Does law Enforcement really need select fire?

[lavey29]

I do not use marijuana and have never used marijuana, but it is nice to know that we have such immature and childish police on the streets as yourself... Childish and immature creeps who resort to wild accusations of "communist" and ad hominems about drug use.


Are you roid raging right now? Why are you getting so ugly with me and making this about personal insults when I haven't said anything PERSONALLY about you as an individual?

Well, as the great John Wayne said it best, " Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid"...

Luckily for you, LE is highly trained to deal with all sorts of people regardless of who they are.

[SactoDoug]

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.

Thank you for the well thought out reply. I will have to try out some of the newer muzzle breaks. I have read they can cut recoil by a significant amount. If the recoil can be tamed, then I can believe that the effective range of small arms bust or FA fire can be extended significantly.

I used both the M16A1 and the A2. The A1's were in my earlier years of service and the A2's were later. I preferred the A2 for the heavier barrel and better accuracy. While it was fun to fire off a full 30 round magazine with the A1's, I just liked my A2 better.

I am too old now and my body too beat up to be running around in any tactical fashion. I'll have to pass on taking that kind of training. Thanks for the suggestion anyway.

[TRICKSTER]

Thank you for the well thought out reply. I will have to try out some of the newer muzzle breaks. I have read they can cut recoil by a significant amount. If the recoil can be tamed, then I can believe that the effective range of small arms bust or FA fire can be extended significantly.

I used both the M16A1 and the A2. The A1's were in my earlier years of service and the A2's were later. I preferred the A2 for the heavier barrel and better accuracy. While it was fun to fire off a full 30 round magazine with the A1's, I just liked my A2 better.

I am too old now and my body too beat up to be running around in any tactical fashion. I'll have to pass on taking that kind of training. Thanks for the suggestion anyway.

I guess that is about as close as we are going to get to a "I'm sorry, I was wrong and didn't have a clue as to what I was talking about".

[bigger hammer]

Post a video or it didn't happen.

I'm supposed to go to a range, video myself shooting a select−fire weapon, that BTW since I'm retired, I no longer have access to. Then I'm supposed to put it up so that you can see it, and then I’m supposed to link to it here. ........... But you can't even answer some very simple questions that I've asked of you? Tell you what, when you answer those questions, I'll think about doing a video for you.

One of the stupidest things that appear in these threads is demands for video/photos with a comment like "pics or it didn't happen."

BTW, my trainer, SFC Robert Barton of the US Army. He is long retired now since the training was in 1990.

DAMN, that was the FIRST question OF MANY that I've asked you that you answered. It's telling that you somehow missed the other two questions that I asked in the same post. ROFL.

In any case, you received your training on this in 1990. Doug that's almost a quarter century ago! I suggest that you go get some training from an instructor who's at least familiar with modern methods and modern philosophies. You're waaaaaaaay out of date.

But listen, if you want to risk your life in a life or death situation, with a "pause and assess" have at it. I've written to the effect, that if someone wants to do nothing and let themselves be killed, that's OK by me. I don't think it's a good idea, especially not for LEOs who I want actively defending their lives and that of others, but it's an individual choice. But I think it's out of place for you to be dictating to LEOs who have received training in this millennium, that's much more in line with current philosophies, how it should be done.

Do I think that my life is of more value than yours? No. If I was working and you were in danger, I'd step in front of you, in your defense. Do I think that my life is of more value than that of the crook who's trying to kill me or you, so that he can continue his life of crime? DAMN RIGHT I DO! My survival and yours is FAR MORE IMPORTANT than his, when he's decided to cross that line to kill either of us. I won't risk my life or yours, or teach the LEOs that I still work with, to "pause and assess" because it's tactically unsound. If you're more concerned with the survival of a crook who has threatened your life, or that of your loved ones, than your life or theirs, that's fine by me.

[bigger hammer]

as a former l.e.o, that was a bad shoot imo.

As a former LEO, and use of force instructor, certified in several disciplines and weapons, I'll disagree. What didn't you like about the situation? The DA's office has already spoken and called said that they would not prosecute the shooter.

[bigger hammer]

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.

Falar, no one has said that "automatic fire is ... the end−all−be−all." Where do people come up with this sort of nonsense? This is a straw man argument, where you attribute a position (usually a nonsensical one) to your opponent in a debate, that he's never taken, and then argue against it. This is a clever debate technique, but it's a logical fallacy and should be avoided.

As to your question about did the guy seem like a decent shot with his pistol, yes he did.

Thanks for answering my question. It seems to be rare these days that people will do that.

Controlling rapid, semi auto fire and full auto fire are very different though.

Yes they are but I've noticed in my training thousands of students, that there is an overlap of skills. If one can't control the recoil from a handgun so that fast follow-up shots are possible, then the shooter probably can't do the same with either a rifle and especially not with any select−fire weapon, rifle, carbine or subgun. But if one can control the recoil from a handgun, usually it's a combination of stance and grip, then they can usually learn to control recoil from the other weapons, even the select−fire ones. It's a matter of technique, training, and practice.

As to your question of my LE experience I'm sure you will not be surprised that no, I do not have any.

DAMN another answer, thank you.

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.

I agree that "spray and pray" is an ineffective technique for using a select−fire weapon. But I've seen people, and I'd bet that you have too, who use similar methods with semi−auto firearms, both handguns and rifles! That is even less effective, unless you count the ability to waste ammunition as a good thing! LOL.

But no one is talking about LEOs using this method of shooting with a select−fire weapon, so I really don't understand why people keep talking about it as if that's the right way to use such tools.

The whole "arms race" "they have auto so we need to counter with auto" mentality to me seems stupid.

If that was the only reason that people wanted LEOs to have select−fire weapons, I'd agree. But that's not it. It's simply "the next step" in acquiring rifles/carbines for LE. I've said a couple of times now that it's "better to have it and not need it" and that there are some situations where it's useful. I don't anticipate that such weapons would come out on every call or in every situation. And when they are deployed it's a simple matter of switching from "safe" to "semi" most of the time. But there are quite a few situations where "full" is a good option for people who have demonstrated their competence with it.

In my opinion well aimed shots (or sometimes just one) from a rifle trump spray and pray tactics every time.

I agree.

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.

That's true as well. But there are some situations where the 'full' switch is an advantage. It has nothing to do with how the crook is armed.

[bigger hammer]

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.

Thanks for your comments Jason. I think they're worth more than just $.02.

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.

THANK YOU! I've seen "experts" here talk about how you don't have to aim a shotgun, just "point it in the general direction" of the opponent and let fly! Of course anyone who knows the slightest bit about this situation, knows that this is nonsense.

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.

I agree that those who oppose select−fire for LE are mostly thinking only about the "spray and pray" suppressive fire option. Apparently they don't know that the weapons can be used for hammers, controlled pairs and the like. Since they're firing faster than the shooter can pull the trigger on a semi−auto for such techniques, they're more effective. But as you say, that takes some training and there are going to be some who will never "get it." In my very first post in this discussion I said this,

I think that those LEO's who can qualify with FA weapons ought to have them. ... Not every officer can handle them.

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.

It's a VERY rare situation that LE will be involved in such a situation. I don't think that the North Hollywood shootout would be one for the average LEO. Too many houses, citizens, etc. around. But in the Norco incident, when the crooks went rural, it would have been very useful.

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.

I think that this is what most here think of when they think about select−fire weapons. They may have never seen a skilled operator using these guns. The fact that Hickock45's video was posted is telling about this.

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.

Me too! LOL

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.

Agree again.

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.)

The argument against select−fire weaponry seem to be from a couple of positions. One is that they'll "spray and pray." The other is that the average LEO is a bad shot and he'll just "hose down the neighborhood." Both arguments are easily overcome by doing what I wrote in my first post in this thread and that I've repeated above. Train, qualify, and limit those who have select−fire capability.

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.

Agree again.

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).

[bigger hammer]

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

Another logical fallacy, cherry picking.

[Volksgrenadier]

Do law enforcement agents need select fire weapons?

No.

Militarized police/security forces have a modern precedent for participation in genocide.

[KABA556]

No.

Militarized police/security forces have a modern precedent for participation in genocide.

Militarized police and security forces make the world safe [for themselves and their corporate masters]...

What are you, a terrorist?

Aren't you late for the Occupy rally?

Are you part of the new wave of Occupy Calguns?



I saved the KGB crowd from having to come in with their standard responses...

[John M]

The only units that have select fire weapons are SWAT teams and we dont ever operate using full auto. Its a tool in the tool bag. The Military has proven quite effecitively that full auto is not effective, hence the 3 round burst.

[bigger hammer]

I saved the KGB crowd from having to come in with their standard responses...

For someone who spends so much of his time whining about ad hominem attacks, you sure do hand them out!

[SactoDoug]

But you can't even answer some very simple questions that I've asked of you? Tell you what, when you answer those questions, I'll think about doing a video for you.

One of the stupidest things that appear in these threads is demands for video/photos with a comment like "pics or it didn't happen."



DAMN, that was the FIRST question OF MANY that I've asked you that you answered. It's telling that you somehow missed the other two questions that I asked in the same post. ROFL.

In any case, you received your training on this in 1990. Doug that's almost a quarter century ago! I suggest that you go get some training from an instructor who's at least familiar with modern methods and modern philosophies. You're waaaaaaaay out of date.

But listen, if you want to risk your life in a life or death situation, with a "pause and assess" have at it. I've written to the effect, that if someone wants to do nothing and let themselves be killed, that's OK by me. I don't think it's a good idea, especially not for LEOs who I want actively defending their lives and that of others, but it's an individual choice. But I think it's out of place for you to be dictating to LEOs who have received training in this millennium, that's much more in line with current philosophies, how it should be done.

Do I think that my life is of more value than yours? No. If I was working and you were in danger, I'd step in front of you, in your defense. Do I think that my life is of more value than that of the crook who's trying to kill me or you, so that he can continue his life of crime? DAMN RIGHT I DO! My survival and yours is FAR MORE IMPORTANT than his, when he's decided to cross that line to kill either of us. I won't risk my life or yours, or teach the LEOs that I still work with, to "pause and assess" because it's tactically unsound. If you're more concerned with the survival of a crook who has threatened your life, or that of your loved ones, than your life or theirs, that's fine by me.

Let me clue you in on something. This is not an interrogation. Even if it was, I don't have to answer your questions. I owe you nothing and I expect nothing from you. I didn't pick your occupation for you, so I don't really care how much you whine about it. I don't whine about the crap I did and had to put up with serving in the Army. It would be dishonorable and would cheapen my service if I constantly held it over other people's heads.

If you don't like it, then go shove off.

You have made some outrageous claims. I ask for something other than your word to back them up. I still have not seen anything close to what you have claimed anywhere online or in my circle of friends that include several veterans. Frankly, if it was not for Jason_2111's post, none of us would believe you because our own person experience with FA and burst contradicts the things you have posted.

[jamesob]

As a former LEO, and use of force instructor, certified in several disciplines and weapons, I'll disagree. What didn't you like about the situation? The DA's office has already spoken and called said that they would not prosecute the shooter.

Where was the act of aggression from the suspect? Was it him struggling to get out of the seat belt he was caught in? Just because he was holding a knife that was never visible in the video I saw, doesn't justify the use of lethal force. I dealt with guys just like him, 10 out of 10 times they'll run. I'm sure the officer dealt with him several times and everytime he got away. I worked with guys that had major hard ons with parolees and guys on probation. So if just holding a knife is a justified shooting,then we should have a lot more officer involved shootings. The fact that he dumped several rounds into him when he's on the ground and the more than likely fatal shot in the back, is disturbing. I'm not bashing the officer or sticking up for the guy but IMO it was a bad shoot and the dept/city will lose a bunch in a civil judgment.

[KABA556]

Where was the act of aggression from the suspect? Was it him struggling to get out of the seat belt he was caught in? Just because he was holding a knife that was never visible in the video I saw, doesn't justify the use of lethal force. I dealt with guys just like him, 10 out of 10 times they'll run. I'm sure the officer dealt with him several times and everytime he got away. I worked with guys that had major hard ons with parolees and guys on probation. So if just holding a knife is a justified shooting,then we should have a lot more officer involved shootings. The fact that he dumped several rounds into him when he's on the ground and the more than likely fatal shot in the back, is disturbing. I'm not bashing the officer or sticking up for the guy but IMO it was a bad shoot and the dept/city will lose a bunch in a civil judgment.

FYI, they never found a knife anywhere near the suspect or in the cab of the truck or on the ground near the suspect, or in his hand.

Eventually they found a small pocket knife in the bed of the truck.