they're using frangibles doesn't that somewhat defeat the purpose of using a rifle in the first place?

56Chevy
09-17-2007, 12:48 PM
"Officers using the weapons in Miami will shoot "frangible" bullets, which shatter after they've hit something to avoid striking bystanders or other unintended targets."

If they're using frangibles doesn't that somewhat defeat the purpose of using a rifle in the first place?
They won't even make it through car doors, etc.

M. Sage
09-17-2007, 6:36 PM
I am no expert but I would imagine a police officer would need to use controlled burst to minimize the chance of a bystander getting hit or over penetration from to many rounds. Think if the officer dumped 30 rounds at a suspect and couldn't hold on the target, it may "spray" and kill someone in a near by house.

Part of the point is that you can't keep shooting after the threat is ended. How is it reasonable to send rounds to the target at a cyclic rate of something like 600 rounds/minute (800 rounds/minute for an M4)? How are you supposed to stop the stream at the exact moment the threat has ended? Odds are, even with a controlled burst, that the person being fired on is going to get hit after threat-ending shots have already hit the target.

As little recoil as an MP5, UMP or AR has, there's no reason not to use semi-auto mode to avoid over-shooting. It takes less training than learning controlled bursts.