SWAT AR-15's full auto?

[Bobby Ricigliano]

In 12 years I've never used or seen used a full auto weapon on duty. They are accessible to an elite few officers far above my pay grade and used as needed, which I believe is rarely.

[tacticalcity]

But but but.....I thought cops with full auto was just a recent thing, y'know, the militarization of law enforcement???

LOL. Yeah I hate it when I read some desk jockey in a magazine lamenting about the "militarization of law enforcement" as if the good old days of officers being armed with a 38 revolver while going up againsts gangs armed to the teath thanks to their crack and coke money back in the 80s was a good thing. I'd rather officers have the tools and training and never need it than the other way around. They can still take a community policing with a smile approach and have semi-auto pistols and rifles for when a smile is not enough.

Love that picture by the way. That begs to be framed and hung on the wall of a cop bar.

[Scuba Steve33]

Where as when I was in the military my GAU-5/A was infact full auto and you just trained to use trigger control to control the number of rounds you fired at any given time.

People who have not trained with full-auto weapons tend to think of it in extremes. As if you pull the trigger and no matter what you do it is going to empty the magazine. That isn't so. With training you learn to control exactly how many rounds fire while on full auto. You can fire just one, with ease, while the rifle is set on full auto if you are trained properly. You get to the point where the range officer calls out a number, and using trigger control that is how many rounds you fire. No less, no more. It's actually not hard.

So my question would be why not? SWAT team members are not poorly trained mechanics that will only shoot to qualify once a year and probably never actually be issued a rifle in their entire career...not saying that is you as it clearly is not...but that was the reason the military switch to burst in the first place (and only for general issue weapons as specialized units can still get full auto if they want them). The untrained guys were just spraying and praying and it raised concerns. SWAT guys will use the weapon correctly.

As for the OPs question, yes I have seen full-auto SBRs in the hands of SWAT officers. They are not personal weapons but department owned, and that department jumped through the necessary hoops to get them. Discussions with these officers always result in them lamenting impending retirement, because they really enjoy their full-auto SBRs and semi-auto just isn't the same (made even worse now that even retired officers are required to make their rifles SB23 compliant in addition to the NFA requirements they now have to meet).

I totally understand that and have fired FA rifles. When used in controlled bursts they can be handled. The thing is, if you're firing it in two or three round bursts to keep rounds on target there is no need for FA capabilities when you can have 3 round burst. Obviously my opinion won't change anything, I just don't think it's necessary. Especially for law enforcement situations it's not about gaining fire superiority. They won't be suppressing anything.

[tacticalcity]

I totally understand that and have fired FA rifles. When used in controlled bursts they can be handled. The thing is, if you're firing it in two or three round bursts to keep rounds on target there is no need for FA capabilities when you can have 3 round burst. Obviously my opinion won't change anything, I just don't think it's necessary. Especially for law enforcement situations it's not about gaining fire superiority. They won't be suppressing anything.

A lot of the local SWAT guys are instructors at a local school I train with. They stress the non-standard response of 3-5 rounds or fire until the threat is gone approach rather than things like firing the controlled pair. Infact even on semi-auto I rarely saw these guy fire less than 5 rounds at any given time (head shots and precision shots being the exception) the entire time I trained with them. So I guess 3 rounds isn't always enough. They certainly train as if it isn't. They could always just pull the trigger twice, or five times if on semi-auto, but there is nothing wrong with doing it their way either.

I don't know that it is absolutely correct to say SWAT won't need the ability to use supression fire. Not that you need full auto for that either. Most probably never will, but there have been some very high profile incidents where officers used such tactics. Something like the North Hollywood Shootout pops into mind. That stuff is extremely rare. But as with all tools, better to have it and not need it than the other way around.

I'd say it is not a huge deal. The average officer will never need or use it and is probably better off not having it given the training commitment required to master it. But if a SWAT team wants it, more power to 'em.

As a lowly civilian, I just wish I could have one. Never need it. Just want it to have it. Part nostaligia, part fun factor. My issued rifle was not only full-auto but SBR as well. So I can't even own a realistic looking semi-auto nuetered clone. Darn NFA rules.

[BigDogatPlay]

Especially for law enforcement situations it's not about gaining fire superiority. They won't be suppressing anything.

North Hollywood, the SLA shootout, and many other smaller, less well known encounters would argue otherwise. I'd wager at North Hollywood there were any number of guys who would have traded quite a lot for a few minutes of well managed suppressive fire. Reach back to 1966 in Austin Texas and you would see news film of both law enforcement and armed civilians employing suppressive fire techniques on Charles Whitman as he fired from the top of the tower at UT. That suppressive fire allowed two officers and an armed civilian the opportunity to penetrate the observation deck unseen, flush and ultimately kill Whitman.

Response to active shooter situations is another area where, if the situation warrants, that type of a response could be appropriate. Generally the mass shooting scenario is perpetrated by an individual or perhaps two that are perhaps well armed but not truly heavily armed. Those individuals are often cowards who surrender or chew their own front sight when actually confronted by someone who can fight back. We've not yet seen, outside of the movies and a few isolated incidents, where a well disciplined and very heavily armed individual or small group of individuals has really shown what kind of damage can be done.

The situations where local law enforcement might find itself in such a situation are rare, yes. But it has happened and will happen again. It's only a matter of when and where. But that does not mean that the police shouldn't train, equip and prepare to deal with one if it happens in their town because, let's face it, actual combat troops trained and equipped to deal with those sorts of issues are a bit farther away than a radio call.

[coyotebait]

Where as when I was in the military my GAU-5/A was infact full auto and you just trained to use trigger control to control the number of rounds you fired at any given time.

People who have not trained with full-auto weapons tend to think of it in extremes. As if you pull the trigger and no matter what you do it is going to empty the magazine. That isn't so. With training you learn to control exactly how many rounds fire while on full auto. You can fire just one, with ease, while the rifle is set on full auto if you are trained properly. You get to the point where the range officer calls out a number, and using trigger control that is how many rounds you fire. No less, no more. It's actually not hard.

So my question would be why not? SWAT team members are not poorly trained mechanics that will only shoot to qualify once a year and probably never actually be issued a rifle in their entire career...not saying that is you as it clearly is not...but that was the reason the military switch to burst in the first place (and only for general issue weapons as specialized units can still get full auto if they want them). The untrained guys were just spraying and praying and it raised concerns. SWAT guys will use the weapon correctly.

As for the OPs question, yes I have seen full-auto SBRs in the hands of SWAT officers. They are not personal weapons but department owned, and that department jumped through the necessary hoops to get them. Discussions with these officers always result in them lamenting impending retirement, because they really enjoy their full-auto SBRs and semi-auto just isn't the same (made even worse now that even retired officers are required to make their rifles SB23 compliant in addition to the NFA requirements they now have to meet).

Hey!!! I resemble that remark!!!

[Scuba Steve33]

A lot of the local SWAT guys are instructors at a local school I train with. They stress the non-standard response of 3-5 rounds or fire until the threat is gone approach rather than things like firing the controlled pair. Infact even on semi-auto I rarely saw these guy fire less than 5 rounds at any given time (head shots and precision shots being the exception) the entire time I trained with them. So I guess 3 rounds isn't always enough. They certainly train as if it isn't. They could always just pull the trigger twice, or five times if on semi-auto, but there is nothing wrong with doing it their way either.

I don't know that it is absolutely correct to say SWAT won't need the ability to use supression fire. Not that you need full auto for that either. Most probably never will, but there have been some very high profile incidents where officers used such tactics. Something like the North Hollywood Shootout pops into mind. That stuff is extremely rare. But as with all tools, better to have it and not need it than the other way around.

I'd say it is not a huge deal. The average officer will never need or use it and is probably better off not having it given the training commitment required to master it. But if a SWAT team wants it, more power to 'em.

As a lowly civilian, I just wish I could have one. Never need it. Just want it to have it. Part nostaligia, part fun factor. My issued rifle was not only full-auto but SBR as well. So I can't even own a realistic looking semi-auto nuetered clone. Darn NFA rules.

We were trained (and performed this over there) if we saw a guy drop in combat, empty the rest of our mags into his body so we trained with the same state of mind. We wouldn't perform only double taps. On top of that, as we walked through the objective after the firefight, any bodies we came across got two rounds to the head. That's standard US Army infantry training.

You're right, it isn't a big deal I guess I'm just use to seeing mostly 3 round burst M4s. I agree it's better to have than not need than to need and not have.

Some of our rifles were FA with other fun features.



I too wish I could recreate some of the weapons I was issued. I must really like this weather haha.

[Ron-Solo]

We were trained (and performed this over there) if we saw a guy drop in combat, empty the rest of our mags into his body so we trained with the same state of mind. We wouldn't perform only double taps. On top of that, as we walked through the objective after the firefight, any bodies we came across got two rounds to the head. That's standard US Army infantry training.

You're right, it isn't a big deal I guess I'm just use to seeing mostly 3 round burst M4s. I agree it's better to have than not need than to need and not have.

Some of our rifles were FA with other fun features.



I too wish I could recreate some of the weapons I was issued. I must really like this weather haha.

That's why people should stop comparing LE to military combat operations. You do that here and not only will you lose your job, you will go to prison.

I had a friend on a SWAT entry team confront two suspects, both armed an firing, in a stairwell. They were on the top, he was on the bottom. He fired a full mag from an MP-5 as he backed out. It turns out, 29 of 30 rounds were hits. Bad guys were wear wearing body armor and although the body hits slowed them down, they didn't stop until each got a head shot.

Someone please tell him that LE doesn't need full auto.....


And I am NOT criticizing military tactics and training. LE and combat operations are different, as they should be.

[Notorious]

Yep, you put a round into anyone that is down and no longer a threat, you are going to prison. Heck, even in military operations, that is being prosecuted now. There is one case going on where a Marine is being court martialed for shooting a terrorist who was proned but was reaching for something the Marine thought was a grenade so the Marine fired more rounds into the prone body until he stopped moving. Bad luck for the Marine that there was a journalist there filming it and turned in the film, claiming the Marine was executing people.

In short, I can see where in very specific and limited circumstances that LE will have to lay down suppressive fire, but not for 99.5382584309% of the engagements.

[IrishJoe3]

LOL. Yeah I hate it when I read some desk jockey in a magazine lamenting about the "militarization of law enforcement" as if the good old days of officers being armed with a 38 revolver while going up againsts gangs armed to the teath thanks to their crack and coke money back in the 80s was a good thing. I'd rather officers have the tools and training and never need it than the other way around. They can still take a community policing with a smile approach and have semi-auto pistols and rifles for when a smile is not enough.

Love that picture by the way. That begs to be framed and hung on the wall of a cop bar.

I found it! I was reading through the officer down memorial (www.odmp.org) once and I stumbled across this little bio.

Can you imagine the shockwaves that would result if this perimeter happened in the year 2012?

Constable Rasmus L. Rasmussen, Petaluma Police Dept

End of Watch: Wednesday, April 20, 1927

Failla then retreated to his house on Cherry Street and barricaded himself inside. Constable Rasmussen, Sheriff Douglas Bills and several deputies, as well as Petaluma Police Chief Mike Flohr and his men surrounded the house. The local National Guard Machine Gun Detail even got involved, firing bursts of machine gun rounds at the house. At one point, an airplane was sent to San Francisco to pick up a hand grenade and four tear gas bombs from the San Francisco Police Department. During the standoff, Constable Rasmussen was shot in the head by John Failla.

I think what people don't get is that police tactics today are a direct result of lessons learned in blood. Over the years, officers were getting murdered in Mayberry, and lessons were learned and applied from those deaths. Thats why your beat cop doesn't walk around in a wool shirt swinging a night stick sporting a whistle on a chain.

[Ron-Solo]

Evolve, or become extinct, like the dinosaurs...

[Ubermcoupe]

I found it! I was reading through the officer down memorial (www.odmp.org) once and I stumbled across this little bio.

Can you imagine the shockwaves that would result if this perimeter happened in the year 2012?

Constable Rasmus L. Rasmussen, Petaluma Police Dept

End of Watch: Wednesday, April 20, 1927

Quote:

Failla then retreated to his house on Cherry Street and barricaded himself inside. Constable Rasmussen, Sheriff Douglas Bills and several deputies, as well as Petaluma Police Chief Mike Flohr and his men surrounded the house. The local National Guard Machine Gun Detail even got involved, firing bursts of machine gun rounds at the house. At one point, an airplane was sent to San Francisco to pick up a hand grenade and four tear gas bombs from the San Francisco Police Department. During the standoff, Constable Rasmussen was shot in the head by John Failla.

Woah, a Hand grenade? I wonder how that would have turned out. I wish I could pick up the phone and requisition an HG.

[Scuba Steve33]

That's why people should stop comparing LE to military combat operations. You do that here and not only will you lose your job, you will go to prison.

I had a friend on a SWAT entry team confront two suspects, both armed an firing, in a stairwell. They were on the top, he was on the bottom. He fired a full mag from an MP-5 as he backed out. It turns out, 29 of 30 rounds were hits. Bad guys were wear wearing body armor and although the body hits slowed them down, they didn't stop until each got a head shot.

Someone please tell him that LE doesn't need full auto.....


And I am NOT criticizing military tactics and training. LE and combat operations are different, as they should be.

I wasn't comparing the two. You think I don't know that? Believe me, I know the difference. Growing up my Dad was with SJPD until he retired. That situation was unique. I'm glad your buddy made it out okay. Where was his backup? That instance doesn't mean you NEED something like FA capabilities on RIFLES though. That's like saying citizens should be able to carry FA because you never know what will happen. It's just not practical. I'm not going to change anything, I get that. I'm also not trying to get into a flame war, so don't take it as that. I just believe FA rifles are impractical. If you want FA in a rifle cartridge you have belt fed weapons for that. FA SMGs are great, especially because they are DESIGNED for CQB just as what your buddy experienced. Much easier to control FA fire with a pistol cartridge than FA with a rifle cartridge.

Yep, you put a round into anyone that is down and no longer a threat, you are going to prison. Heck, even in military operations, that is being prosecuted now. There is one case going on where a Marine is being court martialed for shooting a terrorist who was proned but was reaching for something the Marine thought was a grenade so the Marine fired more rounds into the prone body until he stopped moving. Bad luck for the Marine that there was a journalist there filming it and turned in the film, claiming the Marine was executing people.

In short, I can see where in very specific and limited circumstances that LE will have to lay down suppressive fire, but not for 99.5382584309% of the engagements.

Believe me, I know. That was back in '03 or '04 right? I remember the video. Only reason why anything bad came from that was because there was a journalist filming and he twisted the story around. So really, the military is not shunning from those tactics in any shape or form. As I said, when we first walk up on an objective we double tap their heads. Once we PASS a body, we cannot go back and shoot again. Only on the first pass can we fire.

There's always a chance something crazy will happen (North Hollywood Shootout) but my argument was never against just LE having FA rifles (refer to my original post). I don't believe FA rifles are practical regardless of who you are or what you do but LE have less "leverage" in my view of needing FA rifles compared to the military because how different their tasks are.

[East Bay Cop]

Most Departments in my area are all full auto. When I went to SWAT school, out of approx 10 agencies there my Dept was the only one that didnt have full auto.

[Notorious]

Actually, I am in full agreement with you, Tac. My Ranger buddy does the same thing, he puts one under the chin of a downed tango everytime he walks past one just to be sure.