Does law Enforcement really need select fire?

[lavey29]

Earlier lavey wrote,



You got it backwards falar. It was the criminal, Emil Mătăsăreanu, who had the gun with the Beta Mag. He fired his gun at the SWAT guys, through the windshield of his own car, hitting nothing. Actually if you watch the video of this incident, you'll see that he had pretty good control of his firearm during this, the last moments of the gunfight. THE SWAT LEOs, equipped with select−fire AR pattern rifles with 30 round mags, were the ones who, as lavey wrote,

He fell to the ground and the officer continued to fire, continuing to hit him, ending the threat, and stopping the incident. IT WAS THE OFFICERS WHO USED DISCIPLINED FIRE, ending the shootout.



If you "get engaged in a shootout with someone," I hope that he does not have a "full auto" weapon. Even if he " spray[s] and pray[s] from the hip, Hollywood style" he might get lucky and hit you.

Yes Sir, you are correct

[lavey29]

Without partaking in what seems to be a huge flame war between a few parties, I will simply say that IN MY OPINION there is no need for the average joe LEO to have FA capability. Which is a separate issue from them having patrol rifles, which (again IMO) are far better tools than the old shotgun.

The average street cop does not have FA rifles or MP5's in his car, just a boomer. Now select cars in the field may have additional weapon(s) if they are specifically trained with them. These are typically semi auto M4 carbines. Some of the smaller agencies also have a few MP5's in some field cars. I do not know if they are semi auto verions or select fire. Of course SWAT has various options available. It's better to have more tools in the tool bag then not enough tools after the SHTF.

[falar]

I knew he was talking about the bad guys in reference to beta mag, I just used it as an example that automatic fire is not the end-all-be-all since apparently he did a mag dump into the vehicle and scored zero hits, getting taken out in the process.

As to your question about did the guy seem like a decent shot with his pistol, yes he did. Controlling rapid, semi auto fire and full auto fire are very different though.

As to your question of my LE experience I'm sure you will not be surprised that no, I do not have any. My feelings from the ineffectiveness and wastefulness of full auto fire come from my time in the Army. It seems time and again insurgents employing spray and pray tactics were taken out by soldiers aiming and firing semiautomatically.

The whole "arms race" "they have auto so we need to counter with auto" mentality to me seems stupid. In my opinion well aimed shots (or sometimes just one) from a rifle trump spray and pray tactics every time. Just because some dirtbag thinks he is cool because he picked up an AK and is lighting up everything in sight doesn't mean you need automatic fire yourself to engage him effectively.

[Jason_2111]

Since this very interesting conversation seems to have gone all over the place, I figured I'd chime in with my $.02 on the original topic of should LEO's have select fire weapons.

IMHO, I would like to see well trained, high-speed LEO's carrying more firepower in their cruisers. Training is the key here... using FA is like using a shotgun, there is more to just pointing and pulling the trigger.
There's a big misconception with a lot of people on how to properly use FA... there are different kinds of situations. It seems that those in this conversation that are "Pro" this position are picturing controlled bursts on target, something you can do with training and decent equipment. Those that are "Con" this position, seem to be picturing what Hickock45 demonstrated, which is spray and pray supressive fire.

In a military context, and certain barracade "Oh crap, we need SWAT here!" situations, supressive fire has it's place. But just hosing rounds and hoping to walk onto a target isn't something you'll be likely to see outside of a combat zone. And even in that case, you're talking about belt-fed crew served weapons. These are used for target areas, not individuals so much.

So would I want to see LEO's using M4's and MP-5's Hickock45 spray-and-pray style? Heck no! That is how a layman would pick up a full auto and play with it out at the desert range in Reno or something.
Would I be ok with LEO's using proper controlled bursts to neutralize threats... where aim at a target, put rounds into in, then move the next target.... Absolutely.

The difference is training. Just keep them to a very high standard, make them re-certify often to keep the slackers away from something that can cause high amounts of collateral damage in the wrong hands... and we're good to go.

To summarize... I think the really good LEO's, with lots of training should be able to have select fire capable rifles. For the average LEO... semi-auto patrol rifle seems good to me... not as much training, a lot more accuracy than a pistol. (Think of an active shooter situation, where there is a bad guy walking across a college campus, and kids running all over... I'd want the LEO on site to be able to drop him at 150 yards... not gonna happen with a pistol. And in this case, FA would get you nothing but collateral damage.)

In other small $.02's...

You have me confused with bigger hammer. I was trained to fire three rounds, pause, reassess the situation and continue firing only if needed. bigger hammer says he can reassess the situation as he is pulling the trigger as fast as possible. Now that takes superhuman split second decision making literally as each round is squeezed off in .2-.3 seconds.

Doug, gun fighting is a very perishable skill... and new techniques and technologies are always coming out. Your training, though very valid at the time, may be in need of a refresh to pick up the latest stuff. Kind of like the switch in tactics/techniques when folks moved from revolvers to semi-auto pistols.
As a big time training junkie, I'm always impressed by the new stuff that comes up in the evolution of gunfighting. Not the trendy stuff, like the Costa Tactical Reacharound... but things that evolved from feedback of folks that have put training to the test and found areas that it was lacking, and made adjustments.

Case in point... sometimes you can't tell if you're hitting or not, so you keep hitting until the threat goes down. This last weekend in fact, I was training where we had bowling pins on stands. The pins had a coathanger with an old T-Shirt on them attached to the top of the pin. If you didn't hit the pin, you'd just zip through the shirt, and it wouldn't fall down. You had to make a good center chest hit to hit the bowling pin and knock the target down (simulating the threat ending).
With an instructor right behind screaming "threat left", "threat right", etc... it simulates things pretty well. I'm a pretty damn good shot, and put 2 to 3 rounds on each target, but two didn't go down. The shirts got full of holes, but I couldn't tell I was hitting, but just missing the bowling pin. And of course, one of the pins turned out to be duct-taped down to simulate a badguy with armor. That one had to be drilled, then a head shot taken.

If you're in Sacto... hit up Gordon Gray at Gray Ops. He runs lots of great training, (sacramento valley range), and usually you'll be with a decent number of LEO's getting extra training on their own dime.

I have fired FA weapons. At a 25 yard target using 3 round bursts, the first one will hit, the 2nd one will be lucky to hit somewhere on the paper high and the third round always misses the entire target. FA will only have a high hit rate at extreme close range.

Training, and the weapon itself with dictate the effective use of FA.
Back in the Marines, we had the M16-A2... which was 3 round burst. The military discovered that nobody was hitting squat on FA, and just blowing through their ammo too fast... so that's why the switch to 3 round burst. (Let me tell you... on FA, you can dump all your ammo REALLY FAST when the andrenaline is pumping and muzzrats are shooting at you).
The problem with the A2, is the compensator doesn't really compensate all that well.
I've gone FA shooting (using someone else's full legal lower) on my 16 inch upper that has a battlecomp on it. Let me tell you... 3, 4, 5, 8 round bursts... all stay in the chest. The weapon makes a lot of difference, and if bigger_hammer gets in a good mood, he might share some of the techniques that (grip, stance, etc) that make FA fire more affective and not just spray or suffer from climbing off of the target like you experienced.
Takes a little getting used to.

For the record, this is all my opinion based on personal experience as a Marine, training junkie, and Armorer.

[Jason_2111]

You just proved my point.

A whole beta mag and they hit nothing. If I get engaged in a shootout with someone, I hope full auto and spray and pray from the hip hollywood style are the exact tactics they deploy.

Bullets defract, not deflect, when they go through glass. It's a little counter-intuitive.
From inside a car, shooting through the windshield will make the bullet deflect UP. How much depends on the caliber... slower bullets deflect more.
From outside a car, bullets deflect down... but since the glass is close to the driver, the amount of deflection isn't as critical. (maybe 2 to 5 inches for pistol, maybe 1 to 2 inches for rifle).

But... shooting out, the targets (in this case the SWAT officers), were not right next to the glass, so the shooters rounds probably just deflected and were way over their heads. (thankfully).

[Wherryj]

For rank and file officers? No.

For specialized units/swat? Possibly. Keep in mind I think the useage of swat teams has gone WAY beyond what they were intended for.

I disagree. SWAT teams have gone way beyond what they should be, but they are moving towards precisely what they were intended to be.

[lavey29]

Since this very interesting conversation seems to have gone all over the place, I figured I'd chime in with my $.02 on the original topic of should LEO's have select fire weapons.

IMHO, I would like to see well trained, high-speed LEO's carrying more firepower in their cruisers. Training is the key here... using FA is like using a shotgun, there is more to just pointing and pulling the trigger.
There's a big misconception with a lot of people on how to properly use FA... there are different kinds of situations. It seems that those in this conversation that are "Pro" this position are picturing controlled bursts on target, something you can do with training and decent equipment. Those that are "Con" this position, seem to be picturing what Hickock45 demonstrated, which is spray and pray supressive fire.

In a military context, and certain barracade "Oh crap, we need SWAT here!" situations, supressive fire has it's place. But just hosing rounds and hoping to walk onto a target isn't something you'll be likely to see outside of a combat zone. And even in that case, you're talking about belt-fed crew served weapons. These are used for target areas, not individuals so much.

So would I want to see LEO's using M4's and MP-5's Hickock45 spray-and-pray style? Heck no! That is how a layman would pick up a full auto and play with it out at the desert range in Reno or something.
Would I be ok with LEO's using proper controlled bursts to neutralize threats... where aim at a target, put rounds into in, then move the next target.... Absolutely.

The difference is training. Just keep them to a very high standard, make them re-certify often to keep the slackers away from something that can cause high amounts of collateral damage in the wrong hands... and we're good to go.

To summarize... I think the really good LEO's, with lots of training should be able to have select fire capable rifles. For the average LEO... semi-auto patrol rifle seems good to me... not as much training, a lot more accuracy than a pistol. (Think of an active shooter situation, where there is a bad guy walking across a college campus, and kids running all over... I'd want the LEO on site to be able to drop him at 150 yards... not gonna happen with a pistol. And in this case, FA would get you nothing but collateral damage.)

In other small $.02's...



Doug, gun fighting is a very perishable skill... and new techniques and technologies are always coming out. Your training, though very valid at the time, may be in need of a refresh to pick up the latest stuff. Kind of like the switch in tactics/techniques when folks moved from revolvers to semi-auto pistols.
As a big time training junkie, I'm always impressed by the new stuff that comes up in the evolution of gunfighting. Not the trendy stuff, like the Costa Tactical Reacharound... but things that evolved from feedback of folks that have put training to the test and found areas that it was lacking, and made adjustments.

Case in point... sometimes you can't tell if you're hitting or not, so you keep hitting until the threat goes down. This last weekend in fact, I was training where we had bowling pins on stands. The pins had a coathanger with an old T-Shirt on them attached to the top of the pin. If you didn't hit the pin, you'd just zip through the shirt, and it wouldn't fall down. You had to make a good center chest hit to hit the bowling pin and knock the target down (simulating the threat ending).
With an instructor right behind screaming "threat left", "threat right", etc... it simulates things pretty well. I'm a pretty damn good shot, and put 2 to 3 rounds on each target, but two didn't go down. The shirts got full of holes, but I couldn't tell I was hitting, but just missing the bowling pin. And of course, one of the pins turned out to be duct-taped down to simulate a badguy with armor. That one had to be drilled, then a head shot taken.

If you're in Sacto... hit up Gordon Gray at Gray Ops. He runs lots of great training, (sacramento valley range), and usually you'll be with a decent number of LEO's getting extra training on their own dime.



Training, and the weapon itself with dictate the effective use of FA.
Back in the Marines, we had the M16-A2... which was 3 round burst. The military discovered that nobody was hitting squat on FA, and just blowing through their ammo too fast... so that's why the switch to 3 round burst. (Let me tell you... on FA, you can dump all your ammo REALLY FAST when the andrenaline is pumping and muzzrats are shooting at you).
The problem with the A2, is the compensator doesn't really compensate all that well.
I've gone FA shooting (using someone else's full legal lower) on my 16 inch upper that has a battlecomp on it. Let me tell you... 3, 4, 5, 8 round bursts... all stay in the chest. The weapon makes a lot of difference, and if bigger_hammer gets in a good mood, he might share some of the techniques that (grip, stance, etc) that make FA fire more affective and not just spray or suffer from climbing off of the target like you experienced.
Takes a little getting used to.

For the record, this is all my opinion based on personal experience as a Marine, training junkie, and Armorer.

winner winner chicken dinner You are correct in your opinion.

[1859sharps]

I've never seen a cop with a submachine gun.

They are still out there. My local Sheriffs have mp5s. But I am not sure if all are select fire or if just supervisors and special units get the select fire. other departments in the area have switched over to ARs of some configuration or other.

Now in my post I specifically mentioned "machine guns"; i.e. M240B, M249 etc. I guess I should have been more specific.

outside the military, most people lump all firearms that shoot more than one bullet per pull of the trigger as "machine guns" because that is how the law views them. the law does not distinguish full auto rifles, from sub guns from machine guns (aka some belt feed firearm such as the m240/240, M2, M60 etc).

I don't think most people even realize how fast a 30rd magazine disappears in full auto.

I had no idea. I bet that makes for faster reloads though, not having to drop the magazine and all. which is probably why LEOs want them

Now, getting back to subguns. I have very little experience with these. I never even saw one the entire time I was in the Army. Even if we pulled security for some sort of high-speed unit I never saw them carry anything other than rfiles.

subguns have their place, but with rifles such as the M4, that place continues to shrink.

From simply because I could...I would own a MP5. if it was all I had and my life depended on it, there are a whole lot worse choices of firearms to be stuck with.

Given a choice, I would take a semi auto AR/M4 type carbine any day over a MP5 select fire in a life or death situation.

[TMcGuff]

Considering in the military we had select fire and never used it because it is stupid. NO THEY DO NOT. It pisses me off to see police officers with better gear and equipment that they will never use (ok maybe once or twice) then over seas. Dont even get started on why police need armor vics.

(no offence to police not talking crap but just saying.)

[Fishslayer]

Does law Enforcement really need select fire?

There is evidence that many can't handle a single bullet in their shirt pocket.

But the answer is no, they don't.

[KABA556]

There is evidence that many can't handle a single bullet in their shirt pocket.

But the answer is no, they don't.

Imagine this guy with an M113 with a mounted 20mm auto-cannon or an M2 Browning...

[Jason_2111]

Or her...



That's why they gotta be FA trained and qualified.

[KABA556]

How hard would you have to struggle to cram a magazine into an AR-15 backwards?

[MellonPopper]

Ok, so I'm a little late to the thread, and admittedly, skipped about 10 pages. I'm on the side that LEO doesn't 'need' FA, and I believe the liability is likely worse than the benefit. I'm concerned about the DHS and local LEO being prepped for Marshal Law. That being said, I don't blame the LEO for doing what they can to get the armaments of war. Most of them are gun guys like all of us, and given the opportunity, (and taxpayer funded bankroll) I would want the stuff too...

-MP

[SVT-40]

Since this very interesting conversation seems to have gone all over the place, I figured I'd chime in with my $.02 on the original topic of should LEO's have select fire weapons.

IMHO, I would like to see well trained, high-speed LEO's carrying more firepower in their cruisers. Training is the key here... using FA is like using a shotgun, there is more to just pointing and pulling the trigger.
There's a big misconception with a lot of people on how to properly use FA... there are different kinds of situations. It seems that those in this conversation that are "Pro" this position are picturing controlled bursts on target, something you can do with training and decent equipment. Those that are "Con" this position, seem to be picturing what Hickock45 demonstrated, which is spray and pray supressive fire.

In a military context, and certain barracade "Oh crap, we need SWAT here!" situations, supressive fire has it's place. But just hosing rounds and hoping to walk onto a target isn't something you'll be likely to see outside of a combat zone. And even in that case, you're talking about belt-fed crew served weapons. These are used for target areas, not individuals so much.

So would I want to see LEO's using M4's and MP-5's Hickock45 spray-and-pray style? Heck no! That is how a layman would pick up a full auto and play with it out at the desert range in Reno or something.
Would I be ok with LEO's using proper controlled bursts to neutralize threats... where aim at a target, put rounds into in, then move the next target.... Absolutely.

The difference is training. Just keep them to a very high standard, make them re-certify often to keep the slackers away from something that can cause high amounts of collateral damage in the wrong hands... and we're good to go.

To summarize... I think the really good LEO's, with lots of training should be able to have select fire capable rifles. For the average LEO... semi-auto patrol rifle seems good to me... not as much training, a lot more accuracy than a pistol. (Think of an active shooter situation, where there is a bad guy walking across a college campus, and kids running all over... I'd want the LEO on site to be able to drop him at 150 yards... not gonna happen with a pistol. And in this case, FA would get you nothing but collateral damage.)

In other small $.02's...



Doug, gun fighting is a very perishable skill... and new techniques and technologies are always coming out. Your training, though very valid at the time, may be in need of a refresh to pick up the latest stuff. Kind of like the switch in tactics/techniques when folks moved from revolvers to semi-auto pistols.
As a big time training junkie, I'm always impressed by the new stuff that comes up in the evolution of gunfighting. Not the trendy stuff, like the Costa Tactical Reacharound... but things that evolved from feedback of folks that have put training to the test and found areas that it was lacking, and made adjustments.

Case in point... sometimes you can't tell if you're hitting or not, so you keep hitting until the threat goes down. This last weekend in fact, I was training where we had bowling pins on stands. The pins had a coathanger with an old T-Shirt on them attached to the top of the pin. If you didn't hit the pin, you'd just zip through the shirt, and it wouldn't fall down. You had to make a good center chest hit to hit the bowling pin and knock the target down (simulating the threat ending).
With an instructor right behind screaming "threat left", "threat right", etc... it simulates things pretty well. I'm a pretty damn good shot, and put 2 to 3 rounds on each target, but two didn't go down. The shirts got full of holes, but I couldn't tell I was hitting, but just missing the bowling pin. And of course, one of the pins turned out to be duct-taped down to simulate a badguy with armor. That one had to be drilled, then a head shot taken.

If you're in Sacto... hit up Gordon Gray at Gray Ops. He runs lots of great training, (sacramento valley range), and usually you'll be with a decent number of LEO's getting extra training on their own dime.



Training, and the weapon itself with dictate the effective use of FA.
Back in the Marines, we had the M16-A2... which was 3 round burst. The military discovered that nobody was hitting squat on FA, and just blowing through their ammo too fast... so that's why the switch to 3 round burst. (Let me tell you... on FA, you can dump all your ammo REALLY FAST when the andrenaline is pumping and muzzrats are shooting at you).
The problem with the A2, is the compensator doesn't really compensate all that well.
I've gone FA shooting (using someone else's full legal lower) on my 16 inch upper that has a battlecomp on it. Let me tell you... 3, 4, 5, 8 round bursts... all stay in the chest. The weapon makes a lot of difference, and if bigger_hammer gets in a good mood, he might share some of the techniques that (grip, stance, etc) that make FA fire more affective and not just spray or suffer from climbing off of the target like you experienced.
Takes a little getting used to.

For the record, this is all my opinion based on personal experience as a Marine, training junkie, and Armorer.

Yeah...Finally!!!!!!!

Someone who uses logic, as well as real world training, upon which to base their opinion!!!!

No politics..... No bias..... Just good old common sense..

I salute you sir!!!!!